3 ms·
I actually meant that it's really unclear whether FTX-US or FTX-Bahamas (or other subgroups) owns any asset. That's what I meant by "which group owns what".
by HWR_14 4y ago
I actually meant that it's really unclear whether FTX-US or FTX-Bahamas (or other subgroups) owns any asset. That's what I meant by "which group owns what".
- freejazz 4y agoOkay, I still don't understand if you got the point that filing for bankruptcy in a DE court doesn't mean you get DE bankruptcy law applied.
- HWR_14 4y agoYou're right, I never addressed that. I didn't know that before this whole thing started, and that seems weird to me. But also it makes some sense that otherwise both divisions would need to be in different courts in different countries and that seems even worse. I assume there is a US or Delaware law that lets them follow the law of other jurisdictions in cases like this. Almost like an economic extradition. I assume the Bahamas would send their own lawyer(s)? But yes, I think I get your point. Thanks for making it, and again for following up.
- freejazz 4y agoIt's called choice of law. Happens in US courts all of the time, parents enforcing an out-of-state divorce court parental agreement after they moved, two people from Ohio who got into a crash in Indiana... us enforcing in Florida, a commercial contract drafted under new york law, just some examples of where a court would use law from a different jurisdiction. Bahamas don't need to send their own attorneys if they don't want to... they aren't necessarily a party to the case. Here, FTX is opting to have a US disposition of the Bahamian bankruptcy code, so what would Bahama have to send attorneys for? In this case, its still adversarial between the creditors and FTX, so there will be parties arguing for the correct application of law.