‘Wholly Insufficient’ DCG Deal Is Rejected by Genesis Lender Group
Crypto

‘Wholly Insufficient’ DCG Deal Is Rejected by Genesis Lender Group

A group of creditors is opposing the provisional agreement reached between parent company Digital Currency Group (DCG) and collapsed lender Genesis Global Capital (GGC), who described the treatment of more than a billion dollars in outstanding loans in a filing on Tuesday as “wholly insufficient.”Following the fall of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX and the hedge fund Three Arrows Capital, Genesis’ lending division GGC declared bankruptcy in January. Months of negotiations over DCG’s contribution have caused the wind-up to be postponed.

DCG, which is also the parent company of CoinDesk, agreed to a series of partial repayments to settle liabilities of $630 million in unsecured loans due in May 2023 and $1.1 billion due in 2032 as part of an in-principle agreement announced by Genesis on Tuesday.

“DCG’s contribution to the estate in satisfaction of creditor claims is wholly insufficient to satisfy even the uncontested loan amounts due, let alone, the valuable estate claims assertable by creditors against DCG and its directors and officers, including Barry Silbert,” a group of Genesis lenders said in a filing to the Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York.

The lenders objected to DCG and CEO Silbert being exempt from potential legal liability and threatened to obstruct any final bankruptcy agreement that included the plans.The complaint claimed that by accepting the DCG arrangement, Genesis and a formal committee that represents creditors violated their fiduciary obligation to maximize damages.The grouping of ad hoc lenders has not been identified publicly, but according to the petition, they have a total of $2.4 billion in claims against GGC, including the majority of each class of claims brought against the company.Genesis stated in the filing on Tuesday that the agreement might result in recoveries for unsecured creditors of 70% to 90% and noted that “constructive discussions” were still ongoing with the lenders’ grouping.