In a recent development surrounding the Celsius Network bankruptcy case, Judge Martin Glenn has made a pivotal decision that could shape the future of crypto stakeholders and the broader digital currency landscape. The judge’s ruling, which came to light in a document filed on August 25, has denied the establishment of a separate class of stakeholders for the Celsius Network. This decision has also tactfully avoided addressing the pressing issue of whether the CEL token should be classified as a security.
The push for a distinct stakeholder class
Back in July, Otis Davis, an investor with stakes in the Celsius Network, made a move to approach the United States Bankruptcy Court, situated in the Southern District of New York. Davis’s primary objective was to advocate for a unique legal classification for the investors of the Celsius Network. By doing so, he hoped to set them apart from the company’s vast pool of employees and its extensive customer base.
Davis’s plea didn’t just stop at the classification. He further accentuated the importance of the court recognizing the CEL token as “not a security.” To strengthen his argument, Davis drew parallels with a recent high-profile case involving the SEC and Ripple. According to Davis’s interpretation, the XRP token, which was central to the SEC vs. Ripple case, was not labeled as a security.
However, Judge Glenn, known for his swift decisions, was quick to respond. Just eleven days post the presentation of Davis’s argument on August 14, Judge Glenn dismissed all the motions presented by Davis.
No clear stance on crypto tokens as securities
While Judge Glenn’s decision was clear regarding the separate stakeholder class, he remained cautious and refrained from making any definitive statements about the nature of crypto tokens under federal securities laws. By doing so, he ensured that the path remains unobstructed for entities like the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to challenge crypto transactions on a multitude of grounds in the future.
This move by Judge Glenn can be seen as a strategic one, ensuring that the court does not prematurely set a precedent that could influence future cases involving crypto tokens and their classification under securities laws.
Controversies surrounding CEL’s valuation
The valuation of the CEL token has been a contentious issue, especially in the wake of the Celsius Network’s bankruptcy. The company’s management has proposed a valuation of the CEL token at $0.25. This decision is a part of their broader strategy to fast-track the sale of the token to the crypto consortium known as Fahrenheit. The primary goal behind this move is to ensure a swift return of funds to their creditors. Interestingly, this valuation saw a marginal hike from its previous rate of $0.20, a decision that received Judge Glenn’s endorsement.
However, the waters are muddied by the fact that certain token holders are of the belief that the CEL token should have maintained its value at $0.80, which was its worth when Celsius announced its bankruptcy. Adding to the complexity of the situation are allegations of market manipulation. These allegations have led the court to suggest that even a valuation of zero for the CEL token could be a possibility in the future.
In defense, the company has argued that the trading prices of the CEL token might not be a genuine reflection of its value, especially given the alleged market manipulation in the CEL market.
Conclusion
The Celsius Network bankruptcy case is a testament to the evolving landscape of digital currencies and the legal complexities that come with it. Judge Glenn’s decision not to establish a separate class for stakeholders and his careful avoidance of the CEL token’s security status showcases the cautious approach courts are taking in the face of rapidly changing crypto dynamics. As the case unfolds, it will undoubtedly set precedents and offer insights into how the legal system views and handles crypto assets and their stakeholders.
