2023年1月10日

嵌入,代碼複製並粘貼到你的網站或者博客:< iframe幀邊緣= = " 620 "滾動=“1”高度src = " / /www.jdsupra.com/post/contentViewerEmbed.aspx?“汽車”fid = 967 ae42c d2c0 - 4 c6d - 88 - fd - 8003 b893f063”風格= "邊境:2 px固體# ccc;overflow-x:隱藏!重要;溢出:隱藏;“寬度= " 100% " > < / iframe > Cryptocurrency攝氏度的收入賬戶屬於破產財產,而不是把它的儲戶,1月4日備忘錄意見顯示美國破產法庭法官馬丁•格倫在紐約南區。決定是一個打擊個人客戶存放加密資產約600000“收入”賬戶(“收入賬戶”)由攝氏網絡有限公司及其子公司(以下簡稱“債務人”)。前不久攝氏債務人申請破產在2022年7月,收入賬戶包含加密價值約42億美元。債務人提前獲得賬戶的凍結提款申請,和破產保持防止提款申請後。現在,收入賬戶的顧客希望的全部返回cryptocurrency剩下持有一般無擔保索賠和可能麵臨虧大了。達到他的決定,法官Glenn蒸餾成一個合同的法律問題。他認為支配收入賬戶的使用條款是一個有效的、有約束力的合同和攝氏債務人之間的收入賬戶持有人。此外,這些使用條款”明確轉移標題和賺取的資產存入帳戶的所有權從債務人賬戶持有人。“看到看來,摘要1822 p。30。 Depositors who placed crypto into the accounts were asked to agree to terms of service. The Celsius Debtors had eight versions of these terms, and uncontroverted evidence showed that 99% of Earn Account holders accepted version six or a later version. The latest version of the terms of service stated that, in exchange for certain payable rewards, depositors “grant Celsius . . . all right and title to such Eligible Digital Assets, including ownership rights . . . .” The agreement continued: In the event that Celsius becomes bankrupt, enters liquidation or is otherwise unable to repay its obligations, any Eligible Digital Assets used in the Earn Service or as collateral under the Borrow Service may not be recoverable, and you may not have any legal remedies or rights in connection with Celsius’ obligations to you other than your rights as a creditor of Celsius under any applicable laws. See Opinion at 10-11. This provision and similar language proved determinative for Judge Glenn. He found that the contracts and the later modifications to those contracts were enforceable under New York law. See Opinion at 27 (citing Whit v. Prosper Funding LLC, No. 15-00136 (GHW), 2015 WL 4254062, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2015) (“In New York, clickwrap agreements are valid and enforceable contracts.”). Moreover, because this language was unambiguous, it must operate to do what it says it does – namely transfer ownership of deposited assets from the depositors to Celsius. Notably, Judge Glenn stated that Wednesday’s ruling does not determine the underlying ownership of other Celsius depository programs, such as the Custody Program, Withhold Program, or Borrow Program. Additionally, he noted that depositors who have been deprived of their crypto ownership may have various defenses or breach of contract claims against the estate. He concluded: “The Court does not take lightly the consequences of this decision on ordinary individuals, many of whom deposited significant savings into the Celsius platform.” This may be the beginning of a series of important rulings in the Celsius cases. Judge Glenn will next preside over a second phase of litigation, where the bankruptcy court will consider an expanded set of issues such as preference claims involving customers who withdrew assets within the 90-day period prior to the bankruptcy. Judge Glenn’s opinion may also serve as a milestone as judges confront thorny questions about who owns digital assets at stake across the industry. Wednesday’s decision has already had an impact on the administration of the Celsius case. Judge Glenn included a holding that the Celsius Debtors could sell certain crypto assets to raise liquidity, since those assets were found to be property of the estate. Further, on Friday, January 6, Judge Glenn denied a series of motions by Earn Account customers seeking to be designated as secured creditors – instead finding that they are unsecured creditors consistent with his Wednesday, January 4, opinion.