Citadel Securities (Europe) Ltd & Anor v Lancia & Anor [2026] EWHC 880 (Comm) (13 March 2026)

Citadel Securities (Europe) Ltd & Anor v Lancia & Anor [2026] EWHC 880 (Comm) (13 March 2026)

The cross-undertaking in damages should remain in place because the circumstances differ materially from those in VB Football Assets; there is an agreed timetable for the provision of security evidence and ongoing efforts to comply. The court will not require the claimants to instruct Crypto.com to lift the block, as there has been no request from Crypto.com and it is for the exchange to determine the applicability of the freezing order to the assets in question.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 880 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Citadel Securities (Europe) Limited; Claimant: Citadel Management (Europe) II Limited; Defendant: Leonard Lancia; Defendant: Portofino Technologies
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings (freezing Order) / Return Date Hearing on World Wide Freezing Order
Outcome
Interim orders continued with modifications; cross-undertaking in damages to remain; no order requiring claimants to instruct Crypto.com to lift block.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Post Judgment Relief, Cross Undertakings in Damages, Third Party Asset Blocking
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Freezing Orders Post Judgment Relief Cross Undertakings in Damages Third Party Asset Blocking

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Citadel Securities (Europe) Limited

Claimant

Citadel Management (Europe) II Limited

Claimant

Leonard Lancia

Defendant

Portofino Technologies

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings (freezing Order) / Return Date Hearing on World Wide Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cross-undertaking in damages should be removed from the freezing order post-judgment
  2. 2 Whether the claimants should be required to instruct Crypto.com to lift an asset block

Ratio Decidendi

The cross-undertaking in damages should remain in place because the circumstances differ materially from those in VB Football Assets; there is an agreed timetable for the provision of security evidence and ongoing efforts to comply. The court will not require the claimants to instruct Crypto.com to lift the block, as there has been no request from Crypto.com and it is for the exchange to determine the applicability of the freezing order to the assets in question.

Court Disposition

Interim orders continued with modifications; cross-undertaking in damages to remain; no order requiring claimants to instruct Crypto.com to lift block.

Orders

  • Cross-undertaking in damages in schedule B to remain in the freezing order.
  • Astraea Group to send a clarifying email to Crypto.com, inviting queries and setting a deadline for response, but not instructing the block to be lifted.