On May 13, 2022, a Singaporean man won a worldwide injunction prohibiting the transfer of ownership of a Non-Fungible Token (NFT) at the center of a dispute between him and an online persona with the screen name of “chefpierre.” The injunction, ordered by Singapore’s High Court, drew global attention in the blockchain and NFT business and legal circles because it appears to be the first time a court has frozen the trading of an NFT in a commercial dispute.
On March 19, 2022, Mr. Janesh Rajkumar, a cryptocurrency and NFT investor, entered into a loan agreement with “chefpierre” on NFTfi, a cryptocurrency lending marketplace allowing NFT owners access to liquidity (specifically, Wrapped Ethereum (wETH) and DAI) by listing their NFTs as collateral. Unable to pay his loan on time, Mr. Rajkumar requested an extension, and the two parties discussed the possibility of refinancing the loan. On April 20, Mr. Rajkumar and “chefpierre” entered into a refinancing agreement. As part of the second agreement, Mr. Rajkumar committed as collateral Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) NFT No. 2162.
The NFT is part of a series of BAYC NFTs that currently have a floor price of 89 ETH (approximately $95,000 USD) on OpenSea, an online NFT marketplace. Just in April, the BAYC NFTs reached an all-time high of 152 ETH (about $434,000 USD). Mr. Rajkumar transferred BAYC No. 2162 to NFTfi’s escrow account with the mutual understanding that the NFT would remain there until the full repayment of the loan. The agreement also stipulated that “chefpierre” would never exercise their foreclosure option and take ownership of BAYC No. 2162. Instead, if Mr. Rajkumar were unable to repay the loan on time, he would inform “chefpierre,” who in turn would provide reasonable extensions of time for repayment.
However, “chefpierre” refused to release the additional sum agreed to in the refinancing agreement and threatened to seize ownership of BAYC No. 2162 if Mr. Rajkumar did not repay his loan in full on April 21. The deadline imposed by “chefpierre” gave Mr. Rajkumar about seven hours to return the borrowed money. Upon Mr. Rajkumar’s failure to meet the deadline, “chefpierre” foreclosed by transferring BAYC No. 2162 to his personal cryptocurrency wallet and listing the NFT for sale on OpenSea. Mr. Rajkumar later repaid a portion of the loan, but “chefpierre” returned the paid amount and barred Mr. Rajkumar from making him additional payments on NFTfi.
Among other demands, Mr. Rajkumar is seeking an order to compel “chefpierre” to accept repayment of the loan and transfer BAYC No. 2162 to Mr. Rajkumar’s cryptocurrency wallet.
The decision in Janesh s/o Rajkumar contributes to a small but growing body of judicial study concluding that NFTs convey enforceable property rights, the nature of which are still subject to further analysis. For example, in January of this year, the High Court of England and Wales in Lavinia Deborah Osbourne v (1) Persons Unknown (2) Ozone Networks Inc. trading as Opensea [2022] EWHC 1021 (Comm) ruled that NFTs, though not the underlying content they represent, are “legal property.” The court granted an injunction to freeze ownership transfers of two NFTs that were stolen by hackers from a woman’s cryptocurrency wallet.
While the Singaporean High Court did not rule on Mr. Rajkumar’s other demands yet, the injunction released in May is certainly a win for NFT owners seeking remedies in a world of increased decentralization. ArentFox Schiff is closely following developments in this case and other legal issues emerging in the metaverse, cryptocurrency, and NFT spaces. The firm is capitalizing on its experience to advise clients on similar matters.
*Lubna Kayyali was a 2022 summer associate in ArentFox Schiff’s NY office.
About this Author
Anthony’s diverse client base includes Discovery Channel, Pixar, and Oprah Winfrey Network in the entertainment industry; Diane von Furstenberg, Yves Saint Laurent, Valentino, Fila, Lacoste, Diesel, and Christian Louboutin in the fashion industry; and Tesla, PlayStation, and LG in the technology space. For fashion and retail industry clients, Anthony often acts as their US general counsel. He hosts the number one fashion legal blog, Fashion Counsel, and Forbes recently recognized him as the ‘father of…
James practices at the intersection of corporate and intellectual property law, often structuring and negotiating leading-edge deals in the fashion, sports, and entertainment worlds. Having completed extended tours of duty as a global brand CEO and a private equity operator, he brings a heightened understanding of the strategic, financial, and operational issues that underpin his deals.
James chairs the firm’s Crypto practice and routinely counsels fashion brands, professional sports teams, athletes, and media companies on leading-edge deals…
Dan is a regulatory attorney who helps clients protect and promote their brands.
With a background in intellectual property, marketing, and trade practice regulations, Dan helps clients understand and mitigate risk as they develop and launch new products and services, expand into new markets, and engage with consumers in-store and online.
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.
Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 3 Grant Square #141 Hinsdale, IL 60521 Telephone (708) 357-3317 or toll free (877) 357-3317. If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.
Author
Administraroot
