Texas has objected to the proposed merger between Voyager Digital Ltd. and Binance.us in a recent court filing. The state contends that the disclosure statement is insufficient and that the plan cannot be confirmed because not enough details have been supplied to alert general unsecured creditors to the possibility of a reduction in their recovery, should Alameda demonstrate its administrative expenditure claim.
The transfer, usage, and indemnity conditions that account holders must concur to in order to access Binance.us services are not adequately disclosed in the disclosure statement. Customers have no recourse against Binance.us's transfer of their information to virtually any business or anyone it chooses under the conditions of usage, and if any problems do occur.
By keeping their assets for six months after confirmation, the scheme unlawfully discriminates against Texans who purchase goods and services. Holding the assets, in line with Texas, is pointless because it will be nearly hard for Binance.us to obtain a license from the Texas SSB and DOB within six months.
Finally, Texas claims that the plan's releases and injunctions amount to a disguised discharge, which the Debtors are not permitted to receive under 11 U.S.C. 1141(d)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code and therefore not be approved.
The fact that Texas is opposing the planned merger between Voyager Digital Ltd. and Binance.us raises serious questions regarding the sufficiency of the disclosures made to creditors and the possible dangers of using Binance.us services. The opposition further emphasizes how Texas consumers would be unfairly treated by the proposed strategy and how Binance.us would be able to access their personal data without proper regulatory monitoring.
Texas has contended that keeping the assets on hand serves no purpose and that the releases and injunctions outlined in the plan amount to a veiled discharge, which is against the Bankruptcy Code.
These arguments raise important concerns about the proposed deal's viability and the possible dangers to creditors and consumers. It will be interesting to follow the case as it develops to see how these concerns are resolved and whether the suggested arrangement can be accepted.
