Daniel T. Podhaskie

Counsel
Daniel T. Podhaskie
New York City T: 646.618.8654
West Palm Beach T: 561.282.9850
download bio
download vcard
Biography
Mr. Podhaskie is a seasoned litigator and business strategist who helps clients navigate high-stakes commercial disputes, regulatory challenges and cross-border transactions. He brings a global perspective and a results-driven approach to complex business litigation, fintech and reputation management matters.
 
With two decades of experience, Mr. Podhaskie has represented high-profile individuals, financial institutions and businesses in sophisticated transactions and disputes, often involving emerging industries such as cryptocurrency, blockchain and fintech. His extensive network of decision-makers, legal experts and industry leaders across global financial hubs, as well as his background as General Counsel to a global family office, give him a unique perspective when advising clients on the legal and business implications of their decisions. Whether handling a crisis, structuring a transaction or managing high-stakes litigation, he is a first call for executives and entrepreneurs seeking practical, business-minded legal solutions.
 
A resource for international media, Mr. Podhaskie has been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNBC. He regularly writes, speaks and provides commentary on disputes, regulatory developments and strategic risk management.
 

Memberships & Activities

  • Member: New York State Bar Association

*Not admitted to practice in Florida

CROSS-BORDER LITIGATION & ASSET RECOVERY

  • Represented international investment holding company in fraud and breach of fiduciary duty action against a major global financial institution arising from losses exceeding $500 million.
  • Managed parallel proceedings on behalf of an international family office across four jurisdictions—LCIA arbitration in London, BVI Commercial Court, the Court of Appeal of Colmar (France), and the Hong Kong High Court—in connection with corporate aircraft asset recovery.
  • Served as General Counsel to an ultra-high-net-worth international family office, advising on cross-border disputes, asset protection, and corporate transactions in the United States, United Kingdom, Hong Kong, France, the British Virgin Islands, and the Cayman Islands.
  • Prosecuted international commercial arbitration proceedings in Hong Kong on behalf of a BVI-incorporated entity in connection with cross-border contractual disputes and asset enforcement.
 

CRYPTOCURRENCY & DIGITAL ASSET DISPUTES

  • Negotiated global settlement with securities regulators in 35 U.S. states on behalf of a digital asset bank and its former Chairman in connection with alleged digital asset securities offerings; state regulators agreed to withdraw all fraud charges and impose no monetary penalties.
  • Obtained dismissal of Emergency Cease and Desist Order issued by the Texas State Securities Board against a Switzerland-based cryptocurrency educational platform and its principals, securing a ruling that the Board lacked personal jurisdiction over the respondents.
 

DEFAMATION & REPUTATION DEFENSE

  • Represented a prominent international businessman in a defamation action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against a nationally known political consultant and media personality.
  • Represented a prominent international businessman in a defamation and civil conspiracy action in New York State Supreme Court against a U.S. political consultant and the co-Chairman of a major Chinese media conglomerate.
  • Represented a prominent international businessman and his affiliated holding companies in a RICO, fraud, and defamation action in Los Angeles Superior Court against a U.S. political operative alleged to have acted as an unregistered foreign agent.
  • Defended a prominent international businessman against a $300 million defamation action brought by one of China's largest conglomerates in New York State Supreme Court.
  • Defended a prominent international businessman against a defamation action brought by a globally recognized Chinese actress and public figure in New York State Supreme Court.
  • Secured voluntary discontinuance with prejudice of defamation action brought against a prominent international businessman by an internationally renowned investigative journalist and her affiliated media company.
 

HIGH-VALUE COMMERCIAL LITIGATION

  • Served as lead counsel for Trump Entrepreneur Initiative LLC (f/k/a Trump University LLC) in special proceeding brought by the Attorney General of the State of New York.
  • Represented Carlos Slim in a multi-million dollar commercial real estate dispute with John Barret involving the long-term lease of a landmarked Manhattan property.
  • Represented as lead counsel the residential board of managers of a landmark New York City condominium in the successful prosecution of a $7 million right of first refusal in a case of first impression.
 

CORPORATE TRANSACTIONS & REGULATORY COMPLIANCE

  • Served as board member of U.S.-based non-profit organizations with approximately $13 million in assets; oversaw global grant program with compliance obligations spanning U.S., U.K., E.U., and APAC regulatory regimes, including applicable tax, anti-money laundering, and cross-border fund transfer requirements.
  • Managed cross-jurisdictional re-registration of vessels and aircraft on behalf of an ultra-high-net-worth family office, including transfer of yacht registration from Hong Kong to the United States and private jet re-registration from the E.U. to Canada, navigating applicable maritime, aviation, and customs regulatory frameworks.
  • Managed a global portfolio of high-value real estate acquisitions for an ultra-high-net-worth family office totaling in excess of $350 million, including a $200 million acquisition in Hong Kong, a $50 million acquisition in London, and approximately $100 million in transactions across New York and Connecticut.

Insights

Panelist: "Capitalist Markets Across Borders: Brazil, Thailand, and the United States," New York State Bar Association (June 23, 2026)

Panelist: UNCITRAL 70th Session on Electronic Commerce, U.N. Headquarters (March 2026)

Speaker: "Navigating Brazil’s 2026 VASP Rules: Impacts on Crypto and Stablecoin Providers," New York State Bar Association (February 2026)

Speaker: "Cross-Border Regulatory Landscape on Cryptocurrencies and Digital Assets: Comparative Perspectives Legislative Developments for Safe Growth and Innovation," NYSB International Section 2025 Global Conference (October 2025)

ARTICLES

October 7, 2026

Client Alert: Stablecoins, Market Structure, and the Long Road to ‘Clarity’: The State of U.S. Crypto Regulation in 2026

I. Introduction

For most of the last decade, U.S. digital asset businesses operated in a regulatory vacuum, piecing together compliance strategies from state money-transmitter licenses, enforcement actions, and informal agency guidance. That era ended, at least partially, in July of last year, when President Trump signed the GENIUS Act into law, creating the first federal statute to directly regulate a category of crypto asset.1 A second, more ambitious bill – the CLARITY Act, which would resolve the decades-old jurisdictional fight between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) over digital commodities – has not been so fortunate. As this issue goes to print, it remains stalled in the Senate, its fate uncertain even as the market it would govern has grown to more than $2.2 trillion.2
This is meant to be a practical guide: what is actually binding law today, what is still just a proposal, and what a practitioner with a client anywhere in this space – issuer, exchange, Decentralized finance (DeFi) platform, or a foreign business serving U.S. customers – should be doing right now.
September 30, 2026

Client Alert: $320 Million Crypto Heist—What It Means for Asset Recovery and Who Pays

On September 6, 2026, an attacker took about $320 million in bitcoin from the Liquid Network, a system run by Blockstream that exchanges and trading firms use to move bitcoin between each other quickly. The attacker returned 85 percent after negotiating and kept about $47 million, calling it a reward for finding the “flaw.” Taking funds first and then negotiating to keep a share is becoming a common pattern in large crypto thefts, and businesses, investors and insurers should decide how they would respond before it happens to them.
July 29, 2026

Client Alert: D.C. Circuit Rulings Strengthen Enforcement of Investment Treaty Awards Against Foreign Sovereigns in U.S. Courts: Key Takeaways for Cross-Border Investors

The Bottom Line
 
U.S. courts are among the most reliable venues in the world for enforcing investment treaty awards against foreign governments. Recent D.C. Circuit decisions—NextEra Energy Global Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain (D.C. Cir. August 2024)[1] and Stabil LLC v. Russian Federation (D.C. Cir. February 2026) and Russian Federation v. Stabil LLC/JSC DTEK Krymenergo (February 2026) [2] —make clear that foreign sovereigns cannot easily use complex treaty or jurisdictional arguments to avoid U.S. court proceedings before investors receive a hearing on the merits. For EU investors holding ECT awards that cannot be enforced within the EU, the message is simple: what blocks enforcement in Europe does not necessarily block enforcement in the United States.
 
This alert outlines a practical protocol the D.C. Circuit's rulings suggest for investors pursuing post-judgment discovery against sovereign assets, and identifies the investors, developers and companies most likely to be affected by these decisions.
 
[1] This involved three cases against the Kingdom of Spain before the D.C. Circuit: NextEra v. Kingdom of Spain; No. 23-7031, 9REN Holding S.A.R.L. v. Kingdom of Spain, 23-7032, and Blasket Renewable Investments LLC v. Kingdom of Spain, 23-7038 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 16, 2024). The three cases were decided separately before the district courts with variant rulings. While the NextEra and 9REN decisions held that the U.S. district court had jurisdiction under the FSIA’s arbitration exception and granted the investors’ requested injunctions to prevent Spain from seeking anti-suit relief in foreign courts, the Blasket decision found that Spain was immune under the FSIA. Spain appealed the NextEra and 9REN decisions and Blasket, a successor of the investors, appealed the Blasket decision. The D.C. Circuit resolved the three appeals in a single opinion. On May 5, 2025, a petition for writ of certiorari was filed before the Supreme Court of the United States, and on June 29, 2026, the petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States.
[2] Nos. 25-7005, 25-7064 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 13, 2026).
March 25, 2026

Client Alert: You’ve Just Received a Force Majeure Notice Amid the Iran War — Immediate Steps for Receiving Parties

A force majeure notice arrives from your counterparty citing the Strait of Hormuz crisis, Iranian strikes or related government action. The notice claims performance is impossible and seeks to suspend or terminate obligations. This wave of notices was triggered in earnest by QatarEnergy’s recent declaration of force majeure on multiple long-term LNG supply contracts — a direct consequence of production disruptions and the ongoing closure of the Strait of Hormuz amid the Iran War.

Your first instinct may be to accept it. Resist that instinct. A force majeure notice is an assertion, not a legal determination. Whether it succeeds depends on the contract language, governing law and the invoking party’s compliance with every contractual and legal requirement. Receiving parties who respond strategically often preserve — or even strengthen — their position.

This alert builds on our earlier guidance on potential geopolitical disruptions amid the Iran War and implications for force majeure and performance obligations in contracts, which focused on proactive contract review before a force majeure notice arrives. You can read the prior alert here.
March 12, 2026

Client Alert: Force Majeure in the Shadow of the Iran War: What Contract Holders Must Do Right Now

In the last ten days, the Iran war and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz have moved from geopolitical risk to operational crisis. QatarEnergy has declared force majeure on LNG deliveries. Major oil and gas producers have suspended shipments. Tankers have been struck or stranded. For companies holding supply, delivery, and commercial contracts with Middle East delivery obligations touching upon the Strait of Hormuz, the question is no longer whether to engage force majeure — it is whether your clause will hold under scrutiny, and whether you have already missed the window to invoke it.
January 29, 2026

Client Alert: States Intensify Enforcement Against Unlicensed Cryptocurrency Businesses as Federal Oversight Shifts

The cryptocurrency enforcement landscape is undergoing a fundamental realignment. While Federal agencies that historically dominated digital asset oversight have shifted enforcement priorities away from licensing and registration violations toward fraud-based offenses, state regulators are aggressively enforcing cryptocurrency licensing requirements. Recent enforcement actions and proposed legislation signal escalating civil penalties, criminal prosecutions in some jurisdictions and retroactive prosecution of historical conduct.  
November 4, 2025

Client Alert: GENIUS and CLARITY in Practice: Action Steps for Crypto Compliance

The next 12 months will separate leaders from laggards in U.S. digital finance. Congress’s passage of the GENIUS Act and rapid advancement of the CLARITY Act signal a turning point for stablecoin issuers, DeFi platforms, exchanges, and digital asset service providers. As federal agencies move quickly to draft implementing rules, businesses face pressing calls to prepare for “regulation-by-rulebook.”
October 14, 2025

Client Alert: Sanctions And Frozen Assets

A developing situation involving sanctioned Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, Raiffeisen Bank International (RBI), and the European Union has prompted critical questions about how far sanctions restrictions reach in cross-border enforcement scenarios. Specifically, can frozen assets linked to sanctioned individuals be transferred to satisfy a foreign judgment, even if the underlying claim arises from a politically complex jurisdiction like Russia?
July 22, 2025

Client Alert: Jurisdictional Win Shields Businesses From Texas State Securities Board Overreach

The Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) set aside an Emergency Cease Order issued by the Texas State Securities Board (TSSB) against Billionico Academy, Auratus, and related respondents in Texas State Securities Board v. Billionico Academy et al. (SOAH Docket No. 312-25-18829). The decision, based on a lack of personal jurisdiction, underscores robust protections for nonresident entities and individuals operating in the cryptocurrency and global business sectors.  
July 2, 2025

Client Alert: CLARITY Act and SEC Exemption: U.S. Crypto Regulation Update

The U.S. crypto landscape is transforming, with new regulations poised to redefine how digital asset businesses operate. We previously explored stablecoin rules under the GENIUS Act (read more here), which recently passed the U.S. Senate by a vote of 68-30. Now, we are focusing on the Crypto Market Structure Bill—known as the CLARITY Act—and the SEC’s proposed “Innovation Exemption” for DeFi, which together offer a roadmap for navigating the broader crypto ecosystem.
June 30, 2025

Client Alert: Bankruptcy Meets State Court: Lessons from a $4M Escrow Dispute

When bankruptcy courts and state courts vie for authority in complex financial disputes, the outcome can reshape recoveries for creditors, investors, and businesses. This tension was front and center in Silverman v. Rosenberg, et al. (Adv. Pro. No. 24-03734, Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), where a former Chapter 11 trustee’s bid to seize $4.4 million in escrow funds collided with a state court litigation. For private equity firms, hedge funds, and corporate leaders, this case offers insights into navigating these jurisdictional clashes and their impact on bankruptcy investments.
June 2, 2025

Client Alert: The GENIUS Act: A Compliance Roadmap for Stablecoin Issuers in 2025

In April 2025, the Senate Banking Committee voted to advance the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, a landmark bill introduced by Senator Bill Hagerty to regulate the $180 billion stablecoin market. With bipartisan support and a full Senate vote expected by Q3 2025, the Act signals the end of regulatory ambiguity for digital assets like USDC, Tether, and Binance USD. Coupled with broader cryptocurrency market reforms under discussion, these changes are reshaping the landscape for issuers, DeFi platforms, and investors.