Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
VALUING VOLATILITY: CONFRONTING CRYPTIC ISSUES
Edwin Teong Ying Keat*
Kalen v World Exchange
Introduction
In US law, per Diamond Fortress Technologies Inc v EverID Inc,1 in calculating the damages for a claim for breach of contract, the Delaware Supreme Court applied the “New York rule” and quantified damages by the highest intermediate value reached by the stock between the time of the wrongful act complained of and a reasonable time thereafter. This rule softens an old English rule, which, to address the hugely fluctuating values of securities, valued damages by the “highest value of the stock on or before the day of trial”.2
In Kalen v World Exchange Services Pte Ltd,3 the High Court of Singapore held the appropriate valuation date to be around October or November 2018. However, owing to lack of evidence on the exact valuation, Lee Seiu Kin SJ took an average of three available data points for which aggregate values were available to ascertain the valuation of damages. In so doing, Lee SJ rejected the New York rule’s “highest intermediate value” approach.4 This Comment unpacks and critiques the judgment.
Background facts
The claimants were 85 individuals who owned digital tokens and monies “stored” with the defendant.5 The defendant was a Singapore-incorporated company, which operated an online trading platform for digital tokens, including cryptocurrencies, known as wex.nz (“WEX”).6 Each of the 85 claimants maintained an account on the WEX platform and entered into a user agreement with the defendant (the “User Agreement”).7 In addition, by making public statements on 19 September and 31 October 2017, the defendant entered into a new contract with all platform users. This contract required the defendant to buy back or redeem all outstanding “WEX tokens “ within a two-year deadline (the “Buyback Agreement”).8
The claimants had purchased cryptocurrency tokens which became inaccessible due to technical issues with the defendant’s platform from 12 July 2018.9 The cryptocurrency market experienced fluctuations in the interim period before the suit in the Singapore Court was commenced.
* I have written this comment in a personal capacity, and am grateful to Professor Rose and, in particular, the anonymous referee for their useful comments. All errors, flaws and defects remain my own.
1. (2022) 274 A 3d 287.
2. Ibid, 306.
3. [2026] SGHC 31; [2026] 3 SLR 1094 (“Kalen”).
4. Ibid, [40].
5. Ibid, [2].
6. Ibid, [4].
7. Ibid, [5].
8. Ibid, [6].
9. Ibid, [7].
Case and comment
355