American court hearing recordings and interviews - Season 6. Episode 29. August 4, 2025. In re BlockFi Inc. et al., chapter 11 bankruptcy case no. 2022-19361, audio of hearing held in the BlockFi bankruptcy proceedings filed in NJ, USA #crypto

Episode Date: August 5, 2025

--

Okay, good morning everyone. This is Judge Kaplan and we will be hearing the block-fi matter involving Mr. Van Tubergen. Your Honor, I at least cannot hear you. Try it again. Can you all hear me? Yes, Your Honor. All right, and I can hear you all. So it's a plus. You never know Monday mornings. All right. We'll be hearing this morning's Block 5 matter regarding Mr. Van Tuber here. And this is on remand from the district court relative to one issue as to allegations surrounding certain missing Eiff. I've read and I've received and I've read both the underlying motion that was filed on behalf of the Windown administrator,

whinedown debtor, in effect seeking an adjudication of the merits of this issue and also alternatively estimating the claim. I've reviewed the two certifications that have been submitted on behalf of the claimant. And then there was a response by the Windown debtor. So having read all the submissions, I'm going to look for oral argument on the next step, which would be a continuation of the written arguments. So I would turn first actually to Mr. Magalie. on behalf of his client, if he wishes the opportunity to respond to the wind-down debtor's reply. If you want to add anything that's not in your papers or otherwise respond,

and then, of course, Mr. Alette would let you address any issues. But before we go there, are there any procedural issues the parties want to address on today's hearing? Not from the Wind Down debtors, Your Honor. So let me start off correctly, as if you're all in court. Let me just have appearances. For the Wind Down Debtor. Good morning, Your Honor. Kenneth Ollette of Brown Rudnick for the Wind Down debtors.

All right. Now, for the claimant. Good morning, Your Honor. Good morning, Ken. Joe Magal Hayes, Eckert Siemens on behalf of claimant John, Ventubergen. And already, I'm going to start with an apology because I, mispronounced your name, Mr. Tupington. Give you a hard G, but I'll get it right eventually.

All right. Counsel, then let's follow suit in the manner I suggested. Let me hear on behalf of the claimant. Thank you, Your Honor. So I knew I was up against quality lawyers in this case, Your Honor. So I was not surprised to find some arguments in the reply that do force me to address them. And I want to start with integration clause because, you know, it's a tricky argument, naturally. And where I featured in my papers, it was in a particular context, and it was in a context of honing in on just the numerosity of the EF.

And I made the argument, Judge, that if you did a strict application of the integration clause in a manner in which, respectfully, we view the court as having done a very strict application of particular aspects of language of the LSAs, then that is how we would see the argument shaping up, meaning if you took the integration clause and you superimposed it over this dispute, over the numerosity of the ETH, then we believe the best evidence is the LSA. We would construe the emails as not trumping the LSA, not being related documents for purposes of, you know, It's not like it's an index or a schedule that would modify that term,

and therefore, on the issue of the numerosity of the disputed East, Mr. Van Tubergen would be entitled to prevail. Really, though, Judge, for us, that was a worst-case scenario application, strict application of the integration clause. Our default position, I think we've made it clear throughout, Judge, is that we want all relevant and material evidence to be, included and considered. You know, light is the great disinfectant. I think we've been through enough ages of enlightenment to know that less information is never a good thing. And thus, that's

our default position. We were, we noted that the district court cited the integration clause, judge. Previously, the parties in the court had not made a big deal about it. So I had to confront it. I tried to confront the nightmare scenario of a strict application. That's, that's I said, but additionally I would say to me whether something's a related document is not synonymous or within the necessarily the ambit of whether it's admissible parole evidence. So that's the other thing I'd say because really where all this is leading is naturally for the court to have a full flavor of what's going on, it should look to the emails. We made the related points that the emails in the subject line state,

reinstatement proposal. And I just want to get to that and essentially that in a moment. But the point of integration clauses, Your Honor, is to uphold the integrity of contracts, not to result in a perversion thereof. And therefore, if an integration clause argument was taken to mean that everything should be excluded,

you could only look at the four corners. That, I think, would result in manifest injustice, given what we know about the underlying purpose of the contract. And so without getting too academic, Judge, and I don't want to ramble here, if there is to be a strict application of integration clause, we believe it would be isolated to the numerosity issue and result in just a knockout of anything but what the LSA itself says. But otherwise, our default position is,

in the interest of justice, consider everything relevant and material, and in no way could the reinstatement aspect of the loan be disregarded as that goes to the central purpose and genesis of the loan in question and therefore a manifest injustice would result that's contrary to the point of integration clauses in the first instance uphold integrity and the other thing I would just accentuate judges and I know opposing counsel is excellent they're going to make the best arguments for their client we don't want anything to get lost in terms of the fact that, yes, a sophistication of ruling has been made against Mr. Mantuburgeon, but he's still, relatively speaking, a common joke, and he was a customer. And we believe that there's a lot of surrounding evidence as to block fly. This is nothing to do with their bankruptcy professionals.

as recently as when Ken and I got off the phone on Friday, he was still trying to extend, you know, accommodations, let's say, being gentlemen, this is no aspersions against their professionals. But the entity itself, we believe, was doing a lot of simply stated shady things. That they're out there, they're in the public domain. Your Honor knows this entity as well as virtually anybody. And we believe that all those surrounding circumstances, including their connection with other cryptocurrency giants,

force them to be a little bit too eager to pull the lever on loans of individuals like Mr. Van Tubergen. And so, again, again, being faced with rhetoric, if I may call it that, as to Mr. Van Tubergen being, you know, sophisticated or willing to engage in these high-risk loans, we don't want to forget the context that he still was an ordinary citizen. And we don't believe that what transpired is really his fault. And then also, as to the handbook, Judge, my client does fiercely believe that if that had been, you know, presented as part of the debtor's lending documents, as my client fiercely believes they should have, that would have colored this entire matter differently and may have resulted. a different result in the first instance, but we're not trying to re-argue.

As we introduce it, Judge, we see it as relevant in connection with our proposed third finding, which is that there was consequential damage as a result of the missing Eath not been there. And so if Your Honor agrees that the additional ETH should have been there, then we have to recreate what follows. And as we showed previously for Your Honor, in connection with the collateral loss breakdown chart, per our information, and I don't want to make today about the Gemini data, that's not what today is about, Judge, but using the Gemini data, we thought the one liquidation was not even authorized.

And so now, whatever the sum that Your Honor rules should have been put in by BlockFi, That has a downstream effect, and we have to capture that. And in capturing that, Your Honor, we think we should look at it with fresh eyes utilizing this expanded record, which includes the handbook, and also includes some additional consideration of specifically the type of discretion that BlockFi was allowed to employ. Because most respectfully, Judge, as we read the court's findings as to discretion previously, To us, it seemed almost this unbounded discretion. And so part of the additional material that was included in Mr. Van Tubergen's most recent certification

and in the submission, it just meant to speak to this issue of it was not unbounded. And once we factor in that additional ETH should have been deposited, reinstated, then things would have looked even further different. And lastly, Your Honor, to me, the most consequential procedural aspect here is the district court surmising that it is indeed a reaffirmation transaction. To me, with that, we can then go back to Your Honor's initial finding that Mr. Van Tubergen's math in terms of his assessment of the the financial structure of the subject LSA, that it made sense. Well, if we connect those to, Judge, to me, I think that results in a finding in favor of Mr. Van Tuberjee.

So those are my points at this moment now. All right. Before I turn to Mr. Olet, does counsel agree on the choice of law? In other words, what the court is being asked to do is interpret. several agreements. Do we agree on which law applies, Delaware, New York, New Jersey? Let me turn to you, Mr. Magaliz. What law am I applying? Well, I know in some respects it's Michigan law, judge. My recollection in other block-fine matters that we were applying

Delaware law as far as some of the account agreements. But before we leave the call, I want to get a sense on what, to the extent it makes it different, that it may not make a difference as far as contract law interpretation. Judge, I don't mean Vicoe, obviously like Ken speak. On that, it may be too consequential an issue. And on that, I would potentially request us. supplemental briefing, but I want to get ahead of myself. This podcast is sponsored by Talkspace.

You know when you're really stressed or not feeling so great about your life or about yourself, talking to someone who understands can really help. But who is that person? How do you find them? Where do you even start? Talkspace. Talkspace makes it easy to get the support you need. With Talkspace, you can go online, answer a few questions about your preferences,

and be matched with a therapist. And because you'll meet your therapist online, you don't have to take time off work or arrange child care. You'll meet on your schedule, wherever you feel most at ease. If you're depressed, stressed, struggling with the relationship, or if you want some counseling for you and your partner, or just need a little extra one-on-one support. Talkspace is here for you.

Plus, Talkspace works with most major insurers, and most insured members have a $0 co-pay. No insurance? No problem. Now, get $80 off of your first month with promo code Space 80 when you go to Talkspace.com. Match with a licensed therapist today at Talkspace.com. Save $80. with code space 80 at talkspace.com.

All right. Well, let me hear from Mr. Allette. Thank you. Thank you, counsel. Mr. Allat. Your Honor, the E43 LSA, which I think is the key LSA, and this states that the laws of the state of residence of the borrower will govern, but the agreement will be governed by federal law.

So, you know, I don't dispute that. Michigan law. So it is Michigan law? Yes. All right. Then Mr. Allent, let me have you respond, supplement your reply in any fashion. Sure. Thank you, Your Honor. Kenneth Allette, for the plan administrator for the record. Your Honor, our objection said that Mr. Van Tubergen had two paths, and neither of them led to him winning, and that he had to assess. And that he had to essentially pick one. In his response, he did pick one. And I, you know, I went back and looked, and both Mr. Ventuberan's certification and his opposition are very clear that they are seeking to exclude the emails in their entirety. And I quote on paragraph 19, the subject LSA's

integration clause, Section 5A for thereof, should be given effect. preclude the introduction of outside materials, in this case emails. So look, I mean, the beatings say what they say, and I think that Mr. Magalise's comments are an acceptance that if the E-43 LSA is the only document and the integration clause applies, there is nothing in there that gives Mr. Van Tubergen any entitlement. Section 5 of the LSA is very clear that it is from the borrower to deliver the collateral. There is no obligation in the LSA for BlockFi to deliver the collateral. There is no statement in the LSA saying that the collateral has been delivered.

The LSA is drafted in such a way that it can be signed and then the collateral deposited. a buyer could, or a borrower could default by simply failing to deposit the necessary collateral. So under the LSA, giving effect to the integration clause, Mr. Van Tupican loses because the ETH was never posted. It doesn't even matter why the 4,230 is there because it's just not an obligation of block by. I understand the comments to be that we are shifting back to looking at, you know, we're what I'm going to call the June emails.

And here, look, you will hear from Mr. Magliz's comments and from the filings, it is clear that there is only one thing that they want this court to focus on, and that is the subject line of the email, because the terms of the email are very, very clear on what BlockFi is proposing. Remember, this court and the district court have already ruled that Mr. Van Tubergen's

claims that the previous liquidations were wrongful are without merit. And I'm going to just disregard a surprisingly large amount of leading that goes to that and simply focus on the issues here today. The agreement that Block 5 proposed was not a, was quite simply, we will lend you the money to borrow the ETH that was liquidated. It was not an admission of guilt. It was not an admission that there was anything wrong with it, but that Mr. Van Tubergen really wanted to have that particular exposure. And BlockFi could provide what it called a one-time accommodation to give him that economic exposure, but it was very, very risky. And Block Fy goes into detail about why it's risky because Mr. Van Tubergen is going to have a loan that

when you apply how the structure works, which is nobody's giving Mr. Van Tupin anything. He is borrowing the money to go out and buy that year. And so the loan is going to be originated at a very risky level, close to liquidation. At the time that if the email was sent, it would have been 79%. I think we say in our response that as it was eventually originated, it was about 76%. both very risky. But let's go back to, you know, essentially the district court's view of the world, which was, does Mr. Van Tubergen have a claim because the June email says that he is supposed to, that Block FI is offering to purchase 1,584, but only purchased 1,320E?

Does Mr. Van Tubergen have a claim for that missing 26040? And the answer is no. And Mr. Van Tubergen essentially admits that. But the reason is because nobody was offering to give Mr. Van Tubergan in. This was not a settlement in the email where Block Fai was offering to pay Mr. Van Tupren money to give him any sort of cryptocurrency. it was offering him a new loan product. And so had Mr. Van Tubergen borrowed the 1,584, he would have needed,

had he bought that amount, he would have needed to borrow it. And in his certification on page 11, he admits this. He says, however, only 1,320Eth was purchased, and only the purchase price of this amount was added to the loan balance. Had Block 5 purchased $1,584 instead, his loan balance would have been higher. Because when you add the same amount to the loan and the collateral, the loan to value rises slightly. For example, if you borrow $2, if you borrow a dollar against $2 of collateral, and then you add a dollar that's a loan to value of 50%.

You add a dollar to the loan, you add a dollar to the collateral, you have $2 of loans against $3 a collateral or 67%. So at the end of the day, as we set forth in our opening argument and didn't reiterate in our reply because Mr. Van Tubergen pled the integration clause, unfortunately the agreement on when and how much to purchase does not appear to have been done by email. Mr. Van Tubergen does not testify in any credible way as to what happened. We don't have a document to show you. But even if BlockFi was supposed to purchase more ETH, it was supposed to charge him more money. And so his damages under that theory are zero.

I'm going to go finally to what I said about Mr. Van Turing. Let me just stop you for a second. Mr. Oliver, hold on that. The email, the June 29th email from Blockfly, which was confirmed in the June 30th email, references the purchase of 1565.24, and that's where the district court looked, I think, that's where we come up with a 245-E difference

as opposed to 265. Where is the larger number, the 1584 number, come from that you just referenced? I'm sorry. I meant the 1565. Okay. I got my numbers, wrong. Apologies.

I do see it in your reply. There's another reference in paragraph 69 for it. It says 1584. Lockfire originally offered to purchase 1584, eighth. We're talking about 20 or so east. I'm just curious to where, I was trying to find where those numbers were coming from. I didn't see it in the email. There's a Ventubriville, smiling, he seems to know.

I apologize, Your Honor. That is likely an error on my part. Okay. So, but the emails clearly say 1565. Yes. Point 2442. All right, let me continue by interrupt you. So what I said about Mr. Van Tubergen, his certification appears to argue that notwithstanding the June 29th and June 30th emails, that at some point between then and the LSA, BlockFi agreed that it would actually purchase, it would purchase enough to bring them up to 4,230.

And that is just not credible. First of all, because that's not consistent with the structure of the deal laid out in the email. He would have had to borrow far, far more than he did in order for BlockFi to purchase that under this structure. So it would need to be BlockFi was giving him a very large amount of cryptocurrency for free, essentially. And there, he consistently pleads that the entire reason for this was a quote-unquote, reinstatement transaction, what we refer to as the A5 LSA. And the A5 LSA is attached to his original objection or his original response as Exhibit B.

And if you look at that, the A5 loan has a collateral of 3,04070. There is, the record shows that he later pledged about five, a little over 500, I think less than 600, ETH to try and meet the margin call on the A5 loan, but was not in time. That's where you get the total of 3,580, referred to in the June 29 email. At no point did Mr. Van Tubergen ever have 4,230. on the system. To reinstate his loan, if Block Fri had actually said, you know what, we're wrong, we should give you your collateral back, 4,230 has nothing to do with that amount. And so Mr. Van Tuprin's testimony that somebody agreed to this with no documentation whatsoever, he's just

not credible. So at the end of the day, there's only two paths. There's the path where the integration clause is enforced and the E-43 loan says what it says, and what it says is that Mr. Van Tubergen is responsible for posting the collateral. He didn't post 4,230. He's not entitled to any collateral that he didn't post. Block V did choose to purchase and contribute that collateral and loan him the money to do so, But the E-43 LSA has the standard clause that says, if we choose to waive some of our rights under this agreement, that waiver is limited to what we actually did. Under the other path, we look to the actual email that Mr. Maglady's today wants to focus on as Blockby's offer. And that's fine, too.

And there, as we laid out in our opening papers, it's very clear that he just said, does not have a claim. It would be great if we had the email where he confirmed that he wanted a lower amount, but the email on the 30th says that he will identify both a safe purchase price and a safe amount. And the structure of the loan, and Mr. Van Tubergen admits this, Blockev I borrowed or bought 1,320th, and charged him for that amount. Had they bought more, They would have charged him for it, and he, and so there is no damage because the only effect would have been he would hit that liquidation point just a little bit earlier. There's only a couple other points going to damages, Your Honor, as I expect you to expect,

we don't believe that you need to go to damages, but should you, Section 502 is unambiguous. If Mr. Van Tubergen has a claim for missing Eith, it is valued as of the petition date, just like every other claimant in this bankruptcy. He attached the, quote, the BIA claim form and said, well, I'm not a BIA creditor. The loan claim form has the same amount because it's not about the type of claim. It's about are you an unsecured creditor? He is an unsecured creditor. Any claim would be valued at the petition date.

We've all done it. Stock our fridge with good intentions, only to sacrifice nutrition for convenience. Keep your body and mind nourished with whole-body meal shakes from Kachava. It's got 25 grams of protein, 6 grams of fiber, greens, and so much more. But it actually tastes delicious. Try one of Kachava's indulgent flavors today. Shop now through December 2nd to get 30% off your first purchase of two or more bags. go to kachava.com and use code news. That's k-a-k-h-a-v-com, code news. The consequential damages are, look, frankly, his theory on this is incomprehensible. It appears to be that he pleads every single liquidation after this point is the damages from this loan.

But number one, he's already lost on all of those. that his argument that all those aren't proper. Number two, there's not a claim for that in the claim form. And number three, well, you know, he explicitly waives that in the June 29th email, where he agrees block five shall not be liable for any damages or any loss caused as a result of this transaction. You know, at the end of the day, Mr. Van Tuberin had one discrete issue remanded back from the district court. He filed a claim for

$10 million on a whole panoply of claims. He's gotten one chance to re-queath this issue, which has a maximum value of about $1,000 and $44,000. He's tried to make that into $7.5 million, which is, you know, spending again a half of his pleading, re-litigating the issues that he already lost. Last, there is a sort of throwaway request for a reserve to be set. I think this is, it's just not proper at this time. Once the court issues are ruling on this, if a reserve would be appropriate, Mr. Maglis can file a motion either seeking a stay of the order

or seeking a reserve to be set. He doesn't provide a dollar amount or basis for the reserve. there's nothing really the wind-down debtors can respond to on that point. All right. I have a quick question or two, Mr. All right. So I'm looking at E-43, the LSA, and nobody seems to contest that the amount of the loan, the restructured loan, is $5,982,830, and $21 sets. And my understanding is that that's comprised of the balance that was owed at the time of $2,759,717.

And then new credit of $3,169,112, which, and I'll ask Mr. O'Lade of you confirm, to me seems to be 1,120 east at roughly $2,100,000. dollars per ETH. My question is what was the basis for BlockFi to extend the 3,169,116.

How is that number reached? Was there an agreement to buy a certain amount of ETH? And then whatever that is, that's going to be the new loan? Or was there an agreement on the loan amount and will purchase as much ETH

until we hit that loan amount, the $3 million, the new additional amount. In other words, is there anything in the record or anything you can point to that tells me how the $3,169 figure was reached? Because obviously, in that same document, there's 4,000, it provides for 4,230.12 of each. ETH as collateral and speaks to a loan to value ratio of 60%. Now, granted, the June emails did not speak to 60% loan to value traditional for, it spoke to a riskier loan, which would suggest that there would not be as much ETH as the 4,230.

But trying to get a sense of was it the horse before the car or the cart before the horse, how was that $3,169,000 number added to the prior balance reached? Was that a customer request or a blockfire dictate? Mr. Alet, I'll let you, I know Mr. Magaliz wants to raise his hand, but I turn to you first. So, Your Honor, unfortunately, we don't know. Because, as I said, the June email is the only thing we have in writing. And we have Mr. Van Tuprian's testimony that doesn't match either of the options. So we're trying to be forthright that we don't know if why the amount differs from what's set forth in the email,

if there was a decision to cap the amount or cap the ETH. However, what would submit is that it's very clear how you get to the amount that's being added. One way or another, Mr. Van Tubergen is borrowing all the money to pay for the new Ease. But I'm correct, that $3,169 figure reflects the cost to blockify and acquire the 1320th yes mr. Maggalyze up you're not on your speaker's not on so your honor's already seeing our mathematical computation you saw it the first time you're seeing it again judge I have to rely on that the same look the same way I would if I retain an accountant and they did it right I know my client knows these numbers

better than anyone but I was actually gonna say and I don't want to violate the rules of order here but when Becca asked us if we had testimony to offer, I said, well, Mr. Van Tubergen will make himself available. And I think this could be an opportunity for the court to ask the question to my client, because I have a sense that he's going to give the court a very clear answer. Your Honor, I say that he already testified and that it's on page 11 of his certification, that he says, however, only 1,320 he was purchased, and only the purchase price of this amount

was added to the loan balance. I don't think we need further testimony for him on that point. I'm not going to have respectfully any more testimony. I don't want to open that door. I've lived with you all. We had mediations. I'm just doing the best to confirm what the record reflects. So to that, Judge, I get it. And to that, I would just respectfully respond by saying that I think the numbers are truer than any words Mr. Van Tubergen could offer. So to the extent that those words, that he did trip over those words, then we would still rely on the mathematical computations, coupled with his testimony, that there were phone calls after the emails up until the date

that the LSA was signed. And I know rightfully so, the court's drilling down on the numbers, and I appreciate that. But when you step back, Judge, remember, the first ruling came down on Scrivener's error. It's becoming increasingly clear that so much focus was on the collateral amount. And that belies the notion that it could have been Scrivener's error. There was a huge spotlight on this. To us, common sense dictates that by the time the LSA was ready to sign,

the parties were aware what type of transaction it was, a reinstatement transaction, and they would have known to scrutinize the amount of collateral. And so, you know, it just... So, all right, thank you. Mr. Rolet, I want to go back to you with a question. Let's accept that the LSA is what it says, and it was sent to Mr. Van Tubergen, Tubergin. Tubergin.

And he sees that he's now responsible to pay $5,928,000. $830.21. And he sees a loan to value ratio of 60%, I believe, and he sees that there's collateral, even if he didn't put it all up, of 42.30.12 in EVE. He would not, just looking at that document, expect there to be any liquidation, any default, and forced liquidation, until it dropped below the 60%. Correct? So what unfolded from July 7th on

the date of the execution of the LSA? What opportunities was there for Mr. Ventubrigan to say wait a minute there's 4230 there or for BlockFi to say

there's not 4230 there So first, Your Honor, I would push back a little on the premise of the question. The LSA does not say that 4,230 has been posted. No, it says it's to be pledged. Right. I understand. So Mr. Van Tubergen got margin calls on this loan, which would have laid out, and I believe they're in the record.

Unfortunately, look, this is the previous record, so I'm not exactly sure what they are. But it would have gotten the calculation of the margin column. You owe that $5.9 million. You have X amount of collateral. It's valued at X. You have 72 hours, because I believe in this, the initial threshold was 80, that you have...

Actually, I'll also point... Go back to one thing. It says, look, that he's got to keep a loan to value ratio less than equal to 80%. That's on page 5. The 60% number is in there as sort of the what he has to bring it to when the margin call is hit. But when he hits 80%, he gets a margin call. He got 72 hours to get the loan to value ratio into the proper amount. And that would have, you know, information on how much margin you have.

He could have disputed it at that point saying, hey, I have more collateral there than you show here. I don't think that any evidence to that has been put into the record. Mr. Ventugreen has not testified that he called. of BlockFi and said, what are you talking about? There's another almost 900. There's no emails that I've seen to that effect. Let me just ask.

When BlockFi issued the first margin call because it fell below the 80%, did it do so on the basis of the collateral being the 4200 number or the 33-34 number pledged? The 33-34 number pledged. Because remember, Your Honor, the amount of collateral can vary over the time of the loan. We've all done it.

Stock our fridge with leafy greens and good intentions, only to have our future self-sacrifice quality nutrition for the convenience of takeout. Keep your body and mind nourished all day with a whole-body meal shake from Kachava. It's got 25 grams of protein, 6 grams of fiber, greens, and so much more. But the best part? It actually tastes delicious. With six indulgent flavors to choose from, it's easy to make a superfood packed shake.

From chocolate, vanilla, and chai to macha, coconut assay, and strawberry, you've got endless ways to personalize your kachava. Whether you prefer it straight up or enjoy adding fruit, peanut butter, nut milk, or even iced coffee, with every two scoops of kachava, you're getting 85 plus superfoods, nutrients, and plant-based ingredients. Shop now through December 2nd to get 30% off your first purchase of two or more bags with code news at kachava.com. That's 30% off for a limited time at KACHAVA.com Code News.

Most often when additional collateral has been posted. How would the customer here Mr. Van Tuprigan have known that it was being based on that figure and now what was in the LSA? I'd have to go back to see if the actual emails were in the record and take a look. but it's as Mr. Ventuburn said it's a mathematical calculation he could go you know the price of eat on any particular day is a Google search away he could have done a Google search and seen this doesn't make sense even if the margin call email didn't have sufficient information for him to look at it and immediately see blockfi sees only 3,300 eat not 4,200 heat, All right.

I don't have any further questions. Mr. I'll give you anything else you wish to add? No, Your Honor. Mr. Magalese, anything you wish to add? I know you've read the papers, Judge, and you gave me an opportunity to a so reply, which I appreciate. All right. Then I'm going to take the matter under reserve,

and I will issue a written opinion, hopefully at some point in the near future. All right? Thank you, Joe. MR. I'm curiously, what's pending in the district court? Is the motion for reconsideration still pending? Yes, Your Honor.

Have you had oral argument? No, Your Honor. The wind-down debtors have not been asked to respond, Your Honor. We're not able to respond unless asked. All right, so that's not coming down the next day or so. So I'm just trying to get a sense what's out there. All right, I thank you all for your time and for your time. for your time and for your submissions. Take care.