As businesses brace for the evolving legal landscape in 2025, commercial dispute resolution is taking centre stage. Partners David Hille and Glenn Kurtz, global co-chairs of commercial litigation at the international law firm White & Case, have identified key litigation trends that are expected to dominate the new year. From cybersecurity threats to cryptocurrency regulation and jurisdictional shifts in corporate litigation, 2025 promises to bring both complexity and opportunity for litigators and corporate counsel alike.

Cybersecurity and Data Breach Litigation Goes Mainstream

One of the most prominent trends for 2025 is the continued rise of data breach and cybersecurity litigation. What was once a niche concern reserved for tech companies has now become a universal business issue.

“This is quickly moving from a tech company-specific practice area to an every-company area,” noted Hille and Kurtz. “At this point, every company is a tech company at some level and is handling data.”

In today’s hyperconnected digital economy, nearly every organisation—regardless of sector—is managing sensitive customer, employee, or operational data. As cyberattacks grow in sophistication and frequency, businesses are becoming more vulnerable to litigation arising from data breaches, privacy violations, and compliance failures. Legal teams must now prepare for data-related disputes as a core aspect of risk management.

Rising Tensions: Supplier and Manufacturer Disputes

Another critical area of concern is the escalation of disputes between suppliers and manufacturers. These cases are becoming increasingly complex due to the unique nature of business relationships that are both competitive and collaborative.

“These disputes pose interesting issues because these are, oftentimes, companies that are both competitors and collaborators with long-term relationships,” said Hille. “Navigating those types of disputes is an interesting skillset that you have to develop in order to fight the case.”

Supply chain disruptions, fluctuating market conditions, and geopolitical uncertainty are contributing to contractual breakdowns, missed obligations, and disagreements over pricing or delivery. As such, litigation in this area is expected to intensify, requiring attorneys to balance legal acumen with business diplomacy.

Cryptocurrency Litigation Expected to Surge

With digital assets becoming more mainstream, cryptocurrency litigation is poised to become a focal point in 2025. Regulatory scrutiny is increasing, and political attention is growing under the incoming U.S. administration.

“The new incoming administration seems to be more focused on cryptocurrency, and when you have more focus, you typically end up with more litigation,” Kurtz explained.

Whether it’s class actions related to crypto fraud, enforcement actions by regulatory bodies, or disputes involving blockchain contracts, cryptocurrency cases are likely to dominate courtrooms. As regulatory clarity continues to evolve, businesses operating in the digital asset space will need to remain vigilant and proactive.

State Courts Challenge Delaware in Corporate Dispute Jurisdiction

Traditionally, Delaware has been the go-to jurisdiction for corporate litigation. However, this dynamic may be shifting as other state courts begin to compete for jurisdiction over high-value commercial disputes.

As Kurtz and Hille suggest, state courts are evolving to attract complex corporate cases, offering specialised commercial divisions and more sophisticated legal infrastructure. This trend could diversify the legal playing field and impact corporate litigation strategies for businesses across the United States.

Artificial Intelligence: A Future Litigation Frontier

While not yet a dominant force in commercial litigation, artificial intelligence (AI) is on the radar for litigators preparing for the next wave of tech-driven disputes.

“AI is still in its infancy and so maybe 2025 won’t be the year,” said Kurtz, “but it’s going to be a pretty big focal point at some point for litigators.”

AI’s impact on intellectual property, liability, discrimination, and automated decision-making is still unfolding. But legal experts agree that it’s only a matter of time before AI-related disputes become a significant portion of litigation portfolios, especially as the technology becomes more integrated into business operations.

Conclusion: Preparing for a Dynamic Legal Landscape in 2025

As businesses enter 2025, they must brace for a more dynamic and legally complex environment. From the mainstreaming of cybersecurity disputes to the rise in supplier conflicts, the legal arena is being reshaped by technology, regulation, and evolving business relationships.

White & Case’s David Hille and Glenn Kurtz offer a forward-looking perspective that underscores the need for agile legal strategies, robust risk management, and cross-disciplinary expertise. Whether navigating the murky waters of crypto regulation or preparing for the future of AI liability, legal teams must stay ahead of these trends to protect and empower their organisations.

Key Takeaways:

• Every company is now a data company, and cybersecurity litigation will affect all sectors.

• Supplier-manufacturer relationships are ripe for complex, high-stakes disputes.

• Cryptocurrency regulation and litigation are heating up under new government focus.

• State courts are positioning themselves as serious alternatives to Delaware in corporate litigation.

• AI may not dominate in 2025 but will soon become a litigation frontier.

By anticipating these trends, businesses and legal professionals can better position themselves for success in an increasingly complex commercial landscape.

Continued

The Ten Largest Crypto Rug Pulls and Lessons for Investors

The cryptocurrency sector has grown at an extraordinary pace, attracting innovation, speculation, and unfortunately, a considerable volume of fraudulent activity. Among the most damaging forms of crypto fraud is the rug pull—an event in which the creators of a project abruptly abandon it, withdraw investor funds, and leave participants with worthless assets. Estimates suggest that rug pulls cost investors approximately US$500 million in the past year, highlighting their persistent threat.

This report examines ten of the most significant rug pulls to date, illustrating how they operated, the magnitude of losses incurred, and key warning signs that investors should recognise.

BitConnect

Launched in 2016, BitConnect became one of the crypto industry’s earliest and most infamous scams. Through its ICO, users exchanged Bitcoin for BitConnect Coin (BCC), enticed by promises of up to 40 per cent monthly returns.

Aggressive promotional campaigns drove rapid growth, and by late 2017 BCC exceeded US$400. However, allegations that the platform was a Ponzi scheme attracted regulatory scrutiny. In January 2018, the project collapsed, BCC plunged by 92 per cent, and the founders absconded with over US$2 billion.

Squid Game Token

Capitalising on the popularity of the Netflix series, the SQUID token launched as a supposed play-to-earn game. Its value surged from US$0.01 to US$2,861 within days. Investors soon found they were unable to sell their tokens, while attempts to identify the founders led nowhere. Communication channels vanished, and sections of the whitepaper were revealed to be unverifiable.

The creators then sold their holdings, causing a 99 per cent price collapse and netting them more than US$3.38 million.

Bored Bunny NFT

The Bored Bunny NFT collection launched in December 2021 with extravagant promises of rapid financial returns, exclusive merchandise, a private metaverse, and celebrity endorsement. The sale raised around 2,000 ETH in hours.

Subsequent blockchain analysis revealed that NFTs allegedly held by celebrities were purchased by wallets linked to the project’s developers, raising suspicions of insider manipulation. Many team members were later shown to have histories of involvement in dubious ventures. The floor price has since fallen to a fraction of its original value.

Frosties NFT

The Frosties NFT project sold out its 8,888-piece collection in early 2022, raising US$1.3 million. Immediately afterward, the creators transferred the funds to various wallets, deleted the Discord server, and posted a final message: “I’m sorry.”

In a rare development for NFT-related fraud, creators Ethan Nguyen and Andre Llacuna were arrested and charged with wire fraud and money laundering, potentially facing sentences of up to 20 years.

Luna Yield

Luna Yield, a Solana-based DeFi yield aggregator, appeared credible due to its professional presentation and associations with established projects. It successfully raised funds during its Initial DEX Offering.

Within three days, however, all capital—approximately US$6.7 million—was moved into Tornado Cash, an anonymising crypto mixer. The project’s online presence was swiftly deleted. Luna Yield is notable because it relied not on exaggerated claims, but on the appearance of legitimacy to mislead investors.

OneCoin

Founded in 2014 by Ruja Ignatova, OneCoin was marketed as a revolutionary cryptocurrency rival to Bitcoin. In reality, no blockchain existed. The scheme operated as a massive global multi-level marketing operation spanning more than 175 countries.

More than US$4 billion was raised before authorities intervened. Ignatova disappeared in 2017 and remains missing, while co-founder Sebastian Greenwood was sentenced to 20 years in prison in 2023.

Thodex

Thodex, a major Turkish cryptocurrency exchange, abruptly halted all trading in April 2021, freezing user accounts. Founder Faruk Fatih Özer fled the country with roughly US$2 billion in stolen assets.

Following an international investigation, Özer was arrested in Albania and extradited. He was later convicted of fraud, money laundering, and running a criminal organisation, receiving a symbolic sentence of 11,196 years.

Mutant Ape Planet (MAP)

The Mutant Ape Planet NFT project resembled the popular Mutant Ape Yacht Club, raising US$2.9 million on promises of raffles, metaverse development, exclusive access, and a community treasury. These commitments were never fulfilled.

Funds were traced to wallets controlled by project creator Aurelien Michel, who admitted to the scheme under a pseudonym. Michel was arrested at JFK Airport on charges of wire fraud and is suspected of involvement in multiple other NFT scams.

HAWK (Hawk Tuah Girl Coin)

Launched in December 2024 and heavily promoted by internet personality Hailey “Hawk Tuah Girl” Welch, the HAWK token rapidly reached a market cap of approximately US$490 million. However, only a small fraction of the token supply was publicly available, while insider wallets held the majority.

These wallets began dumping their holdings almost immediately, generating around US$3 million and triggering a collapse of more than 90 per cent. Although Welch denied involvement and was not named as a defendant, the incident illustrates the dangers of influencer-backed token launches.

CryptoZoo

CryptoZoo, announced in 2021 and promoted by YouTuber Logan Paul, promised a play-to-earn ecosystem in which NFT “eggs” would hatch into hybrid animals. Millions were raised through token and NFT sales. However, the game was never delivered, and the ZOO token rapidly lost value.

Allegations followed regarding unpaid developers, questionable team members, and insider selling. A class-action lawsuit later claimed that the project misled investors and ultimately functioned as a rug pull.

Key Red Flags in Rug Pull Schemes

Analysis of these cases reveals several consistent warning signs:

• Anonymous or unverifiable development teams

• Liquidity that is unlocked or easily withdrawn

• Vague, unrealistic, or technically unsound project roadmaps

• Guarantees of extremely high or rapid financial returns

• Heavy reliance on hype, celebrity endorsements, or aggressive marketing

Investors should exercise caution, undertake thorough due diligence, and remain alert to these risk indicators.

Realising Losses for Tax Purposes

Victims of rug pulls may, depending on jurisdiction, be able to offset losses for tax purposes. This typically requires formally disposing of the compromised tokens—via sale, trade, or transfer to a burn address—even if the assets hold negligible value. Such realised losses may then be applied against capital gains.

Prospective investors are advised to seek independent financial, legal, or tax advice to understand how these principles apply to their personal circumstances.