Trendaavat aiheet
#
Bonk Eco continues to show strength amid $USELESS rally
#
Pump.fun to raise $1B token sale, traders speculating on airdrop
#
Boop.Fun leading the way with a new launchpad on Solana.
FTX Recovery Trust does not have the legal authority and practical ability to delineate "restricted jurisdictions".
As stated in the motion of FTX Recovery Trust, FTX's pre-bankruptcy business covered hundreds of countries and regions around the world, and the scope of the case was extremely wide. At the same time, as an emerging thing, the global regulatory framework for crypto-digital assets is still immature, and the policies, administrative regulations, laws and regulations of various countries are still changing.
In this context, from a practical point of view, FTX Restoration Trust does not have the ability to make accurate, authoritative and dynamic judgments on the legal systems of various countries. Even though the motion claims to have "conducted a study of the judicial situation in various countries", as we have already pointed out, its description of the current state of Chinese law is clearly incorrect – citing a number of policy and guidance documents, which are neither judicial precedents of Chinese courts nor legal norms with mandatory force issued by the legislature.
Worse still, even the references to these policy documents are clearly misinterpreted and exaggerated. These documents are intended to provide principled guidance for the regulation of specific financial activities and market access, and do not prohibit or deny the receipt of overseas claims by Chinese citizens in accordance with the law. FTX's interpretation of the trust as the basis for "inability to pay" is an out-of-context and over-inferred policy semantics, and uses it as a reason to exclude Chinese creditors, which seriously deviates from the prudence and accuracy due to the application of law.
This kind of mistake just illustrates a key problem: as a bankrupt debtor, FTX Recovery Trust does not have the authority to adjudicate the application of law, nor does it have the actual ability to accurately judge the legal risks of various jurisdictions. However, the list of "restricted jurisdictions" formed by its subjective judgment is used to determine the eligibility and time of payment for some creditors, which lacks a legal basis and objective standards, which is an extremely irresponsible act for creditors and undermines the legal fairness of the entire bankruptcy procedure.
At the same time, the large-scale expenditure on legal services, the hiring of experts, and the delay in the process surrounding the mechanism have further raised the economic and time costs of bankruptcy proceedings, eroded assets that should have been prioritized for creditor repayment, and ultimately harmed the collective interests of all creditors.
Based on the above reasons, we implore the court to make a clear determination that FTX Restoration Trust does not have the right or ability to create a "restricted jurisdiction", and the relevant motion should be dismissed to protect the legitimacy, fairness, and efficiency of the bankruptcy proceedings.
12.7. klo 21.55
FTX's new motion, which hopes to add the concept of "restricted jurisdictions" to divide creditors, may directly affect the return of 5% of creditors, including Chinese creditors.
It's easy to lead people into the trap of proving the legitimacy of cryptocurrencies in a jurisdiction, and forget that FTX Recovery Trust is a non-profit organization that resolves debt-debt relationships and settles debts. Their main task is to complete the repayment of creditors' claims, and their performance of debt repayment has nothing to do with the transaction and payment of cryptocurrency, it is essentially a process of debt repayment through US dollars, so what does it have to do with the policies and regulations of cryptocurrencies in various countries?
In terms of the regulation and regulations of cryptocurrencies in various countries, does FTX Recovery Trust have the ability to clarify the policies, laws and regulations of each country? Do you have the ability to ensure that the interpretation of policies and regulations is objective and impartial? Not to mention the important matter of wanting to interpret and decide whether the creditor's claim should be released.
In China, for example, the motion passed the 2017 policy document on ICOs by various ministries in an attempt to illustrate the legal risks associated with repaying Chinese creditors.
There is a glaring error here:
1. The 2017 ICO announcement is a policy document, not a law or regulation, and only represents the regulatory intent and direction of the administrative authority.
2. The original text is to restrict domestic banks and financial institutions from providing services for the issuance of virtual currency, but not to restrict Chinese creditors from legally obtaining their own creditor's compensation.
This shows that FTX has neither the ability nor the legal basis to formulate a "restricted jurisdiction", and it is extremely irresponsible to use such subjective interpretations and policy documents to determine whether creditors can be compensated.
On the other hand, if the interpretation of the policy document can be used as the basis for defining the "restricted jurisdiction", then it is also possible to interpret the "restricted jurisdiction" through the local regional administrative document in the country region where the claim has been issued before. Considering fairness and justice, since 49 countries are to be divided into "restricted jurisdictions", is it possible to ask FTX to provide policy interpretations of the countries that have been issued, and if there are contradictions in the policy interpretations, does the entire debt issuance need to be reversed?
FTX cases account for only 5% in the United States and 95% overseas. According to the fairness requirements of the same kind of creditors in the United States, FTX should provide a judicial interpretation of the country or jurisdiction where all 95% of creditors are located, so as to slightly explain how to divide "restricted jurisdiction" and "non-restricted jurisdiction". However, encrypted digital currency is a new thing, the development of different countries is different, legal and regulatory development is also dynamic, more than 100 countries of judicial interpretation, policy interpretation, can the FTX team do it? Can objectivity and impartiality be ensured? Is there a guarantee that there is no bias?
So the result of this subjective assumption of motion is:
1. It consumes a lot of legal resources, funds and time, which are borne by all creditors.
2. Unable to obtain objective and fair results, affecting bankruptcy liquidation and bankruptcy process.
3. Causing secondary harm to the affected creditors, causing an indelible impact
Therefore, the judge should reject this motion, return to the debt-creditor relationship, and urge FTX to repay the creditors of various countries equally as soon as possible, so as to ensure the fairness and justice of the U.S. bankruptcy process.
ps: The wifi editing on the plane cannot be precisely modified, and the overall meaning has been expressed
2,48K
Johtavat
Rankkaus
Suosikit