Customers of the bankrupt crypto lending platform Voyager Digital have been embroiled in a real soap opera for almost a year. Last summer, Voyager was one of many companies in the crypto sector that went under. A few months later it was announced that FTX would take over the assets of the bankrupt platform, but we all know why this did not happen in the end.
News emerged late last year that Binance’s US arm, Binance.US, has entered into an agreement to acquire the assets of the lending platform for just over $1 billion. After months of trouble with US regulators, the deal now appears to have finally gone through.
Redemption at last for Voyager customers
Voyagers Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (UCC) shared on Wednesday through a thread on Twitter that Voyager has reached an agreement with the US federal government to proceed with a $1 billion plan to sell its assets to Binance.US.
In the series of tweets, it said, among other things:
“Voyager, the UCC and the government have reached a resolution allowing the plan to proceed and to come into effect shortly.”
The UCC added that it is working with Voyager to help Binance.US “proceed as quickly as possible once this provision is approved by the court”.
Acquiring Binance was not easy
It is quite an understatement to say that the acquisition of Binance’s US branch has not gone entirely smoothly. In the crypto news it has appeared several times that the takeover was put on hold. For example, three weeks ago you could read that the takeover was temporarily halted by a federal judge after a request from the US government for an emergency stay.
The American Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) also claimed in February that the deal was illegal. One element of the deal, Voyager’s VGX tokens, would qualify as unregistered securities according to the financial watchdog. A few weeks later, however, these objections were again dismissed by the court.
On March 15, the SEC also argued in a motion that the bankruptcy plan would give rise to fraud, theft, or tax evasion. This claim was later rejected by the court.