Celsius’ retail borrowers finally have an answer on who owns the cryptocurrency they deposited into Celsius in exchange for a loan from Celsius – spoiler alert: on November 13, 2023 the bankruptcy court held that Celsius’ terms of service “clearly and unambiguously” gave Celsius ownership of retail borrowers’ cryptocurrency. The bankruptcy court’s decision follows its January 2023 decision which similarly held that the cryptocurrency of Celsius’ “Earn” customers also belonged to Celsius because the terms of service similarly unambiguously granted Celsius title ownership.
The liquidity-fueled lull in restructuring activity provides both an interesting historical echo of the late 1990s and a useful opportunity for market participants to take note of a deceptively interesting opinion in Giuliano ex rel. Consolidated Bedding, Inc. v. L&P Financial Services Co. (In re Consolidated Bedding, Inc.), Case No. 19-50727, 2021 WL 2638594 (Bankr. D. Del. June 25, 2021) (Shannon, J.).
The outbreak of coronavirus COVID-19 represents one of the most significant global public health crises in recent memory and is causing major disruption and unprecedented volatility in markets, economies and businesses. With such great social and economic uncertainty, it is inevitable that existing financial arrangements will be affected and asset-based lenders (ABLs) are not immune to this. They are, however, uniquely positioned – given the flexibility of the products they offer – to react to the ever-changing economic landscape.
The outbreak of coronavirus COVID-19 represents one of the most significant global public health crises in recent memory and is causing major disruption and unprecedented volatility in markets, economies and businesses. With such great social and economic uncertainty, it is inevitable that existing financial arrangements will be affected and asset-based lenders (ABLs) are not immune to this. They are, however, uniquely positioned – given the flexibility of the products they offer – to react to the ever-changing economic landscape.
In early November, the Ninth Circuit held in In re New Investments, Inc. that a debtor was required to “cure” defaults to an agreement using a post-default interest rate, overturning its prior, decades-old decision In re Entz-White Lumber & Supply, Inc., which had held that a debtor could cure agreements at pre-default interest rates.
Background
Creditors seeking to file an involuntary petition against a debtor may want to consider doing their due diligence before using it as a tool in their ongoing disputes with a debtor.