A New York bankruptcy court gave Celsius the green light to continue most of its $ 4 billion trial against the stable issuer, according to a recent legal file.
The bankrupt crypto lender brought an action against Tether last year, alleging that Tether was poorly liquidated nearly 40,000 bitcoins – worth more than $ 4.3 billion at today’s prices – which he held as a loan guarantee in June 2022, shortly before Celsius stopped withdrawals. In their costume, the lawyers of Celsius argued that Tether did not give Celsius enough time to satisfy his warranty requests, which, according to them, had “enough bitcoin on his balance sheet” to do so “since Celsius had instituted a” break “on the withdrawals of customers … resulting in the retention and a significant amount of bitcoin.”
“If Celsius had had the possibility of meeting the collateral demand – which he had a contractual right to do – he could have avoided the arrangement of his bitcoin at the bottom of the cryptocurrency market,” wrote the lawyers of Celsius. “Instead, this provision was carried out for the benefit of a single creditor: Tether.”
At the time, the prosecution was filed, attached to the fight, calling the “baseless” costume and a “seizure of shameless money” in a press release. Tether said that Celsius managers led the liquidation of his BTC warranty held by Tether in “in order to close his position of approximately 815 million USDT” to the company.
Read more: Attach the dispute of $ 3.3 billion “in Shakedown” Celsius
“Rather than recognizing the clear validity of the agreement concluded from years before Celsius’ bankruptcy, this trial aims to impose the costs of poor management and the failure of Celsius,” said the statement of the company.
However, the judge supervising the case disagreed with Tether, arguing in his Monday prescription that the fraud of Celsius de Celsius, “ oral granting, was sentenced to the allocation of the award of Celsiu Contract, verbal authorization or not.
In his ordinance of June 30, the chief judge of bankruptcy Martin Glenn of the South New York district (Sdny) Admittedly, threw a single chief of the modified complaint, the chief of 4, who alleged that Tether had violated the “Covenant of Good Fair Derafing” under the law of the British Virgin Islands. For this chief, Glenn decided to reject it without prejudice, giving lawyers of Celsius the possibility of modifying it with “sufficient facts to recover in the requirements of the BVI law”.
