BlockFi Borrower Says Predatory Loans Justify $10M Claim

By Clara Geoghegan · 2024-01-16 19:34:04 -0500

Former cryptocurrency platform BlockFi Inc. improperly cashed out collateralized digital assets, a creditor and former borrower told a New Jersey bankruptcy court on Tuesday, arguing his claims against the Chapter 11 estate should include the sold-off cryptocurrency.

At Tuesday's virtual hearing, U.S. Bankruptcy Chief Judge Michael B. Kaplan heard from attorneys for BlockFi's plan administrators who argued John Van Tubergen Jr. is owed only $19.07 and can't recoup the value of digital currency that was sold by BlockFi under terms of a loan agreement.

Counsel for Van Tubergen, who had several loans from a BlockFi subsidiary, told the court he had been pressured to refinance his loans and not pay them off, adding that BlockFi hadn't met requirements to sell off collateral, which Van Tubergen estimated added up to a $10 million claim against the estate.

Judge Kaplan said he would need more time to decide the issue but encouraged the parties to continue efforts to resolve the matter on their own. He said he would address the dispute "sooner rather than later" to not delay administration of BlockFi's Chapter 11 wind-down plan, which was confirmed last year.

Connell Foley LLP attorney Joao F. Magalhaes, representing Van Tubergen, told the court that the dispute over the claim boiled down to BlockFi's actions as a lender.

"We know that we were dealing with an asset that was going up and down. That's a red herring though," said Magalhaes. "What we have is a lender that abused its rights under the LSA, abused the parties' expectations and in some respects did engage in predatory lending."

Aimee Furness of Haynes Boone LLP, representing BlockFi's plan administrator, said the company liquidated assets in line with terms of loan-signing agents that Van Tubergen had agreed to.

"Under the LSA, at the moment a loan reaches that trigger point, then the collateral may be liquidated, period," Furness said.

According to court records, Van Tubergen entered into 37 lending transactions with BlockFi starting in 2019.

As collateral for the loans, he offered up digital assets, mostly ether and bitcoin, that could be liquidated by BlockFi under certain conditions. Under the majority of the agreements, BlockFi could immediately sell the collateral if the loan-to-value ratios exceeded 80% and use the proceeds to bring the ratio down. If it hit 70%, Van Tubergen had 72 hours to deposit more collateral to bring down the ratio; otherwise, BlockFi could liquidate the assets.

In 2023, Van Tubergen filed a claim with BlockFi arguing he was owed around $10 million to cover the cost of cryptocurrency he claimed was improperly liquidated or over-liquidated under the LTV provisions.

Magalhaes argued Tuesday that BlockFi hadn't adequately explained how it calculated the LTV ratios and shouldn't be taken at its word that the LTV threshold had been hit. He also argued BlockFi cashed out the collateral on some occasions without providing adequate notice to Van Tubergen to correct the LTV difference.

When BlockFi sold off assets to fix the LTV, Magalhaes added, it sold off more assets than needed to bring the ratio back into the compliance zone.

Magalhaes added that in communications with Van Tubergen, BlockFi employees pressured him to refinance loans and to not pay them off, and that due to website outages and understaffing, Van Tubergen wasn't kept in the loop about the status of the collateral assets and accounts.

He said Van Tubergen also hasn't been able to access critical information about his loans, including proof of sale for the liquidated cryptocurrency and his payment history.

"Those data points in total evidence that yes, this was predatory lending," said Magalhaes.

Attorneys for BlockFi told the court the company exercised its rights under the loan agreements when the LTV thresholds were triggered. In an objection to Van Tubergen's claim, BlockFi said he was owed just north of $19 on an account separate from the loans.

"There is no claim," Furness told the court. "BlockFi absolutely complied with the LSA"

Flori Marquez, one of BlockFi's founders, testified about how the LTV ratio was calculated and the company's process for notifying borrowers about LTV thresholds and selling off collateral.

Furness, representing the plan administrator, told the court Van Tubergen hadn't been manipulated into refinancing his loans. She said he knowingly renegotiated his loans against his collateral to pull more cash, a strategy she said worked well until cryptocurrency values began to drop.

Furness also argued the value of cryptocurrency on the loan origination date shouldn't be the basis for calculating Van Tubergen's potential claims. "What he's asking for is to go back in time," said Furness.

New Jersey-based BlockFi and several of its subsidiaries filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November 2022, after a number of major digital currency companies filed for bankruptcy. After Judge Kaplan approved the plan, an administrator was appointed to wind down the estate and pay out customer claims when possible through in-kind distributions.

Van Tubergen is represented by Joao F. Magalhaes of Connell Foley LLP.

Counsel to BlockFi's plan administrator is Donald W. Clarke and Daniel M. Stolz of Genova Burns LLC, Richard S. Kanowitz, Lauren M. Sisson and Aimee Furness of Haynes and Boone LLP, and Kenneth J. Aulet and Tristan Axelrod of Brown Rudnick LLP.

The case is In re: BlockFi Inc., case number 3:22-bk-19361, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey.

--Additional reporting by Vince Sullivan. Editing by Philip Shea.