Research Summary
- The report details a legal dispute between DeFiance Capital and Three Arrows Capital Ltd (3AC) over the ownership and control of DeFiance Capital’s assets.
- 3AC’s estate claimed that DeFiance Capital’s assets should be used to pay off 3AC’s creditors, while DeFiance Capital maintained exclusive control over its assets.
- The liquidators insisted on resolving the dispute in the British Virgin Islands (BVI), but DeFiance Capital wanted the case to be heard in Singapore, where all relevant evidence and witnesses were located.
- The High Court of Singapore agreed with DeFiance Capital’s position, ruling that Singapore was the more appropriate jurisdiction for the dispute.
- DeFiance Capital expressed hope that the decision would lead to a focus on substantive issues rather than procedural skirmishes, and criticized the liquidators for incurring unnecessary costs in other legal proceedings.
- The report concludes with a commitment from DeFiance Capital to uphold the rights of its investors and defend industry principles, and a call for the liquidators to pursue more pragmatic and efficient steps to conclude the 3AC liquidation.
Actionable Insights
- Legal Jurisdiction: The decision of the Singapore Court to hear the dispute may result in savings of costs and time for all parties, and ensure that important evidence is available for a just resolution.
- Cooperation and Efficiency: The report emphasizes the need for the liquidators to engage and work with DeFiance Capital to resolve the substantive issues, and to avoid unnecessary legal battles.
- Protection of Investors’ Rights: DeFiance Capital’s commitment to taking the legal process as far as needed to uphold investors’ rights and industry principles may have broader implications for similar disputes in the financial industry.
- Call for Creditors’ Involvement: The report encourages creditors to weigh in on the issue with the liquidators, urging them to pursue pragmatic steps to conclude the liquidation and maximize recoveries.
