Celsius

Reactor

Cradle

Billion

Chainalysis has defeated most of a lawsuit brought by <a href="https://financefeeds.com/celsius-claims-tether-fire-sale-cost-over-4-billion-in-lost-value/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">Celsius</a> Network’s litigation administrator, but a federal judge allowed a central claim alleging that the blockchain analytics company helped Celsius insiders promote a misleading $3.3 billion asset “audit” to move forward.U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett <a href="https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2025cv02669/639691/39" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">ruled on Sept. 29</a> that the complaint sufficiently alleged <a href="https://financefeeds.com/chainalysis-competitor-trm-labs-raises-follow-on-funding-at-a-2-billion-valuation/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">Chainalysis</a> knew statements in a December 2020 Celsius press release were false or misleading and provided substantial assistance in disseminating them. That was enough for an aiding-and-abetting breach of fiduciary duty claim to survive the motion-to-dismiss stage. The decision does not establish that Chainalysis committed wrongdoing. Twelve other claims were dismissed with prejudice, while three consumer-protection claims were dismissed without prejudice and can potentially be amended by Oct. 20. 
<h2 id="why-did-the-3-3-billion-audit-claim-survive">Why Did the $3.3 Billion “Audit” Claim Survive?</h2> The remaining dispute centers on how Celsius publicly presented work performed with Chainalysis Reactor, a blockchain investigation and analytics product. According to allegations summarized by the court, Celsius executive Timothy Cradle initially used Reactor in November 2020 to calculate approximately $1.18 billion in assets under management. Celsius insiders then allegedly changed the methodology, including how CEL token holdings were treated, before arriving at a figure of roughly $3.3 billion. On Dec. 9, 2020, Celsius issued a <a href="https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/celsius-network-partners-with-chainalysis-to-confirm-audit-of-3-31-billion-in-assets-301189705.html" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">press release announcing an “audit”</a> that it said confirmed exactly $3,318,368,196.40 in assets. The release described the work as the company's first third-party verification and said the figure was based on transactions, deposits and withdrawals since Celsius launched in 2018. The litigation administrator alleges Chainalysis helped draft, edit and approve that announcement while knowing the underlying work did not constitute an audit or independent verification. The complaint also alleges that Chainalysis approved repeated use of the word “audit.” Garnett found those allegations sufficient, at this preliminary stage, to plead both knowledge and substantial assistance. 
<h3 id="investor-takeaway">Investor Takeaway</h3>
<div style="background: #f9f9f9; border-left: 4px solid #ff9900; padding: 12px; margin: 16px 0;">
 The surviving claim is narrower than the original lawsuit, but it targets the most consequential issue: whether a third-party analytics provider knowingly helped give investors an inaccurate impression of independent financial verification.
</div>
<h2 id="why-were-the-other-15-claims-dismissed">Why Were the Other 15 Claims Dismissed?</h2> Chainalysis succeeded in eliminating the overwhelming majority of the case. Twelve claims were dismissed with prejudice, meaning the litigation administrator cannot simply amend and reassert them in this action. Those counts involved consumer-protection and deceptive-practices laws across several states and ran into problems including statutes of limitations, assignment restrictions and the scope of individual state statutes. Three additional claims were dismissed without prejudice because the complaint had not sufficiently identified relevant consumers who suffered the alleged harm and validly assigned their claims. The plaintiffs have until Oct. 20 either to amend those counts or notify the court that they will not pursue them further. Chainalysis also argued that the surviving fiduciary-duty claim should be barred under the doctrine of <em>in pari delicto</em>, which can prevent a company from recovering for wrongdoing in which it participated. Garnett declined to resolve that defense at the pleading stage because the complaint alleges the Celsius insiders acted entirely for their own benefit. 
<h3 id="investor-takeaway">Investor Takeaway</h3>
<div style="background: #f9f9f9; border-left: 4px solid #ff9900; padding: 12px; margin: 16px 0;">
 Chainalysis substantially reduced its litigation exposure by eliminating 12 claims permanently. The remaining case now depends much more heavily on proving what Chainalysis knew about Celsius’s methodology and how actively it participated in the 2020 disclosure.
</div>
<h2 id="why-does-a-2020-press-release-still-matter-to-celsius-creditors">Why Does a 2020 Press Release Still Matter to Celsius Creditors?</h2> The lawsuit forms part of the Celsius estate's broader effort to recover value following the lender's collapse in 2022. Celsius froze withdrawals in June that year before filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in July, leaving billions of dollars of customer assets inaccessible. Since then, creditor recoveries have come from crypto distributions, litigation and settlements with former counterparties. FinanceFeeds previously reported that <a href="https://financefeeds.com/tether-to-pay-299-5m-in-celsius-bankruptcy-settlement/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">Tether agreed to pay the Celsius estate $299.5 million</a> to resolve a dispute involving Bitcoin collateral. Celsius creditors have also received several bankruptcy distributions, with <a href="https://financefeeds.com/what-happens-when-a-crypto-lending-platform-goes-bankrupt/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">three rounds bringing cumulative recoveries to 64.9% of eligible claims</a>. The broader record surrounding Celsius has also changed substantially since the 2020 announcement. Former CEO Alex Mashinsky was sentenced to prison after pleading guilty to fraud charges, while the CFTC this year secured a <a href="https://financefeeds.com/cftc-secures-permanent-trading-ban-against-celsius-founder-alex-mashinsky/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">permanent trading and registration ban against him</a>. 
<h2 id="what-happens-next-for-chainalysis">What Happens Next for Chainalysis?</h2> The ruling means the surviving claim can proceed into later stages of litigation unless the parties settle or another procedural development ends it. BRIC, the Blockchain Recovery Investment Consortium acting as Celsius's complex asset recovery manager and litigation administrator, must also decide by Oct. 20 whether to try to revive the three claims dismissed without prejudice. The central evidentiary questions will likely focus on the communications behind the 2020 release, the methodology used to calculate the $3.3 billion figure and Chainalysis's understanding of how its work was being characterized publicly. 
<h3 id="investor-takeaway">Investor Takeaway</h3>
<div style="background: #f9f9f9; border-left: 4px solid #ff9900; padding: 12px; margin: 16px 0;">
 A surviving motion-to-dismiss claim is not a finding of liability. The next phase matters because internal records and testimony could determine whether Chainalysis merely supplied analytics technology or knowingly participated in presenting Celsius's asset calculation as something more authoritative than the underlying work supported.
</div>

Chainalysis Escapes 15 Celsius Claims, but $3.3B Audit Case…

Table of Contents

FinanceFeeds

Other articles published on Oct 1, 2026

Join our free newsletter for daily crypto updates!