Hi, thank you all for joining. We're going to get started. This is Darren Asmin from McDermott. For those of you who don't already know, we are the law firm that is representing the committee. I'm also here with my partner Chuck Gibbs as well as Mike Cordasco from FTDI. FT I is the financial advisor to the committee. Also joining us are two committee members, Jason Raznick and Byron Walker.

I know that a lot of people can't be here live, so we are recording this session and we'll post a link on our Twitter page sometime today or over the weekend once it's ready.

I'd like to spend most of our time today answering your questions. But before we do that, I think it would be helpful just to provide a quick update on the plan. And I think that should only take a few minutes. So first, the voting deadline is November 29th.

And the following week, on December 8th, the court will hold a hearing on whether the plan should be confirmed. We have been working diligently around the clock, along with Voyager, to be in a position to consummate the plan as quickly as possible after the confirmation hearing. But there will be a period of time between that hearing on December 8th and the date on which the FT X transaction actually closes and the plan becomes effective. And again, the quicker all of that happens, the faster al

Your initial distribution. Second, you should have received your voting ballot in your e-mail. That e-mail has a link to the website of Stretto, which is the debtors claim agent. Claims agent, where you can cast your vote on whether to accept or reject the plan. If for some reason you did not get a ballot, you should reach out directly to stretto. If you're not able to reach out to stretto or they're not responding, send us send us an e-mail and and we'll make sure to get it sorted out so that y

Your ballot in on time before the voting deadline. On the ballot, there are really three decisions that you need to make. The first decision is titled Item 3, which is whether to vote for or against the plan, and the committee strongly encourages all unsecured creditors, including customers, to vote in favor of the plan. We sent a detailed letter to all of you explaining why we think this plan makes a lot of sense and is the best option for creditors.

And I'd encourage all of you to read that letter.

The second decision that you have to make is in item 4 that's titled third party release. And you really have two options here. You can either leave it blank or you can opt in and just one checkbox.

If you elect to opt in to this release, you are agreeing to release certain third parties from claims that you as a customer may have against those third parties in connection with Voyager. In other words, if somebody harmed you in connection with the Voyager and you have a claim against them and they are part of what is called the released parties definition in the plan and you can look at that on the ballot, the definition is right there.

You will not be able to bring those claims in the future against those third parties, and I want to be clear that there is no penalty if you do not opt in to the third party release. In other words, you have the option to retain the ability to bring those claims and you'll still be treated the same way as every other creditor in the case.

Similarly, there is no additional benefit you receive if you opt in. It is completely independent of how you will be treated as a creditor and what distributions you will receive.

That's the second decision.

The third decision that you need to make on the ballot is in item 5 that's titled contributed third party claim. And here again you have two options. You can either leave it blank or you can opt in by checking the box. Understanding this item requires a little bit of context, so after the plan is confirmed, a trust is going to be formed that will pursue bad actors who harmed Voyager and caused their losses. Specifically, the trust will have the ability to commence.

What are called estate claims against bad actors? Any recoveries?

From these claims will ultimately be distributed to you as creditors, and importantly, the trust that will be pursuing all those claims will be controlled by individuals selected by the committee, not Voyager.

In addition to these estate claims that the trust will bring, our preliminary investigation suggests that many of you as customers may have direct claims against third parties for your losses. This means that you individually would have the ability to bring those claims in your own name if you wanted to.

However, you would need to hire a lawyer to do that, and given that there are more than a million customers, it would be very inefficient and costly for individual creditors to do that. We have solved that inefficiency for you. If you elect to opt in on this part of the ballot, you will basically be sending those claims to the trust so that the trust can pursue these claims on behalf of you and all other creditors. So you will not need to hire your own lawyer and spend money, and you will not ha

The trust will pursue those claims for you, and recoveries from those claims will go to creditors. So we strongly encourage all of you to contribute your third party claims to the trust by opting in to item 5 on the ballot. Doing so will enhance the Trust's ability to recover more money in an effort to make you whole.

The last thing I want to mention is that I know it's been a while since we've had a town hall. It's it's a difficult balancing act to decide when it makes sense to hold a town hall. As you know, there's a lot going on in this case. And the last thing we wanted to do was to hold a town hall before we we were in a position to share a meaningful update. We felt this was the right time for an update and I'm sorry that it took longer than some of you may have wanted. The committee members are also ve

This case, including preparing for these town halls, is a dollar out of their park, out of their pocket. So we've tried to be judicious about when we hold these town halls, and again, we appreciate your patience. Having said all of that, we are responding to creditor inquiries on a daily basis, and we've been doing that since the case started. Phone calls, emails, everything. This form here is designed to make that process more efficient and responding to your questions. But by all means, please

One-on-one. So with that, I'll open up the floor to questions. Please use the request button in your Twitter app and we'll bring you up one at a time and we'll try to answer as many questions as we can.

All right, the first speaker is liquid. If you want to take yourself off, mute and ask your question.

Liquid are you able to take yourself off mute?

Yeah, yeah, I'm. I'm here.

OK. There you go. Please go ahead with your question.

So I was just wondering, are you guys, um, really letting them know that we really want a lot of our crypto supported on the new platform that's like one of our main, you know, talking points that everybody is concerned about?

Yeah.

And if there's yeah, and then I got one more for you and if this plan is just, let's just say that a long shot, it does get rejected. Are you guys willing to go back in there and try to fight for some a little better terms?

Great. Thanks for the two questions. So I can tell you that one of the factors that the committee as well as Voyager considered during the two week auction process was the number of coins that would be supported by the potential winning bidder. As all of you know FTX does not support all the coins that were supported by Voyager and I know this is a big issue for a number of different reasons we I don't know that FTX has any intention to.

Support additional tokens between now and when the transaction closes? I don't think they do and so I don't think anybody should expect that. But you know, this piece of the winning bid was one of many other pieces that we had to take into account when deciding who the winning bidder was. And so again it is something that was taken into account. It is true that FT X does not support all the tokens, but you know, in terms of what we and the debtors felt like was the winning bidder at the auction

Umm, they, uh, you know, we we did feel that that was the winning bidder. Mike Cordasco from FT. I might want to weigh in on that briefly.

Yeah. Thanks, Darren. Good afternoon everyone. Just to just to add to what Darren was saying, FT X is actually working to support a couple of additional coins between now and closing. It's unclear what those coins are at the moment. I believe in the debtors, the debtors published an FAQ document.

A couple of weeks ago, which details the coins that are currently supported. So there will be additional coins between now and closing, I believe in total, but by the end of day they'll they'll support roughly 80% of the coin value as of the petition date.

Yeah. And look, the other thing I'll mention, there are lots of different things we would have loved to have had in the FX deal. I'd love to have add another zero to the purchase price. I'd love to have added two more zeros, right. But you have to keep in mind that this was an auction process. Different parties were submitting bids and this was collectively what we believed was the top and best bid that we could accept.

The second question you asked Liquid, was what happens if the plan gets rejected? Would we try to negotiate for something better? I think it's hard to say. Certainly we're regardless of what happens with the plan, we're always looking out and trying to maximize value for creditors. So I suppose if the plan were to be rejected by creditors, we would in a sense be back at square one. I think we'd want to figure, try to figure out what the reason is that creditors rejected the plan. But what I can

Is that the initial ballots that are in? And there's a significant number of creditors who have already voted on the plan. There is overwhelming support for this plan. Beyond overwhelming, there's still lots of, you know, time before the voting deadline for creditors to vote. But the initial indications are that the large majority of creditors very much support this plan.

OK, the next speaker we have is crypto full.

Go ahead and take yourself off mute.

OK, crypto 4, I think you can take yourself off mute now.

Got it. Hey, thanks. Thanks for hosting this space everybody. I have a couple of questions. I don't want to monopolize time, but the first one is this that the sale hearing, the judge had an issue with the language to the opt in release of our claims to the OR to the wind down estate because there was no guarantee that there would be that that the UC trust would follow any.

Additional causes of action, aside from the language that include now includes the 10 million paid to the fund.

Or the DNO premium, which in my opinion is not a significant amount. What other causes of action do you envision your farm pursuing if we transfer our claim to you?

So thanks. Just to be clear, we the that issue was addressed by modifying the plan such that even if you contribute your claims to the trust, it does not include claims that are being released. In other words, for example, claims against the insiders who are part of the settlement with the debtors. You would not be contributing those claims. We are still in the early stages of investigating claims against third parties, the focus during the bankruptcy case to keep costs down.

Was to investigate the insiders because we expected that at the end of the case the debtors would attempt to provide releases for those insiders and we needed to understand what those claims were. Look, some of the claims that the trust may bring are claims that are already out there in the public and have been brought by others, so I won't mention those by name, but in our experience we've we've done a lot of crypto work. We represented the committee in the first crypto case ever in Chapter 11,

About two years ago, what what our experience shows us is that when we look under the hood more carefully, we find a number of other bad actors who were part of the downfall of the company. So I can't promise you what the recoveries will be on that. I don't know who exactly those parties will be. They may be advisors to the company, they may be other folks outside the company who helped promote the platform. But at this time, you know, we're not in a position to say exactly who those parties are

Hasn't been conducted. That's an investigation that will be the first step that the Trust undertakes once the plan is confirmed and goes effective.

I can appreciate the efficiency of the proposal here. It certainly makes sense. Just a quick follow up to that though. If we do opt in to release our claims to the wind down trust, does that preclude us from any of the existing class actions such as the one based out of South Florida that's going after Mark Cuban?

No, it does not. We we specifically negotiated with the Class Action Council in in the in the litigation that you just mentioned those claims are carved out from what are being contributed to the the trust. Now that doesn't mean that the trust itself for example won't have its own estate claims on behalf of the bankruptcy estate against those same defendants, but in terms of direct claims that customers may have against.

Uh, parties, in the action that you just referenced, those are not being transferred to the trust. So even if you check that box, it won't be transferred.

Sure.

Not very helpful distinction there. Two more questions if you don't mind. So one is the so sort of the recent news around FTX, Alameda in particular with their business model and and and concerns around how they're being funded. Do you is there any are we looking into that, are we concerned that we're throwing that unsecured creditors out of the you know out of the fire into the firing pan?

Well, look, I, I've seen the reports that you refer to when I say reports. I've seen people talking about it on social media. What all, all I can say is that to the extent that a company like FTX is having financial issues, everyone that is potentially a bidder for these assets, you know, could easily have the same issues. And I don't know, you know, that there was you know, even putting all of the other deal terms aside from potential bidders at the auction.

I don't think that there was any other bidder who had you know better financial wherewithal than FTX. Having said that, we haven't diligence the, the, the, the, the, the statements that are being made on social media. So I can't really speak to that right now, but I don't know that there is anyone else better out there who would be able to consummate this transaction and I can, I can let I think Mike Cordasco from FT, I might be able to speak to this a little bit better.

Yeah, look, I would, I would just add that in, in our view and also in consultation with with the debtors, FTX was the highest and best.

At and that was and and we took into account a number of considerations 1 being the form, the, the consideration that FTX was providing to consummate the transaction as well as the speed and ability in which FTX was able to close this transaction. And our committee was very focused on maximizing recovery to creditors as well as speed in getting crypto back into into customer accounts and in our.

For you again, which we consulted and working with the debtors, FTX, was, was, was was the best offer out there in order to do that as quickly as possible.

Yeah. And keep in keep in mind that under this transaction and in if, if if anyone has questions about how the FTX transaction works, please, we would like to hear them and we're happy to walk you through step by step exactly how it works. But as to this particular question, as soon as you sign up with FTX and you have crypto deposit into your account, you're free to walk. So if individual creditors have significant concerns about FX liquidity, that option exists, that was important, that was an

And so just keep that in mind.

Hey, hey.

Sure.

Thanks. I appreciate. I appreciate the responses on on those and you know I guess solvency concerns aside and and to be clear those those it is social media, it is a couple of cryptocurrency news sources that are reporting that. So nothing concrete but was curious on your thoughts there, appreciate the answer last question.

It seems that the community has has recently understood that their claims have been dollarized and that the 72 proposed or 72% proposed recovery doesn't necessarily mean they're going 72% in kind of the crypto. And I think I saw you guys had sort of it intended to provide some clarity on that. Could you sort of weigh in on 7/5 the 20 day moving average and the dollarization of our claims?

Yeah, Mike, why don't I take the first part in terms of the dollarization from a legal perspective and then Mike from FT, I can address the other two pieces of that. So the Bankruptcy Code is very clear.

Creditors have claims against the estate and that those claims must be valued as of the petition date, the date of the filing. I will tell you that the committee tried to find ways around that so that there was there would be the potential for in kind distributions, but that is just not the law. If you look at commodities cases like cases where creditors had claims in you know that were denominated in gold.

Or other commodities. The case law is unfortunately just very clear on this issue that you have to value claims as of the petition date. And so that's where the dollarization comes from. I'll let Mike speak to the other issues.

I've actually turned this one to my colleague Marshall Wisler, who's who's on the line as well.

Hey everyone. Good good morning. This is Marshall Azar with TI. So I think your question was.

Basically, is the 72 cents going to be dollarized as of the petition date? I think Darren's answer is essentially it is. Now, what this means for distributions is going to depend on whether FTX supports your coin or not. So I think the important part here to to understand is your recovery is as individual creditors are based on 2.

Components.

Others how much?

Is in the debtors estate that's available to unsecured creditors. How much is in the pot to pay unsecured creditors as a whole as a body?

Right. Colloquially, in bankruptcy, we call this a pot plant.

Because all the assets are combined and then distributed to creditors pro rata.

The second aspect of how much you're going to recover.

Is based on your individual claim.

Against the debtors as a portion.

Of the aggregate claims in your class. So what what that means in simple terms, right? Like even though each account holders claim.

Is coin denominated.

That claim is asserted against Voyagers combined pool of assets and this is consistent with bankruptcy law, as McDermott can tell you.

And just kind of laid out.

So for example.

If you're a customer and you have a claim denominated in.

Deep.

Your claim is not against Voyagers. If your claim is against the pot of assets, that's going to be distributed.

Pro rata based on.

Your claim against the debtors.

So there's two components. There's how much the debtor has to give creditors and then there's what's your claim against that pot of assets.

The value that's going to creditors is going to be based on.

The FTX purchase price, which we can get into if people want.

And then how much of that you as an individual creditor is going to be entitled to?

Is going to be, based on your claim, denominated.

As of seven five prices.

In dollars.

So the total claims school the debtors are estimating is about $1.8 billion.

So you'll get.

Your proportional recovery of the pot based on your claim and the total claims pool.

All right. Thanks very much for those questions. We're going to move on now to techie Rob.

Just give us a few seconds here and then you'll be able to unmute yourself.

Yeah.

OK, techie. Rob, you should be able to unmute yourself now.

OK.

That's correct.

Yeah, thanks. I I just wanted to clarify something. So if one option for Option 4 which is releasing the third party claims right and then opt in for #5 I suppose which then providing or transferring the claims to the one down state, they're not necessarily in contradiction with what not that one can also pursue you know any any claim or join part of a class action if need to be at the later date correct?

Thank you.

OK. Next up is Jethro.

All right. You should be able to unmute yourself now, Jethro.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.

I just had two quick questions.

First, I was just wondering if you could shed a little light on why some of.

Customers were were put into a different claim category such as instead of just general unsecured.

The other category of contingent.

Disputed. Unliquidated, I think it's called. I just wonder if you could shed a little light on that.

And um, I didn't quite understand why some of us were put into that category.

Yes.

Oh, so I think that you're talking about the way in which that certain creditors might have been scheduled by the debtors. So you're still in this, just to be clear, you're still in the same class, Class 3 as other creditors. This just goes to whether or not the debtors believe that there is what I'll describe as a question mark about your claim. And that's why they've marked it as either contingent, unliquidated or disputed, I don't know.

I assume you're asking because it relates to your claim. I don't know the specifics of your claim, but there are a variety of reasons why the debtors might think that certain creditors claim is in dispute and I I guess I would encourage you to reach out to the debtors and their advisors and they should be able to give you an answer as.

Your particular claim was scheduled that way.

OK. Yeah.

But I I don't know anything about your claim. All I can tell you is that there are reasons why your claim and others might have been scheduled that way. But the vast majority of customer claims were not scheduled like that. They were just scheduled as you know, not CD or contingent, unliquidated or disputed.

And and this is just Marshall, I can add to that. I just want to clarify a point you made. You're not in a separate class in terms of recovery. It's a distinction of what amount of your claim will ultimately be allowed. You're not being treated differently than other customers from a plan perspective.

Yeah, can you hear me?

We can now, yes.

OK. OK, great. Yeah, I've thought maybe there could have been a transaction that was stuck because it was right at the time when things closed down. It could be just a simple thing like that. And I know there could be a variety of reasons. So thank you for that.

Yeah, yeah. So I would, yeah, no problem. I would just reach out to the debtors. They they've got the information.

I did reach out to stretto. Yeah, I did reach out to stretto, but they said they couldn't give me an answer and I.

And e-mail Voyager and I I didn't. I couldn't get any particular answers about my own account, so I was just trying to understand. Generally. I did put my claim in and and.

OK, great.

All right. Thank you.

Documented screenshots of my app and things like that as I was advised. So thank you for following up on that. And my second question was, my second quick question was assuming everything goes through and closes, is there potential for some party to attempt to claw back of any of us?

Creditors down the road after closing.

Yeah. So that's a good question. It's a great question. So, and this is publicly available, the, the asset purchase agreement between FTX and Voyager has a provision that essentially says that Voyager is transferring all claims that Voyager might have against customers.

2 FT X, meaning that Voyager and the trust will not be able to pursue those claims because they're effectively being transferred and sold to FT XI. Can't speak for FTX, but I can tell you that my expectation would be that they are not interested in suing their own customers and that is the purpose of that provision. And so again, I can't assure you that no one will bring clawback actions, but you know, typically those actions would be brought by.

The trust and those claims will not be in the trust because they are being assigned and transferred to FTX. Now I want just for the sake of clarity, there are a few carve outs from the claims that are being transferred to FTX, but by and large you know most claims against customers, whether clawback or otherwise, will be transferred to FTX and probably not pursued.

OK. Next up is Dan de Salvio.

Just give us a few seconds and then you'll be able to come off of mute.

Hi, thanks for taking the question. Um, how did the claims against the other?

Participants play out from here against the three arrows and and others. Is that going to be handled by FTX?

Or part of you know this group here, um. And then what would be the projected recovery of those assets as well as the timeline to complete that?

Sure. So right now the three AC insolvency proceeding which is pending in BVI, the British Virgin Islands, there is a creditors committee in that case and Voyager as a significant creditor of three AC has a seat on the three AC creditors committee. Once the plan goes effective, the trust that I referenced before that will, you know, pursue litigation against bad actors, the trust will.

Essentially be replacing Voyager on that creditors committee.

That's at least our expectation.

And so we will be the the group that is continuing to pursue those recoveries. In the case, I really have no idea what the recoveries will be from 3C. I don't think anyone can tell you that it's been a struggle I think for the joint liquidators to get even information, let alone begin their recovery efforts. And and on top of that the committee meaning us, we have not been Privy to much of the information, really any of the information.

That's been shared by the joint liquidators in that proceeding because we are not Voyager and they have been very strict about how that information can be shared again even with the Voyager committee. But as I said, once the plan goes effective, our expectation is that we, the committee which will essentially be the trust will replace Voyager in that role and we'll have more access to information. I don't know how much we'll be able to share. I assume it's not going to be much and I so I don't r

Or the amount of recoveries will look like from 3C unfortunately?

Not sure if assuming they recover 100% of it, what would the overall recovery be then on top of the 70%?

I'll defer to Mike and Marshall on that, but you know it's a $650 million loan. I mean that that's really the whole in this case for why you know you guys aren't being paid in full. But let me, Marshall or Mike, could you speak to just how close to hold that would make us?

I think if if if we if we got close to 100 a hundred cents at 3C loan that would that would bring recoveries pretty close to to from $0.70 pretty close to 100 cents. We could we could run the math but that that's a center there's right I mean that's essentially the entirety of the whole.

Got it. And then, so once this plan goes into effect, you guys will step in and there'll be continued communication regarding that piece.

Yes, we plan to continue to have these town halls to respond to individual creditor inquiries once the plan is confirmed and goes effective. You know I'll warn you it's not you know a six month process, it's it's you know a multi year long process to recover and you know pursue litigation. That's just you know the way it works unfortunately both inside or outside of bankruptcy. But yes we will be providing updates when we can throughout you know the whole process even after confirmation of the p

Got it. Thank you very much.

All right. Next up is Obi Wan.

Of course.

Hey, guys. Thanks for having a town hall. I appreciate it.

So I'm getting a lot of questions from folks and myself included too in this group. But so FX is acquiring roughly you know the digital assets and we still have a a claim with three AC. What exactly are we opting into with items four and five, what what's being left behind besides the three AC that we've potentially be handing over?

Sure. So as I said before.

Looking for excuse me, item 5 which is titled contributed third party claim. After the plans confirmed, there is a trust that will pursue a state claims, meaning claims that Voyager the company has against third parties for wrongdoing. But on top of that there are direct claims that you as customers might have against third parties for your losses and what that item 5 is saying if you opt in and again we strongly.

Encourage creditors to do that is you will be contributing your claims to the trust so that the trust can pursue them for you. In terms of who we're talking about, again, as I said before, there really hasn't been a meaningful investigation of any kind either by Voyager or the committee during the bankruptcy case about potential claims against third parties. But what I can tell you from our experience is that there will very likely be claims against third parties, whether they are advisers.

Whether they are individuals or companies that promoted the platform and maybe misrepresented what the platform was or the security of the platform. But at this time, we don't know what those claims are. And again, the recommendation, the strong recommendation is to contribute those claims to the trust so that we will do our investigation and have the ability to pursue that litigation on your behalf and have the resources to do so as opposed to you as an individual creditor hiring a lawyer.

Doing your own investigation, sort of on your own and spending that money.

That makes sense.

Yeah. So it kind of said another way you know the people that perhaps contributed to the three Arrows loan that aren't being released in in this exist in exact wording that we have in possibly you know other cases related to the Voyager estate that we we're not sure what that is at this point but potentially could be pursued but that would that could result in a reduction of what our three AC recoveries would be right because of the cost for the.

You know, pursuing that right from a legal perspective.

Yeah, no, that's no for sure. The trust is going to end.

Hmm.

In pursuing litigation, but the trust has fiduciary obligations to its beneficiaries, which are all of you and not every claim will be pursued, right. I can tell you from experience that there may very well be targets that we find were incredibly culpable, but they might have no money. They might have already filed for bankruptcy themselves. But yes, there there is a cost of going after bad actors and trying to recover.

Speaking of which, I know in the in the letter that you all sent out, we and surprising to all of us that you know the amount being paid by the CEO was rather rather small. I'm considering statements around like stock sales or maybe where funds might be and maybe a different legal entity. Would that potentially be part of these third party actions?

Or is that?

So, so yeah, let me let me explain exactly what the third party contribution, how that operates with potential claims that you as a customer might have against the CEO. So no matter what you do, if you opt in to contribute your third party claims to the trust, it does not include claims against the D&O. So you can still pursue them on your own if you want.

Does that make sense?

Mm-hmm. Yeah.

That was carved out, but let me speak. I mean, you brought up the settlement. I do want to speak for just a couple of minutes on it because I know it's an important issue. I know that there were some concerns in the Community about the settlement that was reached. And I think it would be helpful to just respond to that and just give you the thoughts from the committee's perspective on why we reached that compromise. So the settlement with Erlich was an incredibly difficult decision for us, for t

Go to swallow, but ultimately the committee's obligation, their legal obligation here is to.

Promised value for all of you. We have an absolute obligation to do whatever will put more money in your pocket at the end of this case rather than take more money out of your pocket.

Our decision to settle with Erlich had very little to do with the merits of the claims against him. To the contrary, we believe there are significant claims against him for a number of reasons, but we have to look at the economics of pursuing him the same way we have to look at the economics of pursuing anyone. Once we take over the trust and think about litigation, we have to think about what is that litigation accomplished for creditors who lost a lot of money.

Or a number of issues with pursuing Erlich and and potentially other insiders. First, he's not. He's just not that he's just not worth that much. And second, while it's true that a significant amount of stock was sold at the peak, not all that money went to Erlich. So you can't just go to the people who receive the proceeds from that stock sale and demand the money back. It's no longer saves money. So you have to go through an entirely separate legal process to get that money back, and you might

Just taking a step back here, there are probably three or four significant hurdles to actually recovering on these claims against Erlich. We would first need to oppose the debtors proposed settlement of these claims in the bankruptcy court. So even if we were opposed to the settlement, the debtors were going to move forward with asking the Court to approve that settlement and we would need to oppose that. And then next if we were, if we successfully opposed those claims from being settled, we wo

Out of trust, and then we would need to succeed. Next we would need to collect against Erlich.

And as I mentioned before, we would need to go after others to meaningfully, meaningfully recover anything here, which is an entirely separate piece of litigation that is millions of dollars spent to potentially recover what is ultimately some amount less than what you would spend doing that finally and probably most importantly.

As part of this settlement, we received a number of concessions under the plan that's on the table right now. For example, we, the committee will have complete control over the trust that continues to pursue litigation against bad actors. So that and other concessions that we received were far more meaningful in our eyes than the ability to spend your money and other creditors money going after Erlich for again what would ultimately be a small amount of money in comparison to the cost of doing t

OK. Yeah, I get that. So, so I'm just going back to this third party release because I'm still getting questions and so effectively opting into to the third party release, you know the items four and five right that that would that would basically be the three arrows claim remaining that we have in addition to you know giving up the ability to sell to any interested parties that might want to buy our claim against three AC in this case, no.

OK.

OK.

No, no, no, no. Let me click no, that's not, that's not what those two options are for. So the first opt in is item 4, which is third party releases. If you opt into that, there is a group of released parties and if you look at the ballot form, it defines who these parties are. So I won't go through it on this call. It's a fairly narrow scope of of individuals and entities that will be released, but you are.

Essentially saying that I release, you know, any claims that I have is a creditor against those third parties.

In connection with Voyager. And so you can't sue them personally.

OK.

That's what you're saying. If you do for, and I want to reiterate that again, there's no penalty if you do not opt in to that release. You are not required to release third parties by checking that box, and you don't get anything for doing it. You don't get any additional value for opting in to item 4.

Hmm.

On item 5, you are saying that you will contribute any claims that you have as a customer that you could in your own capacity as a customer bring against third parties related to Voyager. You're transferring those to the trust so that the trust can pursue those for you. You're not giving up, you know, your share of the three AC recovery. You're not giving up your your allowed claim against the estate, you're only giving up litigation claims that because of legal reasons, you individually.

You could bring against third parties for your losses in Voyager.

Does that make sense?

OK. Yeah, it it does. I I think thanks for the additional clarification. I I think that there's a lot of confusion out there around that you know the third party and the three AC I think kind of confuses a lot of folks, but I don't think there's a whole lot of us as unsecured creditors have like a whole lot of weight to sway in the individual claims so.

Yeah, I I think that helps. I'm not getting as many questions.

OK.

There's one other thing that's a popular thing that's come up just within the community. I don't know how many speakers are penny, but I thought I'd ask while I'm here is there's a significant amount of the the creditors that were also shareholders. Was there anything remaining in the estate after this deal that that would be potentially left for shareholders or would that be part of the the trust moving forward?

Sorry, just to clarify, you're asking whether there's anything that equity holders are going to receive?

That's right.

Yes. So the way that the plan is set up, which is basically what is required under the Bankruptcy Code, is that if and when creditors, meaning customers, are paid in full on their claims at some point in the future, then and only then will equity holders be entitled to receive a distribution.

Yeah. OK. Like that likelihood of that, it's probably nothing left. Got it.

Yeah.

Ah, yeah. I mean, yeah, it's, it's tough to say, but it's, you know, it's a big hill to climb.

Alright, anything else?

Yeah. OK. No, I appreciate it. I I know that was a popular question out there as well, so I will. No, I mean I could keep going, but I don't want to take up all the time.

All right. Thanks very much for your questions. I appreciate it.

Yep.

OK, Next up, DJ crypto.

Come on up.

Alright, you should be able to come off mute now. How is your field trip?

Hey, it was great. Thank you.

All right. Go ahead with your questions.

Yeah, the.

Obviously you guys know I've been frustrated with the communication along the way and I just want to know because the the what I call the excuses.

Have been the NDA and the cost and I understand these Amas have cost great, I understand it. But when we compare to the Celsius UC.

Who has almost the same representation and very similar process of Chapter 11 and all that.

When we look back at October, they tweeted out information.

Over 30 * / 30 individual tweets to just here's what's going on, here's what's new, here's what's updated. And without that it causes a lot of anxiety.

And a lack of clarity on a lot of issues that have happened since the end of September.

Is it a matter of cost and the UC of Celsius is being negligent or are you all being negligent of not getting this that information to provide that clarity and promoting this vote on us without speaking for?

Over a month now, that's been my frustration. You guys know it, but I want to know the reality of why not putting out more messages.

Chuck, do you want to address this one?

Alright. Well, while Chuck gets off of mute, look I I apologize at the beginning in the introduction, admittedly we we could always do better with communications always. And I understand your frustration, I understand the frustrations of others. I think the starting point for answering the question is that this is an anomaly. We we represent committees very frequently. It's a core part of our business and our firm and what we do here and what we're experts in.

And if you ask anybody who has been involved in a prior bankruptcy case before and you mentioned a town hall, they'll say what? And so par for the course in every bankruptcy case. And I know this bankruptcy case is different, that's why we're having this town hall today. But par for the course is literally no communication with creditors other than the committee, you know, having conversations with the debtors and other parties in interest and then formal communications that come out through the

It is not par for the course to hold town halls in bankruptcy cases. It's optional. But we felt compelled to do that in this case. The second thing is, look, I don't think it's the right comparison to say look at this other bankruptcy case. So where we know what's going on in Celsius. Celsius is a completely different case. The only two similarities between Celsius and Voyagers bankruptcy cases that they're in Chapter 11 and that they involve crypto. That's it. There is a lot more going on in Ce

In this case, yes, cost is a factor, but I don't know that cost would be the only factor that would prevent us from having hosted a town hall a month ago if that were the only reason. I think another factor is, again, we're hesitant to hold town halls when we don't have a meaningful and definitive update on matters and issues that are important to creditors. And so we don't want to show up on a call with you guys like we did on the Reddit. I know people are frustrated with that town hall and hav

Say why aren't you answering the questions and where where we tell people well we can't because we don't know the answer yet and so that you know all those are reasons why it took longer. But again I'll apologize again we absolutely could have been more communicative and I apologize for that. But it's, it's it's no intention, no there's it's not through any intention on our part to keep people in the dark. It's simply to figure out the best timing and the best mechanism for communicating with cr

OK, yeah, the concern really isn't the town halls or the AMA's. I think even I understand that, that it needs to be spread out or maybe not even happen at all.

But it's the putting out of information to provide clarity to the community. It's been nonexistent throughout September, but there were a few tweets or information put out. But such as, like you said at the beginning, the countless hours that you put into it, it doesn't match up with what the information you've given us is, which there was only one bidder. Now there's talk of multiple bidders. We've never had the defined terms of what is actually best for us. It looks like you all have defined t

Only cash. And we want to know what else was on the table. Maybe it wasn't better. Why wasn't it better? Because we don't have those details anywhere. And that's all I have.

Yeah. So let me respond to the last point and look, let me, let me be clear. Go.

We're going to try to do better with the way that we communicate with you guys. We want your feedback. We want this feedback. We want to hear where we're not communicating well with you guys and and we'll certainly take that into consideration going forward because there will be a lot of things that are happy.

The plan is confirmed and we want to make sure you guys are updated in terms of why you don't have the information about what the bids were. Let me be clear. In a perfect world, the creditor body, all of you would have access to all this information and I would be putting up a chart right now showing you what everyone did, how much they bid in each round, what our thoughts were on that. The problem is that we're working within a system that has been set up for a long time. It's the US bankruptcy

Those rules of engagement and the rules of engagement in every bankruptcy case is that buyers that are interested in submitting bids, they sign NDA's with Voyager or with the debtor. And those NDA's are binding and there are consequences to disclosing that confidential information. So this is not a system that we set up, but it's a system that we have to work within and bidders rely on that confidentiality in showing up at the auction. I'm sure you can appreciate why, for example, a losing bidde

Wouldn't want its bid to be made public because it might indicate what they're what, what economics they might offer for a future transaction or a future deal with another counterparty. But whatever the reason, those are the rules of engagement that we have to follow here. And as as frustrating as it is, again, I'd love to be able to just be open kimona with all of you and say here's everything that people bid at the auction and here's why we thought this was the best decision. We just don't hav

Sure, appreciate it. The only, the only reason why we question that is because articles were put out about Cross Tower about two weeks ago or so, specifically them asking I believe it was the judge for their bid to be made known. So we are not getting the same message from both sides of do they want it to be known or do they want it to be hidden. That's where that mix up comes and if that had clarity around it.

I think we understand, but we want to be told why these things can't happen or not. And we just haven't heard from, you know, almost six weeks. So that's the last I'll say about it. Thanks.

All right. Thanks for your questions. I appreciate it.

All right. Next up is Shingo.

Alright, chingo, you should be able to unmute now.

Hey guys, can you guys hear me?

Yeah.

Yeah. Go ahead just fine. Thanks.

Yeah.

Alright. Yeah, yeah, thanks. Thanks so much guys for closing the space and for letting me ask a question here. I really appreciate it. I have actually 4 questions here. So would I'll start with the first one which is around it.

Sure.

Yeah, let's take them. Let's take them one. Let's take them one by one, if just to make it easier.

The first question is around the dollarization. And there's, you know, I know many people have pointed out that there's now a difference between the market value of the dollarized sort of claims and the market value today. And so that difference in market value, is that going to be something that FDX gets to pocket or is that difference going to be something that sort of gets added to the estate and gets passed to creditors?

It goes directly to the estate. Neither FTTX nor, you know, Voyager as like a company is, is, is, is, is keeping the value of that, it's going directly to creditors.

Great. So the so price of Bitcoin goes from, you know, twenty 20,000 to 25,000. That extra, you know, price increase goes directly to the creditors.

By the yes. And and just to be clear, the period of time that we're talking about is sort of the closing of the FX transaction. Where you say, OK, now is when we're closing. And I'll let Marshall and Mike weigh in on this and more granularity. But at a high level, we say, OK, we're closing and you lock in what the values are of the crypto on that date and then cash is transferred.

To any build up in prices prior to that time will near to the benefit of all creditors because it increases the numerator of cash that's available to pay claims.

And the key, the key point there is, is that incremental value gets spread among all creditors equally. So if you were holding one particular coin and just that coin increased in value, you as that holder do not get the sole benefit. That benefit gets spread across all the the entire credit body.

Great. Thank you for clarifying that because I know that's a question that a lot of people been asking. The second question and I'm not sure if you guys will be able to answer this, but there's been a lot of questions around what stole Zeus is doing around the dollarization. There is, there is an article that was that was published basically saying that society does not intend to dollarize the claims. I was just curious if you had any thoughts about that because there's been a lot of questions a

Look, all I'll say is that there is no plan that's tied up in Celsius. And so people can, you know, say all the, I don't know who wrote the article, I'm, I'm, I'm, I can almost be sure that it wasn't Kirkland and Ellis who ultimately be the decider in that case of what the plan says that gets filed. But all I can tell you is what what we know from this case and and what we know about bankruptcy law.

OK, great.

But just to be clear, let me let let me be clear about.

Issue, because I do think there's a big misconception. Dollarization doesn't have anything, any impact on the total value that is available for the estate to distribute to creditors. It has nothing to do with that. You could dollarize or not dollarize and the estate still has the same aggregate value at the end of the day to distribute the creditors. The only difference that dollarization has is picking between creditors who should get more or less. That's it.

Hello.

And so it's really just a principle of equity and what you think is fair. We have our views on what the Bankruptcy Code says, we think it's pretty clear. But even if there was a way to do it, you're not increasing the pie of assets available for creditors by not dollarizing. The only thing you're doing is choosing some creditors based on how crypto prices have moved from getting a better recovery than other creditors. So it's it's just creditor on creditor differences. I want to make that really

And I can just clarify that the article came from a law firm, it's the voice and Plimpton they they published an article where where they said Celsius doesn't intend to dollarize crypto claim. So again, I don't really know very much about it, but it's been a question I've seen ask a lot.

OK.

Uh, next question, Shingo.

And yeah, the third question is, so FX is purchase of the VGX tokens. I'm assuming that that purchase is of Voyagers VGX tokens, not the customer of VGX tokens, is that correct?

Mike and Marshall, do you wanna answer that?

Yeah, it it's the it's the purchase it the the FTX proposal provides a floor of $10 million for all of VGX tokens. So that's VGX tokens that are in customer accounts as well as the VGX tokens that are held by the company.

So that's the entire estate rejects tokens.

The the entire the Estates entire portfolio index tokens, yes.

So does the July 5th snapshot not apply then to the VGX tokens because that that $10 million floor would then differ from that price on July 5th?

So July 5th is the date where the claim is set. So if you held VGX, if you only held VGX tokens, your claim would be based on the number of VGX tokens that you that you hold times the price on July 5th, which I believe was somewhere in the mid 20s.

FT X as part of their proposal sets a $10 million floor for the value. That's for all those tokens which which which is spread among the. The $10 million would be spread among the the entire estate and would be part of the consideration that is provided to all creditors.

Correct.

Got it. So just to summarize that VGX holders would be able to get the July 5th price and they would and they would get basically the that that you know 72% recovery on the July 5th price and that $10 million purchase of the VGX token goes to all creditors if that that ends up going through?

Correct.

Got it. And it's there.

And that's, that's that, that's 70. Just to be clear, the 72 cent recovery that you referenced, which is outlined in the disclosure statement would be based on your claim as of July 5th, which if it was if you only held BGX would be the number of VGX tokens times the price on July 5th.

Got it. And do we have any idea of what FDS intends to do with these tokens or or what what they say or do they have any plan for it?

We don't know at this time that that those those details are still being being worked out, as is our understanding.

In in Shingo, just to be clear, there's other people who are making offers with VGX 10 millions that floor. But other things can happen before this closes as other people are pursuing it and the bankers molest will talk to those people as well.

Yeah, just to add on to what Jason said, there is a separate sale.

That's being run right now to sell any assets that are not being acquired by FTX. So for example, that would include the, you know, Voyager platform and certain intellectual property associated with that. It would include VGX and there are interested parties who are submitting bids. And so we don't have, you know, more information right now other than that that process is ongoing and you know, probably in the next 48 weeks we'll have an answer for you on what that's going to look like.

Understood. And the last question that I have is around the, the, the, the claims against Erlich. So based on that settlement, is it possible that if there is any interested parties who want to purchase that claim from on behalf of creditors or for from from the creditors, is that something that the that the creditor committee would would be interested in or anything like that? So say if someone wanted to purchase that claim and pursue it independently of the creditors is that?

Is that something that that that would be possible?

Well, whether it's possible is is one question. But again the committee felt like the settlement with the DOJ was the right settlement to do. And you know, inherent in making that decision and coming to that conclusion was the conclusion that we did not think it was worth the money to pursue the NGO's regardless of whether it's a claim on behalf of the estate or individuals. So from our perspective, it doesn't really change the calculus, but it's certainly something shinga that.

We can talk about more offline.

Understood. So, so the, the, the DNO's are part of that that settlement it sounds like?

That's correct.

OK. Thank you. I appreciate. I appreciate answering all the questions and really appreciate your time here.

Alright. Thanks shingo.

Thank you.

OK, Next up, Gina de Resta.

All right. Jimmy, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, just fine. Hi.

OK. So before I ask my actual question, I just want to do a follow up to your discussion with OB one regarding Steve's settlement for one point 1.25 million. Do we have to opt in to the third party release in order for that settlement to take effect?

No.

OK, so that money then is locked in and will be distributed amongst all the creditors?

Correct. That money will be contributed to the bankruptcy estate along with proceeds you know of litigation or anything else that we're able to recover and will be distributed pro routed to creditors. That's right.

OK. And then, uh, I read in your letter and I don't know if there's multiple letters because some people said that they received some letters via e-mail this week that I didn't receive. So I'm going off of the letter that's in the stretto website. But you guys also talk about a second insurance policy where a $10 million premium was paid towards this second insurance policy that you guys are going to try to claw back and if you're successful.

Will that be distributed amongst all of the creditors?

Yes it will. And that is the letters that went up by e-mail.

Letters that went out by hard copy in the mail. So however you received that, there is only one letter from the committee. But yes, that $10 million policy, which again the the company paid $10 million for $10 million of coverage for D&O defense costs effectively.

And and and that that that money if it was recovered will go to the estate and will be available for distribution to unsecured creditors on a pro rata basis.

OK. So the $10 million for the second insurance policy and the $1.125 million Steve settlement, is that in addition to the total distribution of 72%?

Mike and Marshall, do you know the answer to that?

Are you saying is, is is the 10 million included in the 70 in the 72% is that is that the question?

Yeah, I think she's asking if the recovery estimate is actually higher given, you know the possibility. And just to be clear, the only thing that's locked in if the plan is approved is the settlement with Mr Erlich, the ability to claw back that policy. The the funds paid for that D&O policy, that's that's nothing, that's not locked in, that's just you know, the trust is going to try to pursue that. And so it's not like that's a guaranteed number, but I think what you're asking is.

Assuming that we recovered that amount as well, is that already factored into the estimated recoveries and I I'm going to assume it's not, but Mike and.

Is that it? Yeah, it is not and I just want to, I just want to be clear that's 72% is is an estimate. It's highly likely that estimate is wrong, right, because that estimate is based on.

Prices as of a certain date, market prices as of a certain date which obviously go up and down every second of the day. So the prices at the time of closing are highly likely to be different than the prices that were used to determine those estimates. But to answer your direct question, the the that $10 million plus the other million, the 1.2 as part of the settlement are not included in the 72 million so that so you know theoretically that's 72 would increase.

For those amounts, but you're looking at a claims pool of you know roughly $1.8 billion. So the, you know I believe when we when we run some more calculations every every $20 million of of value equates to.

A point of of recovery. So if recovery is increased by $20 million then that's 70, that's 72% in estimate will go up to 73 million, seventy 3%.

Part.

Got it. Which leads me to my actual question, because there are a lot of percentages and monetary numbers floating around in documents and I know that people are confused. So I do want to clear, clear things up. When you look at the chart, the 70%, and I know that it's not the exact figures, but it's the figures that we're working with. Now, the total distribution is 72%, of which 70% specifically says crypto recovery and 2% of which says other recovery, so.

70%.

Alright.

Yeah.

If we just break down the 70% of crypto recovery, it looks like VGX will be paid out at 70% of the price as of July 5th, which is 24 cents according to the chart. Is that correct?

Uh.

Sorry that this is Marshall with TI. There's a few questions speaking to that one. There's also a lot of charts. So I just want to clarify which one you're looking at, are you looking at?

The one in the FAQ.

The one in the the the one in the disclosure statement 591 docket #591.

Sure. So let me kind of take that in pieces. Your first question, what's the difference between the $0.70 and the two cents?

The two cents represents.

Are the components of the FTX bid that will be paid to transferred creditors.

So the FTTX bid consists of.

Few components, the 2%.

Is essentially going to be the earnout.

Which I can talk about if you want. It's going to be up to $20 million.

As well as.

Um.

As well as some of the trading credit.

Given to customers as another consideration.

So the earnout.

Is going to be for transferred creditors.

And that's going to be up to $20 million based on?

The average AUM from transfer creditors during the first six months of their activity.

And then I'm sorry, the the 2% also includes FX upfront purchase price of $51 million.

So it's $51 million plus the earnout gets you to that 2%, the 70%?

Is going to be based on the fair market value.

Of Voyagers Crypto Holdings, you know, excluding VGX, which is going to be $10 million.

So I think that was your first question.

Umm.

Is that right?

Like.

Yeah. And you're kind of answering some of my questions within this whole big part of question. So to clarify the 2%.

But the 2% that's quoted as other recovery consists of the $51 million FTX purchase price, the 10 to $20 million earn out or the AUM incentive.

And the $50.00 per customer incentive to migrate over to FTX, is that correct?

Let me let me just clarify, it does not include the $50.00 trading credit.

That is outside of consideration given to the estate and that is not included.

In the 2% I was going through the components of the FTX bid.

The F the 2% is comprised of the upfront cash payment.

And the earnout incentive?

I apologize, I think I was a little unclear on that before, but the 2% is the $51 million of upfront cash.

And you're out incentive.

OK. The ernot that can go from 10 million to 20 million for a total of anywhere between 61 million to 71 million. That is what that 2% consists of?

So it can go from, it could be anywhere from 0 to $20 million based on the AUM from transferred creditors during the first six months of activity, yes.

Got it. And then the $50.00 incentive to migrate over to FDX, that is an additional thing that is not factored into that 2%?

Correct. And let me make the distinction as to why so the $51 million and the earnout.

Are going to be given by FDX.

Through the estate.

And distributed.

Uh, as if it's consideration from the estate.

The $50.00 is going to be given directly from FTX.

2 creditors.

That is not considered.

As part of a state recovery.

Because it's 50, it's going to be $50.00 to basically all creditors. It's not going to be given the pro rata treatment.

That we've been talking about today.

OK, got it. So.

Now going back to the crypto pricing VGX.

Is being priced differently in that it's 70% of the price as of July 5th, whereas the rest of the other crypto assets is 70% of a 20 day period upon closing, is that correct?

And.

I'm sorry, could you, could you just repeat that one more time?

Let me, let me take it, let me take a crack at that. That this the the 70% assumes that VGX is sold for the floor price of $10 million.

And that's that, that's the 70% includes the market value for all the coins plus $10 million for VGX, which is the the floor price as part of the FTX bid.

So the $10 million is not in addition to 70% of the VGX price as of July 5th?

It's not in addition, it's part of it. It's part of the calculus to get to the 70%.

Got it. Again, these are some of the things that's confusing to people and so people are doing the math in all of these different ways and then the the rest of the crypto assets then is 70% of a 20 day period upon closing, is that correct?

That's correct.

OK. So basically to summarize all of the numbers, the way you got to the 70% for VGX is the market price as of July 5th plus the $10 million floor price from FT X. The rest of the crypto is 70% with the 20 day market period upon closing and then the 2% is the 51 million and the 10 to 20 million of AUM incentive, then there's enough.

$50.00 additional for the migration of customers to FTX and then there's a possible and then there's an additional recovery of the one point 1.25 million for the Steve settlement and then another possible $10 million recovery from the clawback of the $10 million premium paid for the second insurance policy. That is what I understand from my conversation with you. Is all of that correct?

You you you said a lot there.

I I wanna, I wanna, I just want to be crystal clear. The 72% putting aside the 70 versus 72, your total recovery of 72% which includes 70 for crypto, 2% for for the other consideration that more that Marshall walked, walked through.

Accreditor, whether they hold VG at all, VGX, or all of another token you're getting.

You're estimated to recover $0.72 plus the $50.00 trade credit.

The 10 million floor that I was describing earlier for VGX, that is part of the calculation to get to the 70% recovery. So doesn't matter what you hold, whether PGX or other tokens, your recovery is going to be $0.72.

OK.

That is correct.

Yes, I I'm completely clear on that. And then the other and then the other amount I was talking about the $10 million clawback for that second insurance policy as well as Steve settlement of one point 1.25 million. These are additional recoveries on top of the 72%. OK. And then if people, because I know this is also a point of contention with with people is if they already have an FTX account that they opened either pre bankruptcy or you know right after bankruptcy and then the migration.

Occurs. Do they still get that $50.00 bonus?

I can speak on that. This is Byron. So I specifically asked that question and the answer is yes. So I'm an existing FTX US customer as well as a Voyager customer and the answer is yes. So whether or not you create a new account or you're an existing account holder, I would assume that there's going to be some language that it has to be registered with the same e-mail address for both accounts. But we haven't gotten into that. But I did ask that question and the FTX.

FX professionals did clarify that the answer is yes.

And who can we go to to ask these kinds of questions? Because you know, you bring up the e-mail situation, but what if someone signed up with FDX under a different e-mail account from their Voyager account when you do the migration, like how will that reconcile?

You know, things like that. Like who do we ask these questions to?

Yes. So there is a what's called a my migration protocol that is being developed right now by FTX Voyager and we will have some involvement with it as well. I don't have the answer yet for you, but my, my, what I suspect is that look FTX wants you guys as their customers, right. That's that's the whole purpose of this transaction and what I would anticipate is that FTX is going to have you know customer support like they have now and they will have.

People on hand to answer questions about migration issues.

But I don't know the answer right now. When we have more information. Once the migration protocol is solidified, it will be made known. It will be published on the bankruptcy court docket. I believe the deadline of published the migration protocol is 14 days. One of my colleagues will tell me if I'm getting the date wrong, but it's 14 days before.

That's what, yeah.

Voting deadline and so the voting deadline is November 20. Just so November 15th is when the migration protocol will be finalized and published on the docket, and I suspect that that will contain answers to your question about process.

OK, great. Thank you. You've clarified everything I needed to ask. I have more questions, but I will be back. I'll drop down now. Thank you so much.

All right. Thank you. And look again, please reach out to us. You can e-mail me directly. You can e-mail others on our team directly. You know, if you ask questions like, you know, why didn't you go with another bid or you?

The same answers that we've been given, but if you have technical or sort of process oriented questions about how exactly the FX transaction works, we want to give you those answers to the extent we have them and so, so please let us know.

OK, Next up is the secret man.

Alright, you should be able to unmute yourself now.

The secret man. Are you there?

I guess your response is consistent with your handle you.

Secret.

OK, let's go to somebody else and the secret man. If you want to come back up, just let us know.

Let's go to.

Less flex.

Everyone can hear me.

Yep, just fine.

Just want to say, uh, I think we speak for everyone here.

Fox Steve Erlich.

And install our money.

All right. Any questions?

No.

Alright, let us know if you have anything.

OK.

Let's go with Toro.

Alright, you should be able to come off me now, Toro.

Alright, thanks for having me up guys. I'm just gonna keep it very simple, straightforward, you know just break it down very in lamest terms, if this plan goes forward and does the seed, what is their earliest time frame that we're looking to like actually seeing some type of recovery, is that like looking the first quarter of 2023? And my second question is just in plain language, I know you guys touched upon this a few times already, but like the third party release, what is the pros and I don

Because it says that it doesn't affect my recovery. So I want to know the real like a few of my peers want to know the importance of that part. Truly, I don't really. I don't really understand that part. That's it.

Sure. So on the first question, we are estimating that the initial distributions to creditors will occur in the first or second week of February.

That is an estimate. It's based on discussions we've had with Voyager and FTX. It is subject to change. Don't want anybody to think that that is definitely when it's going to happen. But I think there is good reason to believe. I feel confident that will happen in the first quarter of 23 and hopefully on the earlier you know middle, earlier side which would be you know first or second week of February.

The second question, I'm sorry, could you just repeat the oh the about the releases? Yes. OK. So I just want to be clear that you are asking about the third party release which is item item 3. I'm, I'm sorry, item 4, you're not asking about item 5, which is the condition, the contributed third party claim, is that correct?

Correct, I'm asking for item 4, but you can also if you can explain item 5 because I'm like doing this as we speak.

Sure. Item 4. If you elect to opt in to that release, you are agreeing to release certain third parties from claims that you may have against them in connection with Voyager.

Thus, if you opt into that release, you will not be able to bring those claims in the future if you wanted to. But again, to be clear, there is no penalty if you do not opt in to the third party release.

So.

In other words, you have the option to retain the ability to bring those types of claims and you will still be treated the same way as every other creditor in the case. And similarly, there is no benefit that you receive if you opt in. You don't get more money or a better distribution. It is completely independent of how you will be treated as a creditor and what distributions you will receive, and you may be asking go ahead.

Yeah. I just want to be clear. So that just being clear there, there, you won't penalize me in any form of fashion if I don't opt into this and I can still hold certain parties accountable for any difference that I'm not made hold on, correct?

100% true.

And OK, so that that clears that up a lot. And if you can talk about item five, I would greatly appreciate it.

Yeah, sure. So I've, I've I've covered it a couple of times. I know that some of you may have joined late, so I'll just rehash it, but but in summary, I I didn't, I'd encourage you just to read it again, I'm sorry, listen to this recording again because I provided a much more in depth understanding of item 5 at the beginning of the conversation. But essentially after the plan is confirmed, a trust will be formed that is going to pursue bad actors who harmed Voyager and who we believe caused your

Will have the ability, excuse me just one second and just need a glass of water here.

Sorry about that. So the trust will have the ability to commence what are called estate claims against bad actors. All that item 5 is asking you to do is contribute claims that you and your own capacity might be able to bring against bad actors to the trust. Which again, the committee is going to decide who will control the trust, not Voyager. And if you contribute those claims, you will have the resources of the trust. The trust will be able to bring those claims.

On your behalf against bad actors and increase the pool of recoveries that is available to satisfy your claims. So you're basically electing to give the trust more ammunition to go after more people for more money and hopefully increase the pot of available cash to make you guys whole. That is what item 5 is all about and we strongly, strongly encourage.

To opt into that.

I truly appreciate you guys. I've talked to a lot of experts, a lot of other councils that sat across from Kirkland and historically speaking this is probably one of the fastest bankruptcy cases that have been sorted out. So I greatly appreciate that and I hope that you know in the clarity of everything that you this succeeds very more. But just to be very clear, I heard Michael say something about 80% earlier. So I understand FTX, you know, they could have gave us more.

They have a pocket full of money.

You know, long term, realistic overall.

What is the expectation besides the 72% that after everything is pursued already leaning towards the 80% situation at that point or it's just like, hey, you know, this is it guys. This basically compared to like any other case, this is a miracle?

So yeah, there's a few pieces there. One, and again, I know this bankruptcy case is different than every other.

So it doesn't help for you guys to hear from us who do this work every day that this is a great outcome for you guys. It's not I I wish I could tell you that you're going to be made whole on January one of next year. I wish I could, but that's not the reality. There was a significant amount of money that was lost by this company, but I don't have the ability to predict really in any numerical way what amounts on top of that, you know, roughly 70% will be available for distribution, right?

It depends on a lot of things. For example, it depends on what kind of recovery we get out of three AC, right. They could hit a home run for all the night, no, the joint liquidators and generate you know hundreds of millions of dollars or billions of dollars of recoveries to three AC which then in yours to you guys. But I have no idea that bankruptcy proceeding in contrast to this one is moving very slow. I don't know when it will be resolved, certainly not anytime soon. There is a great deal of

Because as I mentioned earlier, nobody has done the investigation yet to see who else might be a litigation target by the trust. That is the exact type of work that we will be doing for the trust when the trust comes into existence. And so not only do we not know how much will come in from those targets and if we were, if we're able to bring those claims, but we don't even know in in some instances who those targets are because again, that investigation hasn't been done yet and it's because of h

For its size is moving very quickly and so unfortunately, I really just don't have any way to gauge what the additional recoveries will be. Only to say that the trust will be managed by individuals who are selected by the committee and have every incentive to go after as many people as possible to recover as much as possible to get you guys as close to 100%.

Thank you guys again and that's it for me. Have a great day.

All right. Thank you.

I just, I just want to clarify, the 80% that Mike referenced before was not in connection with recoveries, it was in connection with the estimated amount of coin value.

That FTX will be supported. It's it's a slightly different percentage than the 72 estimate of recoveries.

Chip.

I see that's there's a big confusion cause a lot of people were saying 80% and I was like OK, but now that I kept saying 72 and I'm looking at it, I was like where is that 80% coming from? So I figured that was going to be made-up from the three-year old situation and ending from individual parties.

Yeah. So, but, but again to be clear, the 80% that we're referencing is not what we're estimating. All of those other components are going to yield in recovery. The 80% was an estimate for how much coin value FTX is supporting.

I understand. I got you.

About the coins that they are supporting.

So I just, I wanna, I want to be clear on that, OK, because we're not, we're not estimating the additional consideration, we're not estimating the three hour recoveries and all that stuff. It will be in addition to $0.72, but the 80% reference before, I just don't want you to think that was our estimate of additional consideration.

Appreciate that much.

Yeah, sure.

OK, Next up we have JDW 007.

Alright, you should be able to take yourself off me now.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yep, just fine.

Great. This is in regards to some court docs about Steve Erlich. There were some redacted statements about sobering findings. Can you speak upon those?

Not on this call, but there is the possibility that that information will be unredacted. There's a process that we need to go through in the bankruptcy court for that to happen with certain time periods that need to pass. But I appreciate you raising that and we're you know let us let us work on that and and and see that if we can if we can do that.

I would appreciate that because many people are just curious about those findings and why they would be specifically redacted as Steve like we do, think he's about actor. My second question is why does the 10 million towards VGX go to everyone and not just the holders of VGX?

So.

It's not just VGX that goes to everybody, it's all assets of the estate. However, monetize that gets split per rata. So for example, if you held Bitcoin only on the platform.

Effectively sharing in recoveries with everyone from all the assets of the company. So you're sharing from the estates recoveries from monetizing VGX, you're sharing from the estates recoveries in litigation against third parties. Similarly if you are a VGX holder, you are sharing everyone else's recoveries on you know Bitcoin, ETH, anything else of the estate has and so you know everybody is sharing equally prorata in all assets of the estate and the reason for that is.

Because that's the way the Bankruptcy Code is set up. You know, I know that a lot of you felt like your, your coins were deposited and and were yours on the platform. But in bankruptcy those are assets of the estate, they're property of the estate. And the way that property estate is handled is that it is liquidated and then.

Your pro rata to all creditors, regardless of whether it's cryptocurrency, gold, real estate, it doesn't matter.

OK. Thank you for that information. I'm a big VGX holder about 70,000 VGX, so I can be losing a couple $100,000 in this bankruptcy unfortunately. So that's going to try and make sure that VGX holders do get as much.

Possible.

One of the thing my last question is basically I would love to do some naughty things to Steve, but of course can't do that because of the laws. What are some of the best ways that we can actually screw up his life legally?

You know you're not getting an answer to that one.

Because that's something that, uh, well, we need to figure out as well. Maybe not by the UC, but legal ways to script Steve's life. Because he's screwed over millions of people and he needs to go to hell.

Yeah, let me let me be clear about one thing and that is that the settlement that is in the plan with Steve does not implicate the ability or or rather let me say it differently, does not prevent state or federal regulatory bodies from pursuing anyone, Steve, anyone, it doesn't matter who it is. Nothing in the plan limits the abilities of state regulatory bodies, federal regulatory bodies pursuing you know.

Criminal or civil action against anybody, we have nothing to do with that process and they have nothing to do with the plan.

Well, you know that I did. I did want to mention that. But I'm obviously not gonna answer the question you asked. But I I hear you. I hear the frustration. And you know, you're not you're not wrong.

Thank you for that last quick one. It's in regards to Mark Cuban. I know that he's had some dealings with this and there is a potential lawsuit against him.

If there are any recoveries on that lawsuit, would that be going out to everybody or would it be just people that signed up for that specific lawsuit? Any ideas on that?

So we don't represent the class in that case, but I can tell you just high level what that looks like. So there's the class action that's pending. If there are recoveries in that action, those recoveries will go to the class. Creditors will have the ability to opt out of that class. And and to be clear, we're not class Action Council just want to repeat that, but assuming that you're part of the class, yes, you will get your.

Your distribution from that class action, but separate and apart from those claims, the Voyager bankruptcy estate, which again will essentially be this trust that I described before, will have potential claims against third parties who promoted the Voyager platform. And those claims, while maybe overlapping in facts with the class action, will be claims that are actually brought on behalf of the estate, meaning not part of the class action.

And any recoveries from that separate litigation that is brought by the trust, those proceeds will go to the trust and then directly to beneficiaries of the trust who are all of you.

That's great information. I do wanna thank you for your time. My closing remark is that we have a lot of Tristan you you're doing a lot of work. So we really, really appreciate that. It does sound like this deal is going to be going through. Fingers crossed you get a better bid than 10 million for VGX, but we'll see how that goes. But down the road, hopefully we're made whole via getting clawbacks. So thank you for your time. Have a good day.

Alright, thank you very much for your questions.

Or we're gonna go to Floki next.

Alright, Floki, you should be able to come off mute now.

Right on. Thank you guys for taking my question.

So it was mentioned that other pieces are being, you know, still being sold and negotiated, such as VGX and the platform. I'm curious what other pieces are in play besides that?

I think it's really the platform and VGX and what I'll call sort of related intellectual property. I don't know, I don't think there's anything else specifically. Micro. Marshall, do you want to add anything there?

Nothing, nothing specifically I think. I think you hit it. It excluded assets which are you know basically the customer list that that FTX is acquiring. So what what would be left is you know the, the, the platform some IP.

And an IP related assets excluding customer customer level data.

Can I jump? Can I jump in real quick?

Sure.

At the at the end of the day, Floki, we want to get as much as we can for our assets. We're all losing a lot of money here and we want to get as much as we can. So if there's something that we're not thinking of, there's an asset that you saw that's related to Voyager.

They'll let us know. But what they said is correct. The IP, the platform where wherever we can get some value to try to get us, you know, back to closer to whole. I mean that's the whole, whole game. And I know you're active in the community. So if there's something that we don't think of, feel free to send it in because at the end of the day we're trying our damnest to get as much money as we possibly can in in this deal to get us back to, you know, to those numbers. So, but that's the kind of

Which we do our best to get the the top bit.

Right on. Yeah, thank you. Is there anything specifically you guys are proactively doing to essentially help those third parties try to get this done and maximize things for us?

So I mean, I guess the German probably want to answer, but there's a banker on this that is working that work in those deals, people have written to me directly and you guys probably know some of the community and I refer them to the banker for the debtor and then, you know, nice to refer that stuff. I just refer that stuff over because again, we're all in the same boat here.

Answer is yes. The the committee's professionals are directly involved in this. So what I'll call secondary sale process just as we were directly involved in the much larger sale process that FTX one and we will continue to be involved in monetizing.

And as I said before, anything that's still left over at the end of the day will be transferred to this trust that this committee will control via its selection of the individuals who will control the trust.

Thank you. Thank you. And my last one is more of A is a hypothetical, let's say hypothetically the platform and VGX is sold to a particular third party. What does that look like? Would VGX transfer over or stay on to that platform with the third party or would that be essentially you know, dollarized as part of the whole assets? Is there a way out for VGX outside of liquidation?

Yeah, look, I think the goal is if we can find a buyer that's interested in doing something more than just liquidating VGX, right, that's not value maximizing from our perspective. We've we've seen several different bids that have different structures and similar to you know when we were at the outset of the first sale process, we we can't comment on what those bids look like, but there are a variety of well you know permutations that we might see in the outcome.

And and the goal would be to do whatever is going to maximize value for the state and deliver more value. And I know that's a generic response and it's not all that all that satisfying, but the answer is yes, it's not just a process to sort of liquidate the VGX you know that that that wouldn't, I don't think that would be value maximizing.

Thank you.

And.

Yeah, I just add that that out that all options are on are on the table right. The the debtors advisors Mullis is running a process. They've reached out to various parties who expressed interest throughout this process.

A timeline is it has has gone out, a process letter has gone out to to these parties and the idea is they would submit interested parties would submit bids in the next couple of weeks and the debtors as well as the committee will be involved in evaluating each of the bids and determining which path as as Darren said is the maximizes value.

Cool, cool. Um, I'm kind of digging for hopium now as far as shareholders like, if the platform goes.

Does you know the stock that's tied to the business? Is that a possible thing that could live on or is that not a not an option?

I don't think that's an option for the stock.

So and and just to put a finer point on that, if if the platform goes, it's not going to be just VGX holders who received the benefit of that just like we've been talking about a pod plan, it would go to the benefit of all creditors and so the whole you would have to fill before stockholders received any recovery would be having all creditors paid in full.

But, but again just to clarify the sale of the IP, the platform of VGX and all of that is and will, if we could monetize that for more than the $10 million floor price set by FTX, that is the benefit for all creditors, not just BJX holders, just want to make that clear.

Thank you guys. And if you could keep a keep an eye out in the community and Twitter for questions that pop up, it would be greatly appreciated if you guys would chime in every now and again. Thank you so much.

Yeah, we we will and look, look like I said before.

Going to do a better job of hosting more of these town halls and and responding directly to to specific questions that we get no problem.

Yeah.

OK, uh, Next up is Ray.

Alright, Ruth.

Oh yes, can you guys hear me?

Yep, you're good.

OK cool, so there is a link, a stretto link where you can put in.

Your e-mail address to get the balloting form sent to you is that.

Legit.

I don't know. Um.

Is it on the stretto website? Let me let me look right now while we.

There's like a stretto.

Yeah, scribble.com/voyager/balloting.

Just one SEC.

At.

Yep, anything on this website is legit.

OK, nice. Alright. Also so you guys said earliest is first or second week of January or February?

February.

For returns February OK.

That's estimating initial distributions first or second week of February.

OK, sounds good. Thank you.

OK.

Next up is Peter Ebal.

Peter, are you there?

Looks like it says connecting.

Maybe bring the next one on.

All right. Let's go to shib nobi.

Should know be analytics.

How you doing?

Hey, good. Thank you.

So a question I think that nobody's asked yet, it is about taxes and.

What I was wondering is, so let's say for instance I have a lot of taxes in this so I'm gonna have to write off right coming up. But let's say this case gets done but we don't get paid out till next year or our taxes be rolled over for for until 2023 or four 2020.

I'm going to give you the most unsatisfying answer.

Uh, huh.

Umm.

This call and that is while we have done everything to try to make this transaction with FTX and everything else that we're doing in this case as tax efficient as possible for creditors. Every one of you has a different tax position and different circumstances. And moreover, even if he had the same position, we as counsel to the committee, we're just not able to give you legal advice including on tax issues individually. All I can tell you is that we absolutely took into account.

Ah.

Tax issues throughout this case and try to do things in the most efficient manner. It doesn't mean that you know your tax consequences are going to be great or or better or worse than someone else's. They may be the same, I don't know. But you you'll have to work with your accountant to figure out what those tax consequences are.

OK, so so that's that's a great answer and here's the problem. Grant me like I have.

I mean, pretty big holder on on Voyager and I have a lot of big taxes coming up. But the problem that they're gonna run into, right? Let's say for instance, I'm going to write it off for next year, right? Whatever is going to be five, 600,000, what's going to be right? And all of a sudden money starts coming from you guys. Now what's going to happen if I have a write off on that, right? And then that money starts coming in and then I'm back to like positive again.

That's a good question, huh? Or that's interesting.

Because then I.

Well.

Yeah, no, there's lots of. There's lots of interesting tax questions when it comes to crypto because there's basically nothing settled but.

Hmm.

Yes, Sir. And here's what happened. My CPA here. Here's what he said. He, he's into crypto. So he's pretty good at this. He said what's going to happen is let's say a follow whatever, it's going to be $100,000 loss, right. And I and I completed, right. And let's say I make it back next year, right? All of a sudden, Voyager then gets paid out and then all of a sudden I'm like, oh, wait a minute, now they're getting more money than that amount of money. So I have to go back to what? Right, because

Like now I have to go back and.

Ohh no I I understand your you, you reset your your basis. Yeah I I don't have a great answer for you. Sorry.

No, it's OK. I was just wondering, I'm sure a lot of people are asking about gonna be soon tax questions, you know, so, but yeah, you guys done a great job. I think everybody's happy for this to be over with soon and you know.

Yes.

You know, hopefully move on, you know, and so.

OK.

A great job you guys have done and everybody here I'm, I'm, you know, whether you know, you have $100, a dollar, hundreds of thousands, you know everybody's the same, everybody's equal. That's why I always we're telling people in these rooms, you know, so.

Yes, Sir.

Alright. Well, thanks a lot for that. We really appreciate it.

All right, the Next up is Mr Wiseman.

Right. You should be able to take yourself off mute now, Mr Wiseman.

Mr Wiseman going once.

Twice.

All right, if you want to come back up and ask, just let us know.

All right, we're going to move on to drew school.

Yeah.

Hey, hello.

Hi.

Oh, great. Yeah. Thank you. I'm glad I got a chance to get on here and ask a couple questions.

So I guess.

Kind of wrote down a couple of things, I guess with the taxes. Hello.

Yeah, we can still hear you.

OK, so.

I guess with regards to the taxes, you kind of touched on that. Now. One question I have is why did the customers with cash get 100% of their cash back?

Yeah. So this has to do with the way that the law treats customers who held cash on the Voyager platform. The way that cash was held on the platform was in what is called a four benefit of or FBO bank account. And the nature of that account is that it's actually legally.

Illegally belongs to the customer that cash, it's not part of the company's balance sheet. And so because it's not part of the company's balance sheet that means it's not property of the bankruptcy estate under the Bankruptcy Code. And so that was simply allowing customers who had cash to get back what is their property under the law. And I know that those of you held crypto on the platform, I'm sure strongly believe that it was your crypto not voyagers.

But the way that the law works and the way the terms and conditions were written for what you guys signed up to, whether you knew it or not, the crypto you deposited onto the debtors platform was property of the estate. It was the company's property. And that's the legal distinction between the two. As much as it may seem unfair, that is what the law says now. Even if that wasn't the law, you have to realize.

Didn't. And they still don't have enough crypto to repay all of its customers. They just don't. And so even again, if that was the law that they.

Property. You'd have to share it.

And you wouldn't be getting 100% and that's basically the same position that we're in right now.

Does that make sense?

Yes, yes. So and then another question I have according to the documents, is it correct that the, I think it was like Class 5 creditors, are they getting back 100% of their money?

Give me just a second.

OK.

While I get an answer for you on that, do you have any other questions?

Yes, I do so and then another question.

OK, let's, let's move on and I'll come back to that one.

OK. And then another question, I think Alameda, they were like Class 4. Is Alameda getting back 100% of their loan as well? That's what I want to know.

They're getting nothing, no. So they're getting nothing back, actually.

Um, the deal that we struck with Alameda as part of the FTX sale is that they are actually contributing their $75 million loan that they are owed to the company.

But.

OK.

Meaning that the amounts that they were owed from the parent company at Voyager, they're giving that back to the estate, they're giving it back to, you know, all of you guys effectively.

Exactly.

No, no, there there.

The 75 now when you say give it back, are they like actually giving it back or they building that into the FTX proposal?

Yeah.

It's basically, yeah, they're not giving money into the estate. They're just not requiring the, the, the parent company to repay that loan and instead they're giving that receivable the money that they're owed. They're they're giving it to Voyager, the operating company.

No, OK.

It's helpful because otherwise that's $75 million that might otherwise need to be repaid to them.

Yeah. OK. And then I guess another question I have. I just want some clarity with regards to this dollarization and you know what, what is the value of our accounts because?

I just, I just think that the timing of everything.

It OK. So, so I guess let me start here. So is there any benefit with FTX you know I guess is eliminated and FT X or is there are those two independent organizations or are those two organizations tied together?

No, they're related entities. They're affiliates, yeah.

OK. So, so with regards to FTX and animator, what what about this like $600 million revolving line of credit they they gave them to make sure their operations could be stabilized, what, what about that?

Did that come up?

Micro Marshall, are you able to weigh in here?

Yeah. So the loan that you just mentioned, the $75 million loan.

That Alameda has a claim against the debtor entities that represents the amount that was drawn on that facility.

Yeah, I guess.

No, no, I, I I definitely follow that part. Yeah.

Does that make sense? So the face amount of the facility was was much higher than the amount that was actually drawn. Only $75 million was drawn and the treatment that we just kind of went through is what's happening to that 75 million?

Yeah because that that was just a very misleading statement like what about with regards to the, the misleading statements that they made about you know we've seen what's going on with the AC it doesn't affect us. We take, we take keeping our balances you know in accordance you know very seriously. I mean is there, is there, is there no legal consequence to making those statements.

Weapon has that been taken into consideration to kind of built into as far as how how you know coming to how a resolution with this case.

I'm not aware of the statements that you're referring to. Not doubting that they were made. But yeah, I mean, look, everything was taken into account in terms of who the highest and best bid was at the auction, is what I can say.

Yeah. And then and then another thing too is that when we talk about like I guess.

The thing that was kind of unfortunate is that you know, we we can see their financial statements because they're a publicly traded company but they only are required to do it every year. And if you look at the financial statements before that, I mean they weren't loaning out anywhere near this amount of money and then it's like they literally gave out this loan to blow up the entire company. And it's just when you talk about I guess negligence, I mean it just it just seems like such, so much ne

And the thing that I also kind of.

The other thing that I think with regards to this situation that I'm, I'm really just not a big fan of is that if you look at the timing of them claiming bankruptcy, I understand they were illiquid and they, you know, they lost liquidity so they went bankrupt so they wouldn't have to.

What? What? What's the term? I'm looking for you. You sell everything and just clear house. What's the word that I'm looking for?

Not exactly.

No.

Umm, do you know, do you know, I'm referring to I guess it's liquidate. You know, they, they filed for bankruptcy so they wouldn't have to liquidate and they could keep these crypto assets which fluctuate in value kind of what, what, what does that, does that even matter the fact that crypto assets, you know, move and values, just everything on that date is dollars, that's the dollarization and that's it. Well, how I guess how is that kind of built into this with this with regards to this resolu

So I I think what you're asking is whether FT X is going to benefit from the movement of crypto prices if they go up and and the answer is no.

The the creditors are going to benefit from any movement in crypto prices that excess value will go to the Voyager bankruptcy estate and go to creditors. So they're not, you know, stealing the crypto. They're not getting a deal on Bitcoin for example, or or ETH if it goes up in value that is accounted for in the deal that we negotiated for them. Is that is that the question that you had? I wasn't entirely.

Honestly is, is leading is leading right into the the question that I do have because you you're you're answering part of it. I mean talk about leading it to another question I have actually because that's kind of what I want kind of explained to me because it's like you know I'm being told that the value of my claim is is is 10,000 but then I'm looking at my account and it's 15,000 and that's the part that kind of just throws me off. I'm just like where is that $5000 going just throwing out gen

Yeah, so, so.

If you think about your recovery, there's two components of your recovery.

There's the total pot of assets.

Then there's what your claim is against that pot of assets. Those are two independently.

Mutually exclusive things.

If you've had coins.

That have appreciated in value since your since the bankruptcy filing.

That's going to be spread out amongst all creditors.

Equally per their claim against the bankruptcy estate. So what I mean by that is all of the companies crypto is going to be put into a pot.

And then distribute it to creditors based on their claims. Your claims are going to be.

Denominated in 75 price, 75 prices per USD.

Makes sense?

So that 5000 is going to be spread out amongst all the other creditors just like all other coin increases and decreases are going to be spread out to all the other creditors.

Alright, thanks Marshall. Uh, we're going to move on to Lord Aragorn now.

All right, Lord Aragorn, you should be able to take your yourself off of mute now.

Lord aragorn.

All right.

Gonna move on to Jesse.

No, just you should be able to take yourself off mute now.

Hello. Hello.

Aye.

And there you go.

Oh no, that was just you, Jason.

No, I thought I heard Jesse.

Chelsea.

You know.

OK.

Let's move on to, uh, Joe Radcliffe.

Hey guys, this is Joe. Did you, did you, uh, activate me here?

Yep, you're good. We can hear you, Joe.

Excellent. Thank you so much for doing this for us all. I appreciate all the good things you're doing. Obviously easy for us to sit here, not know what's going on behind closed doors and judge and and and I'm sure there's some things we would have done different, but I appreciate the time you're putting in. My question is, I know several people who have been burned by this to the point where they just want out of crypto completely as soon as we get access back.

Is there a way for them to?

Avoid kind of a a another tax. I know you can't advise on tax stuff. We we spoke earlier, but you mentioned that all of us have kind of been lumped together as an estate because of the bankruptcy laws. Or is there any bankruptcy law or clause that would protect us from cashing out if that was somebody's choice instead of just taking the assets and you know holding them in FTX?

Well, to be clear.

If you enroll with FTX.

And you choose to do that, which you have the option to do. And your coins that you held with Voyager are supported by FTX.

Correct.

Right.

Your holdings at FTX will be in those coins that you held on board. There won't be the same amount, obviously, otherwise we wouldn't be here today. And so if your question is whether there's a way to basically continue to hold your crypto, the answer is yes, except it will be on the FTX platform.

No.

There is no go ahead.

Yes, I understand that and that's what I will be doing most likely. But for people who want to get out basically cash out to convert back to U.S. dollar, if they choose not to transfer their value to FTX do they? Because if we if we transfer everything to FDX and then they cash out, they had not only had to pay the fee that FTX you know charges for conversion back to U.S. dollar but then they potentially you know log another tax event or trigger something like that. So is there I know.

For instance, for the US dollars, they used to be that we had a 10,000 or $25,000 withdrawal limit.

When that got turned back over to us with the entire bankruptcy proceeding, we were able to withdraw 100K at a time. So something changed obviously within some of those limitations and maybe an IRS flag that usually was triggered around 10,000.

And I was wondering, I just, I might just know nothing about bankruptcy, but is there anything that would kind of help us get out without having to pay an FTX withdrawal fee or anything like that if if that was our choice?

Yeah, so.

The question is baked in there, but let me kind of talk about.

The difference between the transferred creditor meaning you go to the FDX platform.

And the non transferred creditors, which is what you're basically indicating you'd like to be.

Um.

Right.

If you are a non transferred creditor.

You will receive your pro rata share of any distributions.

In dollars.

From Voyager itself or its successor trust.

Not from FTX.

OK.

However, you will miss out on the additional considerations that FTX is providing, so you will miss out on.

The $50.00, yeah.

Like the $50.00 trade credit for, for example.

OK, I understand.

Thank you for clearing that up. I wasn't clear that there was a a choice for us to just not go to FTX and and get a dollar value. So I appreciate that clarification.

You're welcome.

I think that's it. Thank you, guys.

All right. Thank you.

Next up is John Barsom.

All right. John, I think you can go ahead and take yourself off mute.

Do you guys hear me?

Yep, just fine.

OK. So, uh, first of all, I'd like to thank you guys for all the time and all the great job you guys do it for us and especially big thank for Mr Jason. I speak to him before share my story and my wife about the money with the buzz in and Voyager and.

I showed him the story and I was thinking like an hour in the phone, so I just wanna be staying for him.

I have one question, I don't know if somebody asked it before or not.

The 72%, how you guys gonna value that? Is that mean?

If the market going up, we're gonna get less coin and the opposite way. That's it. That's all I have.

Yeah. So again, your recovery is going to be based on 2 components. There's the total available value that you have to the that are available to unsecured creditors.

So that's going to be.

Mainly.

What FX is paying?

For the crypto as well as the additional consideration.

The disclosure statement and the debtors are estimating.

That that value available to you.

Is going to be about $1.3 billion.

So.

You're sorry? Go.

Yeah, look.

Go ahead. Go ahead.

So my example is if I have one Bitcoin and it's worth in July 1st it was worth like 20,000 and now it's worth like 10,000, is that mean I'm getting more Bitcoin?

So no.

Any if any increase or decrease?

In coin value since the bankruptcy is since the bankruptcy started.

Is going to be spread out amongst all creditors.

That doesn't mean Epx is paying 75 prices. FX is going to pay the debtors the fair market value of their crypto.

However, your claim.

Is going to be based on your 75.

Uh holdings.

OK.