Mirror Trading International: Bitcoin or currency goes to the liability hearing

On the notice of dispute the receiver drafted in August, three columns carried the same bracketed unit. An investor contesting a clawback calculation would have entered the amount the receiver claimed, the amount accepted and the amount disputed, each headed "(Bitcoin)," and the receiver's certificate, filed with any judgment that followed, would have recorded that the investor owed a blank number of "Bitcoin (or the cash equivalent thereof) to the estate," per the draft order appended to the Second Report of the Receiver, Aug. 24, 2026, App. "E" (draft Claims Process Approval Order), para. 13, Schs. "B"–"C". In the order Justice M. A. Marion pronounced on September 3, the columns carry no unit, and the certificate leaves only a blank before the words "to the estate." Whether an amount is "owed in specie as Bitcoin or currency" is now something the receiver's application for a declaration of liability must address, per the Claims Process Approval Order, Sept. 3, 2026, para. 4, Schs. "B"–"C".

Mirror Trading International (Pty) Ltd. is in liquidation in South Africa, and the Alberta file is its Canadian limb, a recognition proceeding under Part XIII of the BIA. The Court of King's Bench recognized the South African proceeding as a foreign main proceeding on May 2, 2023, and on April 15, 2026 appointed GlassRatner Restructuring Inc. national receiver, under ss. 272(1)(d) and 275(3)(a) of the BIA, of MTI's property held by Canadian investors, per the Second Report of the Receiver, Aug. 24, 2026, paras. 1–2, 20, 44(b). The receiver's application, reported here on September 2, asked for a process "to consolidate the Clawback Actions and any other claims against Canadian Investors into a single claims process in the receivership proceeding," and was returnable before Justice Marion on September 2, per the Application (Claims Process), returnable Sept. 2, 2026, p. 2 and para. 22. The order was pronounced on September 3 and, by the clerk's stamp on the copy in the record, filed digitally on October 17, 2026, per the Claims Process Approval Order, Sept. 3, 2026, p. 1. No reasons or endorsement for September 3 are in the record read for this piece, so what follows sets the order the court signed beside the order the receiver proposed.

What the order keeps

The receiver said its application sought "substantially the same relief—on substantially the same grounds—as that sought by the trustees-in-bankruptcy" in three clawback cases from British Columbia and Ontario, per the Application (Claims Process), para. 25. The order keeps that skeleton: the receiver may apply for a declaration of liability, the Liability Order, against the investors listed in Schedule "A" for the transfers of Bitcoin MTI made to them, and if it is granted, the receiver has 30 days to send each investor a Clawback Calculation, and the investor has 30 days to dispute it by a notice of dispute. An investor who does not dispute is "conclusively deemed to be indebted to the estate in the amount shown in their Clawback Calculation" and has 45 more days to pay, failing which the receiver "shall be granted judgment" and may enforce it without a further order. An investor who disputes has 60 days to settle, and inside those 60 days must file and serve an application with affidavit evidence, or the receiver is granted judgment for the calculated amount. The investor's 30, 45 and 60 days can each be lengthened by the receiver's written agreement, per the Claims Process Approval Order, paras. 2, 4, 6–7, 9–12.

The BIA request waits

The draft's second paragraph, under the heading "Authority of Receiver," would have given the receiver "the authority to bring claims against those investors listed in Schedule 'A' hereto" under ss. 95 and 96 of the BIA, per the Second Report, App. "E", para. 2. The receiver's brief made the case for it. Court-appointed receivers "are not routinely granted the powers and remedies afforded to a trustee under the BIA," the brief said, but "the Court has not determined whether the Receiver's claims will ultimately be governed by South African law, Canadian insolvency law, provincial law, or some combination thereof," and requiring the receiver or the foreign representative to open a separate Canadian bankruptcy solely to reach the avoidance remedies "would create unnecessary duplication, increase costs, and undermine the efficient administration of this cross-border insolvency proceeding," per the Brief of Law, Aug. 24, 2026, paras. 41, 45–46.

The order makes no such grant. It adjourns "the Receiver's application for authority to assert claims under sections 95 and 96" to be heard at the same time as the application for the Liability Order, and says the receiver "is permitted to fully argue such liability under sections 95 and 96 of the BIA" at that hearing, per the Claims Process Approval Order, para. 4.

The draft had also set out the grounds on which the Liability Order would declare the transfers void or voidable: that they contravened ss. 26, 29 or 30 of South Africa's Insolvency Act, 24 of 1936, or ss. 95 or 96 of the BIA; that they were fraudulent preferences under the provincial statutes; that they unjustly enriched the investors; or that they "resulted in the Canadian Investors improperly converting the Bitcoin." The next paragraph called that list "not exhaustive" and let the receiver "assert additional legal grounds" in its notice of application, per the Second Report, App. "E", paras. 3–4. The order has no list, and in its place one sentence: "The Receiver shall not assert any causes of action against the Subject Canadian Investors that are not advanced in its application for the Liability Order other than with leave of the Court," per the Claims Process Approval Order, para. 4.

Bitcoin or currency, and jurisdiction, at the first hearing

Asked by the court in April how a claim would be calculated if Bitcoin could not be recovered in specie, including how any Bitcoin received would be valued, the receiver's aide memoire proposed that, if the Liability Order is granted, "these issues be addressed in the second phase of the proposed claims process based on full briefing from the Receiver and any Canadian Investor who opposes the Receiver's position." On defences it drew the same line: "Defences relating to the causes of action may be raised during the first phase, defences relating to quantum on the second phase," per the Aide Memoire, Aug. 24, 2026, para. 1, Sch. "A", items (i)–(j).

The order puts part of that in the first phase. The receiver's application for the Liability Order "shall also address the jurisdiction of the Court to grant the Receiver's requested relief, and the methodology for calculating any monetary payment allegedly owed by a Subject Canadian Investor including whether such amount is owed in specie as Bitcoin or currency." An investor's defences to the causes of action the receiver advances, "including any limitations defences, jurisdictional arguments or methodology arguments referenced in paragraph 4," are raised during that application; those "related to the quantification of any claim" are excepted, per the Claims Process Approval Order, paras. 4–5. The draft's paragraph on defences tied them to "the causes of action listed in paragraph 3" and did not mention limitations, jurisdiction or methodology, per the Second Report, App. "E", para. 5.