Voyager creditor files Motion for Chapter 11 trustee

A Voyager creditor — Michelle D. DiVita — filed a motion to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee in the Voyager Digital Holdings, Inc., et al. bankruptcy case, according to court filings.

In DiVita’s preliminary statement, she stated the debtors have a “history of financial statement inaccuracies and public misrepresentations.”

“Despite its pre-petition conduct, no party requested an appointment of an independent examiner. As such, Debtors self-appointed a committee for its investigation.”

Creditors are “stuck with dollarized claims bearing the brunt of the market downsides and capped on the upside,” DiVita stated.

“Interested of unsecured creditors have been […] eroded under Debtors continued management and a trustee is the most cost-efficient way to bring this case to an equitable end.

FTX, Alameda failed transaction

The debtors’ new plan proposed “the same broad-releasing releases” — despite the previous plan which lead to creditors losing $100 million due to the failed FTX/Alameda transaction, according to DiVita’s preliminary statement.

“The failed plan gave a state agency enough time to find the basis for three (3) claims for securities fraud totaling $40 billion each.”

Despite the $40 billion in securities fraud claims, “the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors Committee continues to support the plan,” DiVita stated.

The 3AC loan

The Master Loan Agreement dated March 4, 2022 between Voyager Digital, LLC and Three Arrows Capital Ltd. (3AC) is central to the Voyager bankruptcy, according to the filing.

“With the 3AC Loan in the spotlight, investigative findings also centered on the 3AC Loan. The Debtor-appointed Special Committee solely found insider culpability arising from the 3AC Loan.”

Prior to discussions with 3AC, on Jan. 7, 2022, debtors modified the Customer Agreement “to shift the risk of its lending activity directly customers,” according to the filing.

“The change removed any independence or controls between the Debtors’ lending activity (and resulting borrower risk) from customer’s cryptocurrency deposits.”