為了收回用于償還債權人的資金，破產的加密貨幣借貸機構 Celsius 起訴了數千名在平臺申請破產前 90 天內從平臺撤出資產的前客戶。

這是破產程序中一種標準但鮮為人知的做法。盡管如此，涉案資產是加密貨幣，這一事實可能成為被告的潛在救命稻草，其中許多人因小額財富而被起訴。

Loeb & Loeb 破產律師 Noah Weingarten 向DL News

表示：

例如，客戶存款是 Celsius 的財產，還是客戶的財產？

他說：“如果它不是（Celsius破產）財產，那么人們應該能夠得到潛在的良好辯護。”

該銀行在巔峰時期曾擁有 250 億美元的資產，如今陷入困境，這些訴訟是該銀行的最新進展。

現在，其創始人兼前首席執行官亞歷克斯·馬辛斯基 (Alex Mashinsky) 因涉嫌操縱市場和違反聯邦證券法而面臨刑事和民事指控。

他的審判定于今年秋天進行。

Celsius 拒絕對此事發表評論。

“不知情的投資者”

在 2022 年震驚整個行業的一系列破產事件中，Celsius 是最著名的破產加密貨幣公司之一。

根據去年 7 月提交的一份長達 46 頁的起訴書，馬辛斯基將 Celsius 宣傳為“現代銀行”，客戶可以安全地存入加密資產并賺取利息。

檢察官表示，事實上，馬辛斯基將這項投資作為“風險投資基金”進行管理，并將客戶變成“不知情的投資者”。

去年，數千名 Celsius 曾經的客戶投票通過了一項商業計劃，旨在重新分配這家破產銀行留下的 20 億美元加密資產——占該平臺上被困資金的 67% 至 85%。

該計劃包括指示公司尋求其他途徑收回資金，然后將其分配給債權人。

“創造公平的競爭環境”

今年 1 月，該公司開始尋求所謂的優先索償權，即在破產前 90 天內從 Celsius 進行的任何總額達 10 萬美元的轉賬。

溫加滕表示：“其目的是為無擔保債權人提供平等的競爭環境。”

根據美國法律，公司在正式申請破產之前就被假定已經破產。

因此，在申請破產之前進行的任何提款實際上都讓一些債權人以犧牲其他債權人利益為代價逃避破產程序。

“幾乎每一起破產案都會出現這些優先權要求。這很常見，”溫加滕說。“從某些方面來說，這些要求是有道理的，但從其他方面來說，這些要求就有點不公平了。”

Customers who pulled their crypto just before Celsius filed for bankruptcy were initially offered the opportunity to settle: first, for 27.5% of the value of the crypto they withdrew during the 90-day lookback window, then for 13.75%. Those values were to be determined at the price of customers’ crypto on the 2022 transfer dates.

Celsius has settled with some 1,500 customers who withdrew more than $100,000 in crypto 90 days before the company’s bankruptcy filing, it said in a press release.

‘Scare tactic’?

Since July 1, however, it has sued thousands more who ignored, missed, or baulked at the proposed settlement.

In those lawsuits, Celsius is now demanding customers repay the full value of any crypto withdrawn in the 90 days before July 13, 2022 — at June 14, 2024 prices.

The market capitalisation of crypto has increased 164% to more than $2.5 trillion between Celsius’ bankruptcy filing and June 14, according to CoinGecko.

In that span, Bitcoin and Ether have increased about 226% and 212%, to more than $66,000 and $3,400, respectively.

This is a very different approach than the one adopted by the bankruptcy team at FTX, the collapsed crypto exchange once spearheaded by convicted fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried.

When it detailed its plan to repay creditors earlier this year, FTX insisted that returning the value of crypto as of the time of the bankruptcy filing was a “bedrock of bankruptcy law” and the only fair way to share recoveries.

In a video shared on X, FTX creditor Louis Origny said he thought Celsius’ demand was a “scare tactic.”

Defences

Sued Celsius customers have a couple avenues of defence to pursue — apart from quibbling about who really owned the assets.

For example, they can argue the withdrawals were made in the ordinary course of business.

A landlord who receives a rent payment from a tenant who filed for bankruptcy less than 90 days later could assert a so-called objective ordinary course defence, Weingarten said.

Whether that will protect former Celsius customers will depend on a couple factors.

Those factors include the “language of the customer agreement, the length of the relationship the customer had with the debtor, and the nature and number of withdrawal transactions made by the customer,” Weingarten wrote in an article in the New York Law Journal.

Another alternative is to rely on the bankruptcy code’s protection of certain transactions involving securities — ironic, given the industry’s vehement opposition to that classification.

“While certain regulators have suggested that some crypto assets are, in fact, securities, no court has weighed in on the issue in this context,” Weingarten wrote. “Accordingly, and for other reasons, application of this defence is unsure.”

Aleks Gilbert is DL News’ New York-based DeFi correspondent. You can contact him at aleks@dlnews.com.

熱點：加密貨幣 加密 幣為 律師