Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 25 APRIL 2022

Delaware Defines Damages In Deals Involving Cryptocurrency

Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Explore more from Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP

When cryptocurrency is the consideration to be paid on a contract and the contract is breached, how should a court calculate damages? That was the issue confronted by Judge Wallace in a case...

United StatesTechnology
Matt Albaugh
Matt Albaugh
Jason Asmus
Jason Asmus
Chris Brown
Chris Brown
Julie Crocker
Julie Crocker
William Doyle
William Doyle
Author LinkedIn connections

When cryptocurrency is the consideration to be paid on a contract and the contract is breached, how should a court calculate damages? That was the issue confronted by Judge Wallace in a case of first impression in Diamond Fortress Technologies, Inc. v. EverID, Inc., C.A. No. N21C-05-048 (Del. Super. Ct. April 14, 2022).

The underlying case's facts are relatively simple. EverID sought to introduce a new cryptocurrency via an Initial Coin Offering (ICO). EverID contracted with Diamond Fortress Technologies to develop EverID's cryptocurrency trading platform and mobile application. The parties' contract called for EverID to pay coins in the newly issued cryptocurrency to Diamond Fortress Technologies. After services were rendered, EverID proceeded with its ICO and began distributing its new cryptocurrency.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

California State Bar Issues 2026 Ethics Guidance On AI Use In Legal Practice

Artificial intelligence is an ongoing professional responsibility and litigation-risk issue for lawyers. The California State Bar recently published new guidance. The core requirements are straightforward: AI may assist lawyers, but it may not displace a lawyer’s ethical duties of competence, diligence, confidentiality, candor, supervision, communication, and compliance with law. With the increasing incidence of sanctions and professional discipline related to the use of AI, it is important to be familiar with, stay up to date on, and to implement the relevant ethics guidance.
United StatesTechnology
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Article

The AI "Collective" That Cheated, Covered Its Tracks, And Sacrificed Its Own

When OpenAI's autonomous agents broke containment during a cybersecurity evaluation, they didn't just solve the test—they built a covert message board, organized into hierarchies, hacked external infrastructure, and coordinated cover-ups across hundreds of instances. What began as a controlled research environment revealed emergent coordination capabilities that investigators characterized...
United StatesTechnology
Jones Walker LLP
Jones Walker LLP
Article

Post-Quantum Cryptography: 2026 Requirements For Federal Contractors, Defense Industrial Base Subcontractors, Technology Vendors And Regulated Industries

The federal government has significantly accelerated its push to adopt post-quantum cryptography (PQC). Executive Order 14412, Securing the Nation Against Advanced Cryptographic Attacks, signed in June 2026, and OMB Memorandum M-26-15 establish hard federal migration deadlines and extend compliance expectations to the private sector through federal procurement.
United StatesTechnology
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney
Article

Frontier AI And Federal Cybersecurity Oversight: Where Are We Now On U.S. AI Regulation?

The U.S. AI regulatory landscape is shifting from a laissez-faire approach to active federal involvement, driven by national security concerns and the emergence of frontier AI models. Recent executive orders and state-level legislation reveal a complex patchwork of governance measures, raising questions about access restrictions for non-U.S. organizations and the balance between innovation and security. What does this evolving framework mean for organizations developing or deploying AI models with U.S. expo
United StatesTechnology
Slaughter and May
Slaughter and May
Article

Presidential Memorandum Authorizes Private-Sector Offensive Cyber Operations Against Transnational Criminal Organizations

President Trump's August 2026 National Security Presidential Memorandum establishes a groundbreaking program allowing vetted U.S. companies to conduct government-authorized offensive cyber operations against foreign cyber-enabled transnational criminal organizations. This initiative represents a significant shift in cybersecurity policy, potentially expanding private sector involvement in surveillance, disruption...
GlobalTechnology
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Article

D.C. Circuit Rules Pentagon Can Exclude Anthropic From Supply Chain

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has ruled that the Department of War can exclude Anthropic from its supply chain under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act, finding that the AI company's ability to manipulate its Claude model creates a supply chain risk. This decision contrasts with an earlier California district court ruling that blocked a similar designation under a different statute, creating a complex legal landscape for AI providers and government contractors.
United StatesGovernment, Public Sector
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Article

Eleventh Circuit Developments: Decisions On Florida And Georgia Social Media/Minor Laws And New Alabama Law

Legal risk intensifies for companies offering online interactive features to minors across Georgia, Florida, and Alabama as the Eleventh Circuit vacates preliminary injunctions against state social media laws. With Florida's HB 3 and Georgia's SB 351 now enforceable and Alabama's HB 161 set to take effect January 1, 2027, businesses face divergent compliance requirements including age verification, parental consent mechanisms, and account deletion protocols.
United StatesPrivacy
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Article

SEC Proposes Rule Changes And Seeks Comments On Additional Accredited Investor Pathways

The Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed six new pathways for individuals to qualify as accredited investors, moving beyond traditional income and wealth thresholds. These changes would allow qualification through professional certifications like CPA, CFA, and CFP designations, as well as through a new FINRA-administered exam testing securities knowledge.
United StatesFinance and Banking
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Article

The Big Long List Of U.S. AI Laws

State legislatures across the U.S. have enacted a complex web of AI regulations affecting private sector businesses, spanning employment decisions, healthcare applications, consumer interactions, and digital rights. These laws impose compliance obligations including bias audits, disclosure requirements, and restrictions on automated decision-making, with enforcement mechanisms ranging from regulatory oversight to private rights of action. Understanding which state laws apply to your AI systems is critical,
United StatesCorporate/Commercial Law
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Article

AI-Powered Call Transcription Tools Present Class Action BIPA Risk

AI-powered call transcription tools like Otter.ai are facing class action lawsuits under Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) for allegedly collecting voiceprints without proper consent. A federal court recently allowed claims to proceed, signaling potential legal risks for companies that provide or utilize these increasingly common meeting recording services.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Article

Federal Court Rules Government’s Anthropic Supply Chain Designation Was Unlawful Retaliation: What Government Contractors Need To Know

This is the third installment in our coverage of the Anthropic/Department of War dispute. Our first alert addressed the Trump administration’s February 27 directives barring federal contractors from using Anthropic and its Claude platform, including Secretary Hegseth’s designation of Anthropic as a supply chain risk to national security and the resulting requirement that all DoW contractors sever commercial ties with the company.
United StatesGovernment, Public Sector
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Article

Quick Update: Delaware Privacy Act Amendments, CCPA Data Broker Enforcement, And Texas Warning On CIPA Demand Letters

Recent developments in Delaware, California, and Texas highlight a common theme that privacy compliance risk is becoming more operational and technical and more likely to arise from practices that may once have appeared routine. (1) Delaware has expanded the reach and substantive requirements of its comprehensive privacy law; (2) California continues its focus on data brokers by bringing a Delete Act action against a data broker; and (3) the Texas Attorney General has warned businesses about a surge in CIPA website tracking demand letters.
United StatesPrivacy
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP