Bankrupt crypto lending company Celsius Network has filed a $2 billion lawsuit against FTX’s investment branch, Alameda Research. The lawsuit alleges market manipulation practices in 2022, leading to significant impacts on the CEL token’s price.
Alameda Research Faces $2 Billion Lawsuit
The bankrupt crypto lending company Celsius Network has filed a $2 billion lawsuit against Alameda Research, the investment branch of FTX, following accusations of trading activities allegedly manipulating the price of the Celsius (CEL) token in 2022. This move came after the initiation of investigations by various regulatory authorities, including the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and federal prosecutors in Manhattan.
It has been revealed that Celsius Network recently filed a compensation lawsuit against Alameda Research, demanding $2 billion. According to the claim, some FTX users carried out suspicious transactions in 2022, which significantly affected the price of the CEL token.
Historical data shows that the CEL token rose from its ICO price of $0.30 to $8.02 in June 2021 and suffered heavily from the market collapse in 2022, dropping to $0.68 in June 2022.
Creditors of Celsius Network seeking justice and transparency believe that these manipulative trading activities played a role in the company’s collapse. The company aims to recover a significant amount of funds to mitigate the losses suffered by its creditors through the legal process it initiated.
Celsius Network Also Sues StakeHound Over Thousands of Non-Returned Cryptocurrencies
In addition to the lawsuit against Alameda Research, Celsius Network has also sued StakeHound. The lawsuit argues that StakeHound has not returned approximately $150 million worth of tokens to Celsius Network. The tokens in question include 55,000 ETH, 50 million MATIC, and 66,000 DOT.
The crypto lending company Celsius Network, founded by former CEO Alex Mashinsky, collapsed last year, leading to an increase in regulatory reviews on the market. CFTC inspectors accuse the company of violating regulatory rules before the collapse.
