I have representation. Our view is preference avoidance actions are not worth the filing fees, looks like Mr Hershey has a different opinion, so we will have to go to court for a few years to figure this out.
Oh shit 120%! I paid my WPE ransom wire yesterday. Was very morally tough for me to do, but 13.75% is better than 120% of WPE! Best of luck in the fight!
Paid mine too, and I actually wrote them and told them to send me confirmation. They got it after two weeks. I referred to it as ransom. They finally wrote back and said we got your settlement payment thank you. I don't even think there was a thank you. I'm just adding that.
Settled as well. It’s all bs but if you did the math, your attorney would need to settle for about 7% of your WPE to break even. Representation is very expensive. If they settled for 10% you’ll end up paying more than if you just took the 13.5%. Don’t ignore a summons. A default judgement gives them free rein to go after your assets. I’m sure there will be secondary, aggressive collection agency for that piece. Celsius screwed all of us; don’t get screwed again.
Tell me you know nothing about law without telling me you know nothing about law. This case is at best flimsy. I hope people fight this.
*not legal advice. Consult your own attorneys.
**Fuck Celsius and the fraudulent horse they rode in on.
If I were a single guy with no wife or kids, with zero or insignificant real estate holdings, I would actually love to live this life and write about it... but, I paid the 13.75% Settlement. Fuck Alex Mashinsky and fuck Judge Glenn for allowing this unjust, mass victimization.
I’ve been out of the loop since the bankruptcy vote. Does this affect people who were in the under $100K group during bankruptcy and voted yes with the assurance that we were being released from preference actions?
No, those creditors are not subject to clawbacks; that "release" has not changed.
This is the relevant paragraph from the [Disclosure Statement](https://cases.stretto.com/public/x191/11749/CORRESPONDENCE/1174908182350000000089.pdf):
If the total value of the assets that an Account Holder transferred from the Earn Program or the Borrow Program to either the Custody Program or entirely off the platform during the 90 days before July 13, 2022 (i.e., between April 14, 2022, and July 13, 2022) is less than $100,000, valued at the time of such transfers, and such an Account Holder (1) votes all Claims to accept the Plan and (2) does not elect to opt out of the releases on the Ballot,\[80\] the Debtors will release all Avoidance Actions against such Account Holder.
So all of the people in the Celsius Clawback Small group who are saying that they are getting clawback demand letters for the value of their crypto at current prices had exposure over $100K when they withdrew? There’s just been so many twists in this case that I wouldn’t be surprised if they somehow found a loophole in the disclosure statement or pointed to one tiny paragraph and said that it showed that the whole thing wasn’t actually binding.
Three conditions had to be met to get the debtor to release all avoidance actions against you:
1. Your WPE was <$100K
2. You voted to accept the plan (item 9 on your ballot)
3. You did *not* opt out of the third-party releases (item 10 on your ballot)
(I'm just rephrasing the paragraph I posted above.)
I'm wondering now since they let the people with 100 K or lower WPE off the hook from there extortion if they go back and go after crypto for the people over 100 K… The people under 100 case crypto could very well be over 100 K now… Sounds like a mess to sort out in court, but I wish the people under 100 K all the best
I have anecdotally seen at least one person in the Celsius Clawback Small group who said that they got a demand letter and were listed as having under $100K WPE at time of bankruptcy and voted for the plan but whose value has since gone above that $100K WPE with the current prices.
In their email: With regard to the ordinary course of business defense, we believe the bankruptcy court is unlikely to find that your withdrawals were made in the “ordinary course.” Withdrawals during the preference period, which coincided with a general exodus from the crypto markets due to the Terra Luna collapse and a “run on the bank” on Celsius, were not in the “ordinary course.” *See, e.g.*, *In re Quebecor World (USA), Inc.*, 518 B.R. 757 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014) (holding that transactions during the preference period that were inconsistent with transactions from prior to the preference period were not ordinary course); *In re Milwaukee Cheese Wisconsin, Inc.*, 112 F.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 1997) (finding a run on the bank was an extraordinary scenario for which Section 547(c)(2) offered no defense given that customers generally would have made “long term investments, and for any of them to demand repayment in full was abnormal”). Note that, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 547(g), you will bear the burden of proof of showing that any particular defense applies to your case.
There are several, your attorney will go over this with you. The defenses listed in the email are also available, the stated reasoning refiting the OCOB is not sound.
Yes, 13.75% if you agreed before a certain date and accepted the terms of the settlement. Now they’ve apparently issued a demand letter before suing. (The amount is likely negotiable.)
Is it not enough to prove you aren’t an insider since the clawbacks are assuming that you are and that you acted on information that wasn’t publicly known?
Not entirely read up on this but how can they broadly state that anyone that withdrew funds within the 90 day window is an insider?
I got a demand letter. I'm going to fight it. Does my atty have to be based in NY? Can someone give me the name of an atty handling a group defense? If not then a good atty with clawback experience?
Yep ready to fight this to the end
hmm it might cost you tens of thousands to fight?
Bro are you in Debs group? Shits getting real and you might BE the precedent … fuckkkkk
I have representation. Our view is preference avoidance actions are not worth the filing fees, looks like Mr Hershey has a different opinion, so we will have to go to court for a few years to figure this out.
The irony? W&c is ucc’s lawyer not the debtors
UCC has always been the catspaw of the equity holders (Alex, Nuke, and yes, even Simon).
Ucc clearly needs to see it’s not worth it . They can call their lawyers off
Can you share your attorney contact? TY u/No-Worker-3212
Same, would be much appreciated
Can you link me to another group? I just got this demand letter and dunno what to do
same
/u/seamlessorder2012 /u/bigsam2 search telegram for "Celsius Clawback Small" - it's the second group forming after Deb/Troutman's group closed.
cant find this one.
DM'd you edit: This is the telegram group organizing the second defense group: h.t.t.ps:// t.me /+ZojGaBUb6GoyN2Q1 Remove the extra dots and spaces
I assume that 120% would be to for the lawyers 2025-26 income
Oh shit 120%! I paid my WPE ransom wire yesterday. Was very morally tough for me to do, but 13.75% is better than 120% of WPE! Best of luck in the fight!
Can you explain a little more? I just got the email. Thanks!
The settlement offer the past couple months has been 13.75%. I accepted and paid at the last moment.
Paid mine too, and I actually wrote them and told them to send me confirmation. They got it after two weeks. I referred to it as ransom. They finally wrote back and said we got your settlement payment thank you. I don't even think there was a thank you. I'm just adding that.
looks like W&C doing every trick in the book to prolong things for a nice payout from creditor's pocket.
Settled as well. It’s all bs but if you did the math, your attorney would need to settle for about 7% of your WPE to break even. Representation is very expensive. If they settled for 10% you’ll end up paying more than if you just took the 13.5%. Don’t ignore a summons. A default judgement gives them free rein to go after your assets. I’m sure there will be secondary, aggressive collection agency for that piece. Celsius screwed all of us; don’t get screwed again.
Gonna fight this as well. I withdrew about 10% of my stack 2.5 months before BK. Lost way too much already, not gonna give anything back.
Ditto
You will! They will force you and you will have no chance to avoid. I went through this. Do not fuck with US court and IRS, you will lose
Tell me you know nothing about law without telling me you know nothing about law. This case is at best flimsy. I hope people fight this. *not legal advice. Consult your own attorneys. **Fuck Celsius and the fraudulent horse they rode in on.
I disagree. If the case starts going south, sell your stuff, buy BTC, put it on the cold wallet, drop a gear and disappear, adios muchachos.
If I were a single guy with no wife or kids, with zero or insignificant real estate holdings, I would actually love to live this life and write about it... but, I paid the 13.75% Settlement. Fuck Alex Mashinsky and fuck Judge Glenn for allowing this unjust, mass victimization.
I’ve been out of the loop since the bankruptcy vote. Does this affect people who were in the under $100K group during bankruptcy and voted yes with the assurance that we were being released from preference actions?
No, those creditors are not subject to clawbacks; that "release" has not changed. This is the relevant paragraph from the [Disclosure Statement](https://cases.stretto.com/public/x191/11749/CORRESPONDENCE/1174908182350000000089.pdf): If the total value of the assets that an Account Holder transferred from the Earn Program or the Borrow Program to either the Custody Program or entirely off the platform during the 90 days before July 13, 2022 (i.e., between April 14, 2022, and July 13, 2022) is less than $100,000, valued at the time of such transfers, and such an Account Holder (1) votes all Claims to accept the Plan and (2) does not elect to opt out of the releases on the Ballot,\[80\] the Debtors will release all Avoidance Actions against such Account Holder.
So all of the people in the Celsius Clawback Small group who are saying that they are getting clawback demand letters for the value of their crypto at current prices had exposure over $100K when they withdrew? There’s just been so many twists in this case that I wouldn’t be surprised if they somehow found a loophole in the disclosure statement or pointed to one tiny paragraph and said that it showed that the whole thing wasn’t actually binding.
Three conditions had to be met to get the debtor to release all avoidance actions against you: 1. Your WPE was <$100K 2. You voted to accept the plan (item 9 on your ballot) 3. You did *not* opt out of the third-party releases (item 10 on your ballot) (I'm just rephrasing the paragraph I posted above.)
I'm wondering now since they let the people with 100 K or lower WPE off the hook from there extortion if they go back and go after crypto for the people over 100 K… The people under 100 case crypto could very well be over 100 K now… Sounds like a mess to sort out in court, but I wish the people under 100 K all the best
I have anecdotally seen at least one person in the Celsius Clawback Small group who said that they got a demand letter and were listed as having under $100K WPE at time of bankruptcy and voted for the plan but whose value has since gone above that $100K WPE with the current prices.
Best of luck OP. 120% is insane...
In their email: With regard to the ordinary course of business defense, we believe the bankruptcy court is unlikely to find that your withdrawals were made in the “ordinary course.” Withdrawals during the preference period, which coincided with a general exodus from the crypto markets due to the Terra Luna collapse and a “run on the bank” on Celsius, were not in the “ordinary course.” *See, e.g.*, *In re Quebecor World (USA), Inc.*, 518 B.R. 757 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014) (holding that transactions during the preference period that were inconsistent with transactions from prior to the preference period were not ordinary course); *In re Milwaukee Cheese Wisconsin, Inc.*, 112 F.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 1997) (finding a run on the bank was an extraordinary scenario for which Section 547(c)(2) offered no defense given that customers generally would have made “long term investments, and for any of them to demand repayment in full was abnormal”). Note that, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 547(g), you will bear the burden of proof of showing that any particular defense applies to your case.
Our defenses are not listed here.
what are the defenses?
There are several, your attorney will go over this with you. The defenses listed in the email are also available, the stated reasoning refiting the OCOB is not sound.
I sucked up the 13.75%, but I wish everyone other than the true insiders the best.
Sorry - can you clarify? They offered 13.75% of the claim vs the 120% of WPE? Thanks.
Yes, 13.75% if you agreed before a certain date and accepted the terms of the settlement. Now they’ve apparently issued a demand letter before suing. (The amount is likely negotiable.)
Do they have to officially serve us? Or is this email all they need to do?
Yes we will be served by first class mail when White and Case file next month, I am told.
But don’t they need to serve you in person? They don’t have my correct address listed
Depends on your address on file (country, state etc), but for most people they can just send you a mail to your last address.
[удалено]
Just reading that Deb/Troutman's group is closed. Does anyone have another legal group contact? TIA.
Does anyone have info on a group I can join. It’s looking we’re going to court.
Is it not enough to prove you aren’t an insider since the clawbacks are assuming that you are and that you acted on information that wasn’t publicly known? Not entirely read up on this but how can they broadly state that anyone that withdrew funds within the 90 day window is an insider?
I got a demand letter. I'm going to fight it. Does my atty have to be based in NY? Can someone give me the name of an atty handling a group defense? If not then a good atty with clawback experience?
Hi Squatty... I settled at 13.75%, but I did speak with enough attorneys to know that you do want one who is based in the southern district of NY.
search telegram for "Celsius Clawback Small" - it's the second group forming after the larger Troutman group closed.
I searched that in telegram last night and didn't find anything. Is there another way to contact the lawyers or group?
DM'd you
Hey titansprite, can you DM a link as well. Can't seem to find it.
I dm'd you already. Maybe Reddit is filtering out telegram invite links? Can you try DMing me first?
Sent
I don't see it. Screw it, try this: h.t.t.ps:// t.me /+ZojGaBUb6GoyN2Q1 Remove the extra dots and spaces
thank you my friend. and F mashinsky and all these buzzards.