#تحليل_العملات_الرقمية #اقتصاد_لا_مركزي #تداول_العملات_المشفرة @Binance Burmese @everyone @follower #WCT #Binance #Crypto #BNB #Bitcoin #Altcoins $AAPL.US
Chainalysis managed to get most of the lawsuits filed against it dismissed by the court-appointed referee in the Celsius Network case, but a U.S. judge allowed to continue a lawsuit related to alleged assistance in breaching fiduciary duties, which is tied to a disputed $3.3 billion “audit” conducted by Celsius in 2020.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued its ruling on September 29, finding that the first lawsuit in the case was sufficiently drafted to proceed, while rejecting 15 consumer protection claims brought against a blockchain analytics company.
12 of these lawsuits were definitively dismissed, meaning they cannot be refiled in their current form, while three other lawsuits were allowed to be amended by October 20.
Judge Margaret Garnett emphasized that the decision was issued at the stage of reviewing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, a stage at which the court must assume the truth of the complaint’s allegations that meet the required conditions. Therefore, the ruling does not prove that Chainalysis actually committed the actions Celsius alleges.
Why did the $3.3 billion “audit” claim continue?
The remaining lawsuit accuses Chainalysis of aiding and abetting alleged violations of fiduciary duties committed by Celsius executives.
Blockchain Recovery Investment Consortium (BRIC), which acts as litigation manager on behalf of the collapsed Celsius, is pursuing this lawsuit on behalf of the troubled lender.
The court said the complaint presented sufficient allegations that Chainalysis knew that a press release issued in December 2020 contained false information about the assets under Celsius’s management, and that the company participated actively in disseminating this information.
Among the allegations the court considered was that Chainalysis helped draft the press release and knew that the calculation used was not an actual “audit” or independent verification.
The complaint alleges that the company agreed to use the word “audit” five times in the press release.
Garnett said these allegations go beyond merely having Chainalysis play the role of a bystander while Celsius carried out its actions, noting that, at this stage, the complaint had provided essentially sufficient grounds to allege the company’s knowledge of the matter and its provision of “substantial assistance,” supporting a claim for aiding and abetting.
For its part, Chainalysis objected to these allegations in its motion to dismiss and sought to have the entire case dismissed.
Celsius initially calculated only $1.18 billion using Reactor
The case focuses on how Celsius arrived at the number it announced at the end of 2020.
According to the complaint summarized by the court order, the Celsius executive Timothy Cradle used the Chainalysis Reactor program on November 2, 2020, and initially calculated the assets under the company’s management at about $1.177 billion.
The complaint alleges that Celsius officials later changed the calculation methodology, including by including the claimed value of Celsius’s holdings of CEL, bringing the figure to about $3.3 billion.
At the stage of reviewing the motion to dismiss, the court treated these facts as allegations contained in the complaint, not established results.
On December 9, 2020, Celsius announced the completion of what it described as an “audit” confirming the company owned assets valued at $3,318,368,196.40, using Chainalysis Reactor.
The press release described the work as the first third-party verification of Celsius assets, and said the calculation was based on transactions, deposits, and withdrawals since the platform launched in June 2018.
As reported by Jason Bonds, the executive officer at Chainalysis, the company helped verify the “process and accuracy” of the information related to the net funds Celsius collected.
The current complaint alleges that this description was materially misleading.
The original press release remains publicly available and the use of terms such as “audit,” “independent verification,” and “third-party verification” forms a core part of the claim that the court allowed to continue.
Chainalysis succeeds in definitively dismissing 12 lawsuits
While the first lawsuit continued, Chainalysis managed to dismiss most of the other parts of the complaint.
The court definitively dismissed claims numbered 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15.
These lawsuits were based on a set of consumer protection and anti-deceptive practices laws in a number of U.S. states.
Some lawsuits failed because the consumer protection laws in question do not legally allow these claims to be assigned to the person responsible for the litigation. Other lawsuits were also rejected due to procedural requirements, the statute of limitations on claims, or limitations contained in consumer protection laws in some states.
A lawsuit in California also failed after the court found that California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act does not cover the type of digital-currency services addressed by the complaint.
As for claims numbered 5, 13, and 16, they were dismissed without prejudice, meaning they may be amended and refiled.
The court found that the complaint did not identify specific consumers in the states involved who properly assigned their claims and suffered the alleged damages.
BRIC may attempt to correct these three lawsuits. The court order requires an amended complaint to be filed by October 20, or a letter sent on the same date in which the plaintiffs confirm that they do not intend to amend it.
Chainalysis was unable to stop the main lawsuit brought by the estate
Chainalysis presented another argument against the remaining claim related to fiduciary duties, saying that Celsius itself participated in and benefited from the disputed conduct.
The company relied on a legal principle known as in pari delicto, which generally provides that a party cannot seek damages for unlawful acts in which it itself participated.
Chainalysis said that BRIC effectively replaces Celsius in the lawsuit, and therefore it should be barred from pursuing the claim.
Garnett acknowledged that Chainalysis presented a strong argument that Celsius may have obtained short-term benefits with CEL’s rising price and an increase in the number of customers.
But the court said that at this stage it must accept the complaint’s allegation that Celsius officials acted entirely for their own personal interest.
Because this factual matter cannot be resolved based on the complaint alone, the judge rejected the request to dismiss the first lawsuit on that basis.
The ruling does not determine whether BRIC will ultimately be able to prove the allegations. Chainalysis still has the possibility to continue challenging liability as the case moves to the next stages of litigation.
Celsius estate continues efforts to recover funds
The Chainalysis case falls within broader efforts to recover creditors’ funds after Celsius collapsed in 2022.
BRIC said it filed a Chainalysis lawsuit in March 2025 regarding blockchain audit services and the public data related to Celsius.
Chainalysis filed its motion to dismiss the lawsuit in May 2025, and the filings related to the motion were completed in July of the same year.
The estate continued pursuing other parties. In September, Celsius filed a separate lawsuit seeking about 6,360 Bitcoins from entities connected to the BitMEX platform, following liquidations carried out in March 2020. The value of the coins was estimated at about $495 million at the time the lawsuit was filed.
The allegations in Celsius’s lawsuit against BitMEX, valued at about $495 million, remain unproven.
In a separate track from these cases, the distribution of funds to creditors continued. In August 2025, Celsius began a third distribution of $220.6 million to creditors, bringing the total announced recovery rate at that time to 64.9% of eligible claims.
Legal cases involving former Celsius executives also continued. This year, co-founders Shlomi Daniel Leonohanoch “Nok” Goldstein agreed to jointly pay $6.5 million to settle claims by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
In a separate case, Alex Mashinsky faces a 12-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to charges related to fraud in commodities and securities.
The Federal Trade Commission’s settlements with Celsius founders were separate from the civil lawsuit BRIC filed against Chainalysis.
20 October.. The next date in the Chainalysis case
In the Chainalysis case, the next scheduled date is October 20, when BRIC must either file amendments to the three dismissed consumer lawsuits without prejudice, or notify Judge Garnett that it will not make amendments.$JST $LTC