Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Finance & Accounting · Financial decision · 2023

Babel Finance lost $766M to risky trades — then asked the court for time

After halting withdrawals in June 2022, HK crypto lender Babel Finance sought a Singapore High Court moratorium on March 6, 2023 over a US$766 million hole.

Babel Finance · 2023-03-06

What happened

Babel Finance, a Hong Kong crypto lender, hit a liquidity crunch when the crypto market convulsed in June 2022, and suspended redemptions and withdrawals on 17 June 2022, saying the pause was needed to stabilise its position and protect creditors. The hole underneath measured US$766 million — US$524 million lost in risky trading by co-founder Wang Li, and another US$224 million lost when lenders liquidated the firm's loan collateral.

The first restructuring plan went to creditors in August 2022 and was revised after feedback. On 6 March 2023, Babel Holding Limited and related companies applied to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore for a moratorium under the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act — protection to let the restructuring come to fruition through a scheme of arrangement. Houlihan Lokey advised on the plan, with binding commitments for new money targeted by May 2023 and a scheme filing targeted for June.

The recapitalisation was to come partly from the founder himself, back in a leadership role, and repayment was to run through a new crypto-backed stablecoin named Hope, collateralised with bitcoin and ether. The lender that had frozen its own creditors' money in June 2022 was asking a Singapore court, nine months later, for the legal right to pay them back its own way.

Why it happened

  • The $524 million trading loss came from inside the firm — a co-founder's positions, not a counterparty's default.
  • Lenders then liquidated the firm's collateral for a further $224 million, so the hole doubled its own depth at the margin call.
  • The June 2022 withdrawal freeze bought time but did not create assets; the moratorium was the same strategy, in court form.
What it cost$766M hole; withdrawals frozen; court restructuringcostly

The lesson

A freeze is not a fix — it is a request for time. What decides the case is what filled the hole while the clock was stopped: here, $766 million, and a promise to repay in a stablecoin.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →