Bittrex Global (Bermuda) Ltd (in liquidation) (Appellant) v Andrew Howie, Carmel King and Margot MacInnes as Joint Liquidators of Bittrex Global (Bermuda) Ltd (In Liquidation) and another (Respondents) (Bermuda)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2026/0053

Jurisdiction

Bermuda

Parties

Appellant(s)

Bittrex Global, Inc

Respondent(s)

Andrew Howie, Carmel King and Margot MacInnes as Joint Liquidators of Bittrex Global Inc (in liquidation)

The Bermuda Monetary Authority

Issue

How should Joint Liquidators of a digital assets exchange company treat unclaimed digital assets deposited by customers?

Facts

Bittrex Global Inc. (“the Company”) operated a Bermuda based digital assets exchange. Customers deposited digital tokens in their Bittrex “wallet” and could then buy or sell tokens to trade with other customers. Bittrex was registered as a digital asset business under the Digital Asset Business Act 2018 (DABA). In February 2023, Bittrex Global GmbH and other companies in the group ceased taking on new customers. The Company’s terms and conditions were changed to introduce two distinct types of account, a Standard Hosted Wallet, and an Enhanced Hosted Wallet. According to the 2023 Terms and Conditions, the essential characteristic of the Standard Hosted Wallet is that upon deposit of the digital asset in the account, the customer agrees that they are transferring the legal title to the property in the wallet to Bittrex. The Company was wound up in 2024. Customer creditors comprise the vast majority of the company’s creditors. A majority of customers who filed proofs of debt have had their accounts paid out by a transfer of tokens which were deposited in the wallets. The central question is how the joint liquidators should treat unclaimed digital assets held by Bittrex as balances in the digital wallets that were “deposited” to Bittrex by former customers. The Joint Liquidators (“JLs”) issued an application under section 175(2)(h) of the Companies Act 1981 which sought the sanction of the Court to make an interim distribution of these unclaimed assets to BGI as surplus. In July 2025 the Supreme Court of Bermuda Judge provided his Ruling and Consequential Orders and Directions and concluded that under section 175(2)(h) only the Court could order such a distribution. The Judge noted that, even if the Court could give the sanction, he would decline because he did not consider that Bittrex could claim ownership of the assets transferred to it under its 2023 Terms and Conditions, and in accordance with sections 17 and 18 of the DABA and the CMA Digital Asset Custody Code of Practice (2019). The Judge then exercised the Court’s powers under Rule 64(1) of the Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1982 to direct that the JLs admit the claims of remaining customers who had not filed proofs of debt and who had positive balances shown in Bittrex’s ledgers, accounts and records without the need for further proof. BGI’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that the digital assets transferred by customers to Bittrex to be held in Standard Hosted Wallets were held beneficially for the customers who had a proprietary interest in the assets. The Court of Appeal also found that there was no arguable basis for challenging the Judge’s exercise of his discretion to order automatic admission under Rule 64(1). On 5 March 2026 the Court of Appeal refused BGI’s application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Counsel.