IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
In re: FTX TRADING LTD., et al. : Chapter 11
:
Debtors. : Case No. 22-11068 (KBO)
: (Bankr. D. Del.)
:
:
__________________________________________________________________
:
MOHSIN Y. MEGHJI, AS LITIGATION :
ADMINISTRATOR FOR CELSIUS :
NETWORK LLC AND ITS AFFILIATED :
DEBTORS, et al., :
:
Appellants : Civ. No. 25-002 (TLA)
v. :
:
FTX RECOVERY TRUST, :
:
:
Appellee. :
__________________________________________________________________
OPINION AND ORDER
This case presents an appeal of the order of the Bankruptcy Court disallowing proofs
of claim (POCs) by Appellants (Celsius). DI 28891, Case No. 22-11068 (KBO) (Bankr. D.
Del. Dec. 18, 2024).
The Bankruptcy Court found that the single sentence in the Original POCs stating
that Celsius was investigating possible avoidance actions was not sufficient to put the
Debtors or the Court on notice of the existence or nature of the alleged Preference
Claims. Because the Original POCs failed to properly assert the Preference Claims, the
Bankruptcy Court held that Celsius’ attempt to assert them by its Amended POCs failed as
a matter of law. See generally id.
This Court has jurisdiction over the final orders of a bankruptcy court. 28 U.S.C.
§ 158(a)(1). A bankruptcy court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error and its legal
conclusions reviewed de novo. In re Nortel Networks Inc., 737 F.3d 265, 270 n.1 (3d Cir.
2013).
Upon review, this Court identifies no reason to disturb the Bankruptcy Court’s
findings of fact and conclusions of law. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the
comprehensive, careful, and well-reasoned opinion of the Bankruptcy Court:
IT IS ORDERED that the order of the Bankruptcy Court is summarily
AFFIRMED.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
Wilmington, Delaware, this 22nd day of August, 2025.
/s/ Thomas L. Ambro
United States Circuit Judge
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.