Indian Harbor Insurance Company et al. v. Alexander Mashinsky et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK nen KX INDIAN HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY et al., : Plaintiffs, : : 25-CV-3349 (JMF) -V- : : ORDER ALEXANDER MASHINSKY et al., : Defendants. :

nen KX JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: On June 26, 2026, the Court’s Pro Se Office docketed a letter, with various exhibits, from Interpleader-Defendant Alexander Mashinsky. See ECF No. 191. Thereafter, the Court received a copy of the same letter, a copy of which 1s attached. The copy previously docketed appears to be incomplete — specifically, most of Exhibit C is missing. Accordingly, the parties should disregard the filing at ECF No. 191 and treat the attached as Mr. Mashinsky’s submission. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Defendant Alexander Mashinsky. SO ORDERED. Dated: July 6, 2026 New York, New York ESSE RMAN nited States District Judge

2, 2026 . Re Case #1:25-cv-03349-JMF Pro-Se filer Honorable Judge Jesse M. Furman SDNY Pearl St Room 2510 York, NY 10007 Judge Furman: to the status hearing of June 1, 2026, | respectful petition the Court to amend my reply and submission as there numerous issues of dispute which need to be addressed before any request of summary judgement could be awarded to Defendants. These issues are as follows: EXPENSES insurance policy clearly defines "Defense Expenses" as "reasonable legal fees and expenses incurred in the defense of any claim. (II E - Definitions, Document 155-1 Page 43 of 92 att. as Exhibit A). The policy then goes onto © in Section Ill entitled "Exclusion" (Document 155-1 page 48 of 97 attached as Exhibit. B) that "Except for Defense the insurer shall not pay loss in connection with any claim brought about or contributed to in fact by any intentionally fraudulent, or criminal act or omission or any willful violation of any of any statute, rule or law".

case, all submitted costs would be defined as "defense expenses" relating to 13 civil cases which came prior to any charges leveled against me by the government. Based on the contractual language, these costs would legitimately fall the policy's "Defense Expenses” category and not be excluded, they were already paid out by me and should be □□□□ in full.. The non-applicable "Exclusion" section does not apply to the millions spent defending legitimate civil cases in to Celsius. My criminal case which proceeded these civil suits should not exclude me from coverage on any previously issues. To date no objections have been raised by the Defendants as to the validity of the "Defense Expenses" related tc 43 civil matters, ALL of which came prior to the government's criminal charges against me in late 2023, □

to statements by the Defendants, the criminal case is a valid "Defense Expenses" as outlined under the policy Il (E)) and should also be immediately approved for payment. The key words in the policy's Exclusion Section III Is for Defense Expenses," the Insurer shall not pay loss in connection with any clam. This statement implies that all of m related expenses should be covered under the policy's implied language. The insurer has already acted on □□□□ when they distributed payiments that included coverage for the criminal case. Defendants in this case, primarily Mr. Van Toll, seem to think that the policy only applies if | win the criminal matter or the ire policy is no longer in force. This is not what is written in the policy's language, nor is it the position the insurers mselves took when they decided to approve coverage for me on ALL civil and criminal matters. The same insurers who the 14 matters previously mentioned, have made several payments and distributions. SENTENCE IS NOT FINAL recently (5/22/26) filed a Motion to Vacate, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2255, (Attached as Exhibit C) with reference te criminal case #23-CR-00347 (JSK). | have also filed a separate application for Pardon with the DOJ which is pending. Unti 2255 is adjudicated, the sentence relating to my case Is not final. Any decision on expenses related to the criminal case ar concerning my claims for coverage rests on exclusions of non legal fees due tothe status of the criminal case, The and pardon application counter the interpleading Defendants claims that the criminal sentence has been finalized. Since 2255 has a likelihood of success considering the evidence presented, | respectfully request a‘stay in decisions related to n nee lt a tea) aman kit allow far my other leaitimate defense expenses to be distributed.

request that your honor read docket #189 in my criminal case which includes details relates to the civil actions in your court on the distribution of the D&O insurance proceeds. | am not able to attach the entire filing which is several pages long since | do not have access to PACER. This is why | only attached the 9 most important pages showing the and standing | have to make my 2255 application successful. In my allocution on 58.2025 | only plead guilty to a single ,000 sale of CEL tokens, which | neglected to disclose in my public statements. | also only plead guilty to a single related to "clarity from Regulators" relying on written confirmation from Mr. Pavon. The billion dollar fraud in has been perpetuated by Mr. Pavon, Leon and Treutler who are the same individuals standing in front of the court and ing for their legal bills to be paid. give the court a taste of the illegal activity (| quote from my 2255 on page 2): "...the illegal conspiracy by Pavon and Daniel (Co-Founder and President) to do a hostile takeover of Celsius (Exhibit £1, Docket 189)...Leon agreed to.split all his gains with Pavon (Exhibit E2, Docket 189) as an incentive, if Pavon removed Petitioner as CEO and took over Celsius with Johannes Treutler, Yaron Shalem and Ron Sabo these 5 co-conspirators were at the center of the secret $200n token price manipulation (Exhibit E3, Docket 189) between early 2021and December 2021". □□

that in fairness to the volume of legal actions against me and the few matters each of the other defendants is facing basis be used for each of the 17 "Noticed Matter" (Document 455-1 Page 10-14) based on the total billings and numb for each such case. The decision by the court to allocate the funds should be reached only after ALL parties hac opportunity to review and approve each others submissions.

OF THE COURT above points list just a few of the reasons there is disagreement on facts and why the interpleader defendants request for judgment should be denied. the court to provide me with an opportunity to review the other defendants’ submitted legal bills. The interpleader all had an opportunity to review my bills submitted since 2022 and | should be provided the same limited discover Mr. Van Tol and his interpleader defendants had ample time to get all the facts in this case | was excluded □□□□□□□ and have not been provided access fo any of the records due to my incarceration. | request an opportunity to review other defendants submitted bills and expenses to make sure that the cases and fees billed are covered by the □□□□□□ □□□ the pro-rata allocations each defendant should get for each of the 17 listed cases. | did not have an opportunity to the extensive billing by the dozen different law firms and see if they were actually relevant and related to the 17 matte as "Noticed Matters". | have not seen a single legal bill submitted by the interpleader defendants as the interpleader □ efendants law, firms neglected to copy me ona single document filed with the court.

critical part of the dispute on the facts in this case are related to the Indian Harbor Insurance's confirmed approval of for 14 of the 17 different "Noticed Matters" related to Alex Mashinsky (see document 155-1 Pages 10-14 attached D ). Other defendants in this case only were sued from 1-7 matters 1 and so should not receive any coverage when t of the proceeds is made for other matters where their clients are not even listed as defendants. The majority of the

Expenses" paid by me were to the law firms of CWT, Yankwitt, Kasowitz and had nothing to do with the criminal cé came to be in the second half of 2023. The billings and invoices submitted were for 13 civil and one criminal action wt Goins, Plutus21, CFTC, Quebec AMF, OSC, Celsius Ch. 11, SEC, NYAG, Komarovsky, Bull, TX-AG, CA-AG, FTG matters dating back to 2022. Mr Van Tol nor the other interpleaders have objected to any payments already made to 0 are owed on any of these civil cases. suggest we separate all my submitted invoices for the criminal matter from the other civil matter and set aside an allocatlor only matter in dispute which needs to be resolved after my 2255 appeal and Pardon requests are finalized. The remaini for the remaining matters and defendants can be immediately allocated on a pro-rata basis among all the insured par on the matters they are part of without dispute.

Clearly Mr. Van Tol and other interpleaders are not presenting the totally of facts in this case. There is clear and ongoing di between the parties as to the extent of coverage of the policy and the meaning of its language. There is also a □□□□□□□□ tc what manner distributions should be made on. Mr. Van Tol Is suggesting that his clients be paid an allocation for cases the not even named on. This is the main issue in front of the court and | humbly ask your honor to resolve this dispute based Ol law after the parties had an opportunity to brief after reviewing all relevant documents.

Since |-do not have access to web sites or to PACER and there Is a substantial delay nme getting notification by mail whil prison, | humbly request that you instruct Mr. Van Tol that they need to email me as well as mail me copies of any filing ma

this case and that they need ta come up with a schedule approved by the court. The system at Otisville does not allow to s

or other attachments so documents need to be cut and pasted into the Truelinks system. □ nk you for your review and consideration of this request.

| | □ L / Mashinsky 68096510 filer Camp Box 1000 NY 10963

UUWAINDING 1 WIth FN Ne 8 oe INSURANCE COVERAGE FORM

THIS IS A CLAIMS MADE POLICY WITH DEFENSE EXPENSES INCLUDED IN THE LIMIT OF LIABILITY PLEASE READ AND REVIEW THE POLICY CAREFULLY. In consideration of the payment of the premium, and in reliance on all statements made and □□□□□□□□□□□ furnished to Executive Liability Underwriters, the Underwriting Manager for the Insurer identified on the Declarations Page (hereinafter, the “Insurer”) including the Application and subject to all of the terms conditions and limitations of all the provisions of this Policy, the Insurer, the Insured Persons and th Company agree as follows: INSURING AGREEMENT The Insurer will pay on behalf of the Insured Persons Loss resulting from a Claim first made against th Insured Persons during the Policy Period or, if applicable, the Optional Extension Period, for a Wrongft Act, except to the extent that such Loss is paid by any other Insurance Program or as indemnification « advancement from any source. In the event that Loss is not paid by such other insurance oF < indemnification or advancement, this Policy will respond on behalf of the Insured Persons as if it wel primary, subject to all of its terms, conditions (including, but not limited to, CONDITION (B)) and limitations ar without prejudice to the Insurer's excess position. I. DEFINITIONS (A) “Application” means: (1) the Application attached to and forming part of this Policy; and (2) any materials submitted therewith, which shall be retained on file by the Insurer and shall be deem to be physically attached to this Policy. (B) “Change In Control” means: (1) the merger or acquisition of the Parent Company, or of all or substantially all of its assets, by anot entity such that the Parent Company is not the surviving entity;

’ (2) the acquisition by any person, entity, or affiliated group or persons OF entities of the right to vote | select, or appoint more than fifty percent (50%) of the directors of the Parent Company, or ’

(3) the court appointment of any person or entity with authority comparable to that of the □□□□□ Persons, as defined in DEFINITION (1)(1), to liquidate or reorganize the Parent Company.

(C) “Claim” means: (1) a written demand for monetary or non-monetary relief; (2) any civil or criminal judicial proceeding in a court of law or equity, arbitration or other alterna dispute resolution; or

(3) a formal civil, criminal, administrative, or regulatory proceeding or formal investigation.

{D) “Company” means the Parent Company and any Subsidiary created or acquired on or before the Incep Date set forth in ITEM 2 of the Declarations or during the Policy Period, subject to CONDITION (C). (E) “Defense Expenses” means reasonable legal fees and expenses incurred in the defense or investigatio any Claim. Defense Expenses will not include the Company’s overhead expenses or any salaries, wa fees, or benefits of its directors, officers, or employees. (F) “Employment Practices Claim” means a Claim alleging an Employment Practices Wrongful Act. CS 71 00 09 06 A Page 1 of 8

etQutSiage Ey ecINt Person, as defined in DEFINITION (U1), Se such service is at the specific request of the Company.

(N) “Parent Company” means the entity named in TEM 4 of the Declarations.

(O) “Policy Period” means the period from the Inception Date to the Expiration Date set forth in ITEM 2 of the

Declarations or to any earlier cancellation date.

(P) “Subsidiary” means any entity during any time in which the Parent Company owns, directly or through one or

more Subsidiary(ies), more than fifty percent (50%) of the outstanding securities representing the right to vote

for the election of such entity's directors.

(Q) “Wrongful Act’ means: (1) any actual or alleged act, error, or omission, misstatement, misleading statement, neglect, or breach of

duty by any Insured Person, aS defined in DEFINITION (1)(1), while acting in his or her capacity as a

director, officer, general counsel, OF member of the Board of Managers of the Company oF a

functionally equivalent role for the Parent Company oT any Subsidiary operating OF incorporated

outside the United States, (2) any matter asserted against an Insured Person solely by reason of his or her status as a director,

officer, general counsel, or member of the Board of Managers of the Company,

(3) any Employment Practices Wrongful Act, and

(4) any Outside Capacity Wrongful Act.

i. EXCLUSIONS . (A) Except for Defense Expenses, the Insurer shall not pay Loss in connection with any Claim:

(1) brought by or on behalf of, or at the direction of, the Company OF, with respect to any Claim for at

Outside Capacity Wrongful Act, an Outside Entity, except and to the extent such Claim:

(a) is brought and maintained by a security holder of the Company oF such Outside Entity, bt

only if such security holder is acting independently of, and without the solicitation, assistanc

participation or intervention of, the Company, any Insured Person, OF any Outside Entity;

(b) is brought by the Bankruptcy Trustee or Examiner of the Company oF such Outside Entity,

any assignee of such Trustee or Examiner, or any Receiver, Conservator, Rehabilitator,

Liquidator or comparable authority of the Company or such Outside Entity;

(c) is brought and maintained in a non-common law jurisdiction outside the United States

America or its territories or possessions; Of

(d) is made after the Parent Company has undergone a Change of Control; or

) (2) prought about or contributed fo in fact by any:

(a) intentionally dishonest, fraudulent, of criminal act or omission or any willful violation of

statute, rule, oF law; or (b) profit or remuneration gained by any Insured Person to which such Insured Person is

legally entitled; as determined by a final adjudication in the underlying action.

(B) The Insurer shall not be liable to make any payment for Loss in connection with any Claim:

CS 71 00 09 06 Page 3 of 8

CO Hees yoy . □

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MASHINSKY, : . Case No. 23-cr-00347-JSK STATES OF AMERICA :

MOTION FOR HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF . COMES, Alex Mashinsky, Petitioner, Pro Se, who respectfully submits this Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct a under 28 U.S.C. 2255. This motion outlines deficiencies in representation provided by Attorney Marc Mukasey and firm Mukasey & Young LLP which constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. The also further demonstrates how newly discovered evidence, obtained after the May 8, 2025 sentencing, □□□□□□□□ with defects in the legal foundation of the charges of this case constitute a miscarriage of justice which has materially the outcome of the Petitioner's sentencing. But for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings In case would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-96, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (198 requests the Court to schedule an evidentiary hearing to present bankruptcy recoveries, regulatory clarification, ar evidence which the Petitioner was prevented by his attorney from advancing to the Court. The arguments advanced here e grounded directly in the court record, transcripts and rebuttal documents prepared by the Petitioner and provided □□ but never presented to the Court. This along with factual objections filed under 3553(a), Chapter 11 filings and ail of! eviously disclosed material to counsel constitute clear error'and an absolute conflict which must be addressed. □□□□□ will prove that the Petitioner was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Constitutlon in an involuntary plea as outlined in Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985); Laffer v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 162, Ct. 1376, 182 L. Ed. 2d 398 (2012). The sentencing proceedings before the Court rested upon concessions and amlssions counsel made under financial duress and not in the interest of his client. The arguments for this claim are presented as

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL Financial Duress root of counsel's deficiencies lay in the undisclosed financial distress of the firm Mukasey & Young LLP. This distress a conflict of interest that permeated every strategic decision made by counsel! since the outset of the Petitioner's Throughout the proceedings, the firm faced profound operational instabilities which were never disclosed to tf including named partner departure, mounting financial pressures and the ultimate closure of the firm shortly after tl sentencing. (A1) Instead of preparing a vigorous defense or engaging in negotiations with DOJ, counsel prioritize resolution. Once Petitioner could no longer pay his legal bills counsel moved to avoid the time and expense of a 6 week or a Fatico hearing. Counsel's financial desperation is most evident by his unethical and secret effort to secure a conflicti ent, FTX's Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) without informing the Petitioner.

& Young engaged SBF as a client in or around January of 2024, This representation created an absolute. and conflict since it was market manipulation of the CEL token and StETH by SBF while CEO of FTX, in mid 2022 tha significant harm to Celsius and its customers and which ultimately forced Celsius to pause withdrawals. Mukasey kne and the Petitioner each held a $2 billion dollar claims against FTX (A2) arising directly from SBF market manipulation claims arose from FTX's false indication that SBF wanted to secretly buy Celsits and migrate its customers without knowledge of Petitioner, Celsius's controlling shareholder. Instead, SBF and Caroline Allison attacked the CEL token by over 15m fake CEL tokens on the FTX exchange (A3) which then were sold short, crushing the price of CEL by 80% een RD ate ca nat itinntod ta Miikaeay nrinr to hie eecret pursuit of FTX. but iqnored.

2024, a memo from the Department of Justice (B1) stated that Mukasey's engagement of SBF and FTX with Celsius, “could cause him to have information that is relevant to the defense of Mashinsky, but that defense is not authorized to share with Mashinsky." This immediate conflict was severe and impacted the Petitioner's defense, in an attempt to sustain his firm financially, pressured the Petitioner to waive the DOJ concerns so that the. engagement with SBF could proceed. Mukasey told Petitioner that fees from SBF would help offset the mounting bills in the Petitioner's case. This put the Petitioner in an impossible situation where if he insisted that Mukasey drop he would be left with an angry unpaid counsel in a criminal case, and if he waived the conflict, he would be left with a conflict and split legal representation. Neither option was a choice that should have been left to Petitioner. Petitioner did the extent of the fraud by FTX, Celsius Executives and Westcap when he waved this conflict.(B2) (Exhibits B1-2)

believed that in addition to a $2 million dollar retainer from petitioner obtained in 2023, he would tap the $715 million and Officer's liability policy (D&O) held by Celsius which would pay for the ongoing retention fees. ‘After being ied that the D&O policy (C1) would not cover legal fees, Mukasey pressured the Petitioner to secure additional funds. The listed his house for sale, as well as borrowed ‘from family and friends, but within months the retalner was quickly Counsel contacted the Petitioner daily, demanding immediate wire transfers and harassing him with threats that tional funds must arrive or representation would cease. The firm's undisclosed financial pressures created an irreconcilable lict between counsel's personal interests and his undivided loyalty to the Petitioner. Rather than advising the □□□□□□□□□□ that the firm lacked the resources or willingness to proceed to trial, counsel urged acceptance of an unnegotiated. plea offer which appeared shortly after the retainer was exhausted. Counsel failed to advocate for the Petitioner or term of the 360 month plea agreement which Petitioner had 24 hours to sign. (C2) Mukasey told Petitioner he “could at trial” and that Petitionet should agree to the Government's 360 month ptea offer stating explicitly, "I will not Jet this bankrupt my firm." This statement laid bare that counsel was driven by self-preservation rather than by the Petitioner's (Exhibits C1-2) □□

Discovery and Investigation conflict manifested in counsel's grossly ineffective discovery practices. Instead of focusing on the 1500 documents by Petitioner in an 868 page rebuttal document, (D1) counsel opted for a manual review of every email Petitioner * since 2017. This wasteful approach consumed the Petitioner's limited funds, creating excessive billable hours withgut advancing the defense. Counsel's focus was on generating fees rather than achieving a favorable outcome, Counsel to obtain discovery materials from Celsius and from Latham & Watkins (L&W), Celsius’ regulatory counsel, despite being of a waiver df privilege (D2) arising from the sharing of legal memos by Celsius with FTX. These priviliged □□□□□□□□ to FTX during May & June of 2022 due diligence process prove how Petitioner was excluded from L&W Inferagtlens - did not knowingly make false statements as claimed by the prosecution. SDNY_01_03599235 & 00102802, □□□□□□□□□□□ on internal counsel Roni Pavon, who lied to Petitioner in 2020 & 2021 that Celsius was "fully compllant with all financlal (D3) Petitioner was "cleared on an individual level (by the SEC)" (D4) and that Pavon "reached agreement with . (D5) (Exhibits D1-5) □□ did not investigate the illegal conspiracy by Pavon and Daniel Leon (Co-Founder & President) to do a hostile takeove (E1) Petitioner provided counsel documentation showing that Leon agreed to split all his Celsius gains with Payon, ) as an incentive, if Pavon removed Petitioner as CEO and took over Celsius. Together with Johannes Treutler, Yaron and Ron Sabo these 5 co-conspirators were at the center of the secret $200m CEL token price manipulation (E3) early 2021 and December of 2021. Purchases made via a secret FTX CnC account not used forCEL - □□□ through manipulation to raise CEL to $2, then to $4, & eventually to $8. (E4) (Exhibits E1-4)

approval from the Court, counsel failed to depose Pavon and Leon. Pavon was exclusively in charge of all CEL, token and all regulatory interactions since 2020. (F1) Pavon left HFN (Celsius outside counsel), (F2) to join Celsius, as and head of legal in mid 2020 after conspiring with Leon to do a hostile takeover. (E1) Ina WhatsApp message to Pavon Leon states that, "It is my dream that the SEC removes Alex." (F3) Pavon confessed to Leon "will use iterative anc loans to remove Alex." SDNY_01_03425449 (Exhibits F41-3) □□

the New Jersey AG (NJAG) requested a list of “uncollateralized loans," Pavon, trying to use this request to implicate provided L&W Celsius's outside counse] and the NJAG a list of ten Celsius customers which he knew was false. G1) In a footnote of an L&W memo to the SEC, Pavon admitted that these loans,were cross collateralized or had porate guarantees (forms of collateral). (Exhibit H1). This footnote eliminated all such loans from the “uncollateralized” and made all Petitioner statements that "Celsius does not offer uncollateralized loans" match L&W statements. (Exhil ee ta id hy Payon was at the root of the charges against the Petitioner. The materials produced and providec ee . ga tk Pt te

indictment. Mukasey failed to show how Pavon continuously fed the Petitioner false information which became ic through the Petitioner's interviews and statements. Pavon told Leon on 9/10/20, "Alex is just a face and nothing else, it's and you (Leon)." (SDNY_01_03427189) and on 4/8/22 Pavon admitted he was “not sharing" critical information □ the "hole" and the SEC. (12) Pavon stated "| saved Alex"..."and Celsius", referring to a short period in 3/22 when BIG rose above $45k. (Exhibits K1) □□

message on 9/28/21 to Yaron Shalem, (CFO) which stated, "he needed a different set of numbers for Alex" 00955931, Pavon manipulated financials to keep Petitioner in the dark about CEL buys. Others wanted to know wh\ CEO was receiving different financial reports than other Celsius executives. SDNY_01_03377147 (K2) Leon felt no follow his CEO and controlling shareholder instructions, stating ina message to Pavon on 14/12/20, “| do what | want, go fuck himself". (K3)-Pavon version was "At any point in my life, have | given you the impression that | play by the (L1) Leon demonstrated his commitment to Pavon by writing, "| will kill for you...we will get rid of Alex" 03425983 (N41) started to "restrict Alex from decisions" at Celsius. 03425763 (Exhibits O) ,

Petitioner instructed Pavon on 9/4/21 to "protect against a decrease (of BTC price) in early 2021". Pavon and L&W met the SEC on 9/24/21 to discuss settlement and the removal of the Petitioner from Celsius due to "false statements" related and clarity from regulators. On 10.21.21, Pavon wrote to Leon stating, "Alex is not managing the company day to day, reduce his.direct reports." 03425465 (Exhibit P) That same day Pavon removed the Petitioner as a voting member of th Risk 00085871 and Asset and Liabilities Committees, without informing Petitioner that he was no longer a voting - (Exhibit Q) Petitioner's instructions as CEO no longer carried weight. When the Petitioner was removed □□□□□ □□□□□□□□ asset deployment ancrisk, Celsius had a positive balance sheet with over $2 billian, strong enough to attract a $700. equity investment from Westcap and CDPQ in 12/3/2021. (Exhibits R) □

failed to utilize the evidence provided by Petitioner which showed that Pavon secretly assumed the day to day control On 2.4.2021, after being appointed as officer of Celsius Network LTD by Leon. SDNY_01_03426686 Pavon □□□□ he has talked to Celsius's lead investor (Westcap) and that they will tell the Petitioner "to step aside." 03426937 On Pavon admitted to his co-conspirators that Westcap knew "we are supporting the currency (CEL)" (Exhibit S)On □ 24, 2021, Pavon wrote to Leon, "They (Westcap) know Alex does not manage the company." 03425465 (Exhibit T) on October 28, 2021 writes to Leon stating, "The call (with Westcap) will decide if you (Leon) are a billionaire or (going (Exhibit U) These private WhatsApp messages confirm Pavon and Leon planned and executed their fraudulent □□ to provide false information to the Petitioner and entrap him, thus baiting the SEC to remove the Petitioner as a shareholder due to "misstatements". This fraud by Pavon and Leon started before Pavon joined Celsius In mid 2020. day Celsius closed the $700 million dollar capital raise (12/3/2021) with it's lead investor, Westcap, Pavon wrote the ioner to say, "Congratulations Mr. Mashinsky, you really built something amazing." 00485590 Pavon had no problem lying around him in order to achieve his goal of owning 50% of the fast growing company by any means necessary. . V) ey nae . □□ manipulation committing fraud on federal regulators and Celslus's clients never stopped. In a messages between and Rodney Sunaye Wong, Celsius's head of risk. After Pavon and.Wong were secretly editing the Petitioner's public on YouTube of over a year as part of the plan to implicate the Petitioner in making "false public statements", Pavon Wong emailed each other stating, "don't you think we should have Alex on this thread?" (Exhibit W), Pavon or Wong never Petitioner to these critical emails. The long thread listed all""Ask Me Anything" (AMA) YouTube video edits which had shared with other executives and employees of Celsius. The emails clearly show that the Petitioner was unaware’ □□□ off any edits or decisions regarding edits of AMA content. The thread shows that the video edits were not motivated by an_ to eliminate inaccuracies but created specifically to incriminate the Petitioner. These reports created by Pavon, Wong & Noy for L&W were to be shared with the SEC to remove Petitioner as CEO. Pavon and his lieutenants (all close friends Daniel Leon) intentionally failed to provide the Petitioner with feedback on what he should say or not say in, future while collecting evidence against him. Many of these individuals attended a weekly, hour long prep calls set up ahead of AMA and intentionally withheld information about the edits they just did on previous videos. Counsel failed to explain □□□ how the Petitioner had no intent to defraud or make misstatements regarding the company, but instead □□□□□□□ who were placed around him to provide him with what he thought was accurate information. (Exhibits x) □ failure to properly conduct pre-trial investigation for almost 2 years impacted the Petitioner and would have led to rent results, Failure to interview or subpoena Pavon, Leon, Treutler, Wong or any other employee of Celsius could hardly b a strategic decision. See United States v. Debango 780 F. 2d 81, 85 (DC Cir. 1986); United States v. Gray, 878, □□ (3rd Cir, 1989). This was a complete abdication of counsel's duty to investigate and falls completely below the □□□□□□□□ dards of reasonable professional representation outlined in Strickland. See English v. Romanowski, 602 F. 3d 714 (6th Gir, But for Mukusky's ineffectiveness in pre-trial investigation, the outcome of this case would have been different. □□□ °°

deficiencies in counsel's performance did not occur in seclusion; they were compounded by Mukasey's failure to obtain to the 3500 materials containing exculpatory evidence. Counsel's failure to obtain or fight for access to the no □□□□□□ leged communications between Celsius, (represerited by L&W) and federal regulators clearly demonstrates how little he willing to do for his client once he knew that payments would not be forthcoming from the Petitioner which he needed to out his firm. Despite repeated requests by the Petitioner, counsel failed to obtain any of these materials. When the plea arrived, on a Friday afternoon, Mukasey steered the Petitioner, who was now on Xanax and away with his family (with no puter access), to drive back to NYC on Sunday and pressured him to accept a 360 month non-negotiable plea offer within (Exhibit Y) Petitioner informed counsel that he desired a face to face proffer session with the DOJ prosecutors to the false narrative provided by Pavon, yet Attorney Mukasey refused and instead told the DOJ that Petitioner had no in a Fatico. The Petitioner spent two years preparing the 868 page rebuttal document detailing responses to all of □□□□ listed the.Petitioner many attempts to derisk Celsius including the closing of $2.5B in overcollateralized FTX joans and Celsius stay a net seller of CEL tokens in 2020 and 2021 (Exhibit Z), but counsel ignored this document when he that the D&O claims would not be paid in time to save his firm. Had counsel reviewed this document, he would have the defense the Petitioner had prepared showing prudent risk management and the true reasons for the drawal pause and bankruptcy of Celsius in 2022. The basis for the $2B manipulation claim against FTX and the absence of intent to defraud by the Petitioner. Withholding these critical defenses from the Court deprived the Petitioner of the ability tc a ve ee de bt ee atta nthjanaes to mount anv meaninaful

Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel at all stages of the criminal proceedings which includes the entry of a plea, ‘ □□

and Loss Calculation °

Court has time and again emphasized the impact that the Sentencing Guideline range should have on a district determination of a defendant's sentence. The Guidelines central role in sentencing means that an error related to the □ can be a significant procedural error. See Gail v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S. Ct. 586, 169 L. Ed. 2d 455

case, the majority of the government's sentencing recommendation was based on a 30-point enhancement which was to a supposed $550 million creditor loss by Celsius prior to bankruptcy. (Exhibit AB) The government framed the □□□□□□ "creditors lost access to" coming from imaginary uncollateralized loans but failed to show any documentation for, □ institutional loan default due to these supposed "uncollateralized loans". The government is ignoring the Petitioner's and decision to be one of the first to voluntarily pause withdrawals which closed all counterparty loans before-the. in the crypto market spread wide, Celsius only had $93m worth of collateralized institutional loans (zero. * llateralized loans) days before it filed for ch11 on 7/13/22. This critical decision to pause and close loans together, with the oner's insistence that distributions must be made in coin are the main reasons that led to Celsius being able to distribute” $4.73B to date. Petitioner terminated Akin Gump and appointed Kirkland based on their promise to distribute assets in’ and Ethereum. This large payout amount, exceeds the total amount of valid claims by Celsius's creditors. (Exhibit AG) false assertion of losses, intended to achieve the maximum sentence for the Petitioner, could not be derived from □□□ or CEL token manipulation (both orchestrated by Pavon and Leon) as the losses from CEL and loans«were much smaller the $750m in equity funding Celsius has raised. □□ stated during sentencing that only 58% of claims were paid back to creditors as of the date of the hearing, but was wrong, without basis and intentionally misleading. The 58% which the DOJ claims is only achieved if one. the original exaggerated Ch 11 $4.96B in claims and limits the payouts to the $2.87B issued prior to May 8, 2025. This the $220 million Celsius held in coin and cash for a pending distribution to creditors and the $658 million in □□□□□ shares which were distributed to creditors shortly after the sentencing date. (Exhibit AD) The $4.96B total claim number: obviously inflated since Celsius already announced that it was reserving $500m against reimbursement totals for duplicate. and settlements. These adjustments reduces the aétual valid claim amount to about $4.5B and bring total □□ before sentencing to 76%. Since then distributions rose to $4.73B, exceeding total claims. Thus due to counsel's the government improperly calculated losses associated with this case, attributing full responsibility of the Joss (instead of Pavon and Leon) which dramatically increased the Petitioner's sentence. This placed him in a higher : eline range and prejudiced his sentencing before the Court. (Exhibits AE) ‘

net claims from unsecured creditors are expected to further decrease below $4.2 billion since many counter claims creditors are still pending. Open collection efforts include $300 million arbitration against EFH, $150 million trial against. $58m of lonic shares and a $2 billion dollar claim against FTX. Even a partial settlement of these and other open would result in additional recoveries for all of Celsius's creditors. To date, the vast majority of Celcius's creditors have made whole. The Petitioner was deprived from presenting many of these facts during his sentencing due tothe and the ongoing conflicts of his counsel. (Exhibits AF) There is a reasonable probability since objective evidence ts, a different outcome would have occurred if proper evidence and argument were provided to the court by the Petitioner's at sentencing. See Mayo v. Henderson, 13 F. 3d 528, 534 (2d Cir. 1994); United States v. Bent, 654 F. App'x 11, 13 (2 2016); Lee v. United States, 582 U.S. 357, 365-66, 137 S. Ct. 1958, 198 L. Ed. 2d 476 (2017). □□

stated, counsel avoided conducting a Fatico evidentiary hearing by falsely telling the DOJ that Petitioner was "no a Fatico." During the May 8, 2025 heating Petitioner came prepared to argue. that the loss was "uncollected □□□□□□ but was already filed an admission of a $590m loss into the record without showing it to Petitioner. Counsel's dramatic □ of heart shows his complete ineffectiveness. At no point before this hearing had counsel briefed the Petitioner that he to abandon his core strategy and that the deep dive into the objections which consumed over $1 million in billable rs was to be discarded. While reviewing the plea, the Petitioner was led to believe that the 3553 and Fatico process, would of the government's agreement. Counsel never explained that accepting the plea would result in the Petitioner's inabilit ontest the government's loss calculations. Counsel simply informed the Court that “there is no dispute" regarding ernment's facts, a complete denial which prejudiced the Petitioner and denied him the tight to effective assistance. (Exhibit: See U.S. v, Frank, 230 F 3d 811 (5th Cir. 2000). anvarnment prove it's loss calculations (which contributed to

into the government's plea agreement. See United States v. Gordon, 156 F. 3d 376, 380 (2d Cir. 1998). The failure □□ the government's loss calculations was so detrimental to the Petitioner that it can not-be accepted as a "strategic by Attorney Mukasey and constitutes a clear instance of ineffectiveness. See United States v. Gray, 878 F. 2d 702 (3rd This unexpected, last minute change by counsel made the plea agreement involuntary since the advice he received counsel was not within acceptable standards. See Yalincak v. United States, No. 08-CV-1453, 2011 U.S. Dist , LEXIS WL 2469722 (D. Conn. Sept. 28, 2011).

OF A POSIONOUS TREE □

asey failed to advocate that the genesis of the investigation into Petitioner statements and actions is based on Celslus's n (CEL) being both a security and a commodity but this assumption is squarely untrue under current regulatory ~~ (The Clarity Act and SEC/CFTC statements). Mukasey refused to use the legal opinions Petitioner relied on, several years which all state that the CEL token was no longer a security after its initial launch. (Exhibit AH) □□□ and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).both now state most tokens are not securities in contradiction to the Government's assertions in this case (Exhibit Al). The securities and modities statutes underlying the counts against the Petitioner by the Prosecution are civil in nature and were NEVER befor ied criminally in this context. On April 7, 2025, ahead of sentencing now Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche wrote a r to all U.S. Attorney's expressly stating that any prosecution involving token classification questions should be suspended. failed to demonstrate how Petitioner followed verbal and written advice of counsel from Pavon, Davis Polk, Akin L&W and other top law firms, clearly demonstrating that the Petitioner thought he was operating within the law..From until the pause in mid 2022, Petitioner was provided false information, marginalized, removed from meetings and decisior by Pavon and Leon in advance of their anticipated April 2022 SEC settlement which was intended to permanently." Petitioner from Celsius. (Exhibits AJ) ° ‘ . ° □□

6 month of the start of 2022, Celsius's equity went from being valued at over $3.5B by some of the best investors to zerc by the filing of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. This turn of events was a direct result of the Petitioner being excluded fram making process. The reckless actions by Pavon, Leon, Wong, Treutler and others which maintained a secret and. hugs long position on BTC allowed FTX to destabilize Celsius. This was in defiance of Petitioner's multiple instructions fo deleverage and sell BTC. (Exhibits AK) This resulted in Celsius's failure to quickly adjust to the fastest rise in interest s in American history and the war in Ukraine which caused BTC price to drop by 75% in the first few months of 2022,The bets placed by Pavon and:Leon to “save Celsius" from severe market fluctuations caused the collapse of the company forced a rapid liquidation of the collateral provided to put these long BTC positions in place. The Petitioner's □□□□□□□□ failed ANY of this to the cgurt or utilize this information to negotiate a more reasonable plea deal with the Prosecutlon, AL) The Petitioner came to the May 8, 2025 hearing expecting to do a Fatico on all these unrésolved ‘issues, but Mukasey falsely told the Government that the Petitioner did not want the hearing. (Exhibits AM) Counsel failed to explain to the Petitioner that accepting the government's plea offer would result in the waiver of any arguments before court. See United States v. Otero, 502 F. 3d 331 (3rd Cir. 2007). Ce 's settlement with Petitioner the.Government (Federal Trade Commission) has assessed the total amount owed to creditors the same as the Ch11 filing at $4.72B. The Ch11 first distribution notice (page 12), put total claims at $4.96B with $500m being reserved for disputes and counter claims (reducing the amount due to $4.46B). As of the filing of this petition ovel already has been paid out by the Celsius estate which exceeds both net total claims. Petitioner advised the Court □□□□□ tencing that the $550m loss claimed by the government was actually "uncollected funds". The fact that Petitioner □□□□□ argued against him during the same May 8, hearing putting on the record an unsubstantiated $590m loss shows how and ineffective Mukasey was in representing Petitioner interest. (Exhibits AN) □□□

government presented a Celsius EXCO slide prepared by a junior Celsius employee from 2020 that listed 70% in loans". This slide is FALSE as it miscatagorized deposits on the Bitfinex Exchange (A custodian affiliated witt as being uncollateralized. All loans issued on Bitfinex were over-collateralized. Bitfinex only offers margin of up to □□□ of Celsius assets on it's exchange (Celsius had no losses from lending on exchanges). This simple □□□□□□□□□□ is of the pillars of the government "proof" that Petitioner "lied with intent to defraud". The CFO & CIO of Celsius, Harumi stated in an email to Petitioner on March 22, 2020 (same period’as the slide) "We don't have any uncollateralized (SDNY_RO1_03363388). Here, clearly the Government did not do their homework and just continue to assert the fals rative fabricated by Pavon. The Government also claims that for the rest of 2020 at least 20% was also "uncollateralized’, falsehood relying on slides instead of actual loans, the 20% refers to the same over-collateralized loans on Bitfinex. DOJ claims Petitioner was a reckless, risk taking executive, but the evidence shows the opposite. For example, on 3/18/2 Celsius has issued over $2B of over-collateralized loans to Alameda backed by FTT tokens from FTX, Petitioner wrote a memo to the risk team asking to close down all loans to Celsius largest and most profitable customer. The fact that Oe een ee eee ee and ather falsehoods with the DOJ ahead of sentencing should be

prior to sentencing), was due to the complete ineffectiveness of counsel in digging for the truth or providing and amicably factual truths with the government prosecutors. As a result of counsel's ineffectiveness in raising these conctedte Petitioner was sentenced on false narrative and partial facts. (Exhibits AO) □□

provided the court many other examples of him providing disclosure and explaining to AMA viewers that Celsius was had a risk of default and urged users to sell their CEL tokens and diversify. These segments clearly show Petitioner always trying to protect his community. (Exhibit AP) Actions taken by Pavon and others, in secret, in defiance of written from the CEO can not be then used as "evidence" of fraudulent lies by petitioner. Another important example of joner good faith and true intent was petitioner disclosure in a 42/10/21 AMA (video SDNY 00004782 & 4761 time stamp of $421m in total purchases of CEL tokens in 2021 by Celsius. This number which Petitioner asked his team to are ahead of the weekly AMA included all forms of buying which the Government claims was a secret conspiracy involving ioner and Pavon. Clearly, Petitioner would not be publicly disclosing illegal activity to the tune of $421m, spanning several if he had anything to do with it. Petitioner wanted his community to know how much Celsius has spent on rewards, □ interest, OTC purchases and CEL burns in total. This disclosure flies in the face of the Government's conspiracy ry and leaves Pavon, Leon and Treutler as the sole owners of the CEL price manipulation. Petitioner has submitted argple of his instructions to the co-conspirators to sell CEL token during the exact period they were secretly buying CEL, □

Petitioner was invited to an interview on CNBC ‘international during a Crypto event in Paris. The interview setup by his advisor David Keys was presented to Petitioner as an "opportunity for Celsius to communicate the launch of - . services". Custody wallets was one requirement the NJAG put in place for all existing customers as part ofthe ©. state and federal settlement. Instead the reporter was focused on whether Celsius had any Un-collateralized loans ing Petitioner questions provided by Leon and Keys) during the live CNBC interview, which Pavon and Leon were watchihg Israel, Pavon said "| have not met such a stupid person (Alex) in my life.,.he is quite a fool, | have not seen sucha referring to how easily Petitioner fell into their trap to misstate facts on national TV. Leon then replied "Lets get on a cal him? (Alex in Paris) It will speed up his lack of understanding and help promote this..." referring to Pavon and Leon plan to CNBC interview to incriminate Petitioner during the upcoming SEC settlement and finally cause the removal of as CEO. Pavon and Leon had no problem lying to regulators, government officials and DOJ investigators for greed - power. They manipulated media officials and presented Petitioner with false information. Counsel failed to communicate of these critical issues to the DOJ or the court. (Exhibits AQ)

after the Celsius pause, after the CEO commanded everyone in the company to focus on collecting all assets for the of creditors, Leon was busy moving $12m in CEL gains offshore SDNY_RO01_03438660. On 6/14/22 Pavon messaged Bolger (CFO) "Citi and FTX expect Alex to step down", (AR) Leon told Pavon "Alex should go to jail for 100 years". □ and on 7.9.22 “He and his whore wife, they should both be removed from the planet" 01_03426412 government's charges rested on improperly applied legal theories which deprived the Petitioner of due process in violation constitution's fifth amendment. Additionally, counsel should have raised these issues forcefully to the Court but did not. □ the actual distribution and recoveries to creditors now exceeds all dollar claims submitted in the Celsius Chapter 11 - a reasonable probability exists that but for counsel's errors, the Petitioner would have insisted going to trial. See Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S. Ct. 366, 88 L. Ed. 2d 203 (1985). □□

CONCLUSION cumulative effects of these violations are clear. Counsel operated under severe conflicts of interest, failed to provide adequate advice, withheld critical filings and information, abandoned essential defenses without informing or with his client, and neglected to advance fundamental constitutional arguments. plea was not knowing or voluntary, since counsel misinformed and misled the Petitioner at nearly every step in the plea process. An attorney-client relationship is built primarily on TRUST. Not having any legal training, no prior criminal and dealing with the immense stress of a federal indictment, the Petitioner placed considerable trust in his attorney. Thi was misplaced, Attorney Mukasey failed to perform basic duties which were necessary a proper defense and but for his errors, the results of the proceeding would have been different. See Strickland at 698. sentencing record was materially inaccurate, and the outcome of the proceedings was inconsistent with other verdicts to the same statue and how the law is now being interpreted by the courts. Newly discovered evidence now □□ at apadtinre aenffered no nermanent

which the conviction rests untenable under current law. Petitioner therefore respectfully requests in the interest of justice, the Court grant an evidentiary hearing, to vacate the sentence, and order a de novo resentencing at which the full correctec may be considered. Such relief will restore the integrity of the process and ensure a sentence consistent with □□ requirements and the facts as they are now known. oe □□□ reserves the right to amend and edit this submission. Petitioner asks the prosecution to provide the Court copies of □ ence listed by petitioner but not included in the attachments as counsel has refused to provide the Petitioner with a copy of is records. □□□ symmited on this 18th day of May, 2026.

Mashi sky 7 Pro Sé

Otisvilie Camp road NY 10963 ‘ . - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . □ 2 Mashinsky, certify that on May,18, 2026 a true and correct copy of the forgoing was sent, postage paid, to the following: ed States Attorney . □ Pearl St , NY 10036 □

Poh Petitioner, Pro Se

Ta See NB □ Name Celsius Network LLC Case No. 22-10964

— Total Since Current Quarter Effective Date . Total cash disbursements $39,572,400 $635,684,861 . Non-cash securities transferred 80 $658,770,760 | . Other non-cash property transferred ~-$303,067,397 ___$3,436,169,880_ . Total transferred (a+-b+-c) $342,639,797 [—srs0625501 / Pie ee fart | cae [ener | come Current Cumulative Quarter Cumulative □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Areata |__| St6tseseie] to) sian Itemized Breakdown by Firm □ Saccullo Lege □□ former | 80 szsuras{ So] taso.ras fi__|Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &FqCo-Counsel [80] $16,098,697| $0] $16,098,697 Hi__|Alvarez &eMarsal_ [Financial Professional | ___fo|_ $24,792,360] $0] $24,793,360 sfv__JCenterview Partners [Financial Professional, | __80] - $24359,872[ $0 $4,353,872 Andrews fer To] 755000[ Bo] 875,000 yi__[RiWdend sesisflead Counsel |S] $74,081,850] 80] $74,041,850 fletham & Watkine [Special Counsel | $0] $10,506,738| $0 $10,506,758 pai_frsmusuie other .zr9are[ Bo] sons. x [Sonteh fuer Sof 73.822] Bo] 5.2 pe fstout fer 80] 251.266] 80] a,251,206 pi fete fer 80} si.zca.oas| 80] $12,262,409 pa pa pe ee pa

pe ee pe pe pO = pe pf pet pet

GXD Labs and EquitlesFirst Announce Resolution of Claims Relating to Celsius Bankruptcy Estate 05/22/2026 05:51:03 PM - & INDIANAPOLIS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Today, GXD Labs, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Atlas Grove Partners, and jointly announced a settlement of claims relating to loans made by EquitiesFirst to Celsius Network. The which includes $500 million in payments, resulted in the dismissal of both an adversary proceeding orlginally filed in 2023, and a related arbitration. □□

are pleased to have reached a settlement with EquitiesFirst," said R Christian Wyatt, Co-Founder and Managing Partner, Labs. "This bespoke, out-of-court resolution is an important milestone for Celsius's creditors and the bankruptcy estate, a testament to the rigorous, strategic approach our firm brings to complex asset recovery." appreciate the collaboration with GXD Labs to put this matter behind us," said Al Christy, Jr., Founder and Chief Executive EquitiesFirst. "EquitiesFirst looks forward to continuing to be a leading provider of progressive capital throughout the ld just as we've done since the firm was founded 24 years ago." □

Labs managed the litigation against EquitiesFirst through the Blockchain Recovery Investment Consortium (BRIC), which created in early 2023 to maximize recoveries in complex digital asset bankruptcies like Celsius. The BRIC was appointed Asset Recovery Manager and Litigation Administrator by the Debtors and Unsecured Creditors’ Committee in the Network bankruptcy in January 2024, following Celsius's exit from bankruptcy protection.

YAN LD Tees Ves □□

by the Quota Share Endorsement; Ex. 3, Endorsement No. 1. The obligations of the Excess Side A Insurers are several and not joint and are limited to the extent of the individual $1,250,000

aggregate limit of liability of each of the Excess Side A Policies. Ex. 2, Section IV, as amended by the Quota Share Endorsement; Ex. 3, Endorsement No. 1. The Noticed Matters 33. The Interpleader-Defendants have tendered multiple matters to Interpleader- Plaintiffs for which they contend they are entitled to coverage under the Side A Policies (collectively, the “Noticed Matters”). The matters tendered to Interpleader-Plaintiffs to date include: a. A lawsuit styled Goines v. Celsius Network, LLC, No. 2:22-CV-04560-KM- ESK (D.N.J.), a putative class action lawsuit filed on July 20, 2022 by purchasers of specified Celsius financial products through a Celsius Earn Rewards Account, the CEL Tokens and/or specified Celsius loans against, inter alia, Alexander Mashinsky, Shlomi Daniel Leon, Hanoch Goldstein, and

Kristine Mashinsky; — - noe b. An arbitration styled Plutus21 Blockchain Opportunities Fund, I, L.P. v. Mashinsky, instituted by Plutus21 Blockchain Opportunities Fund, I, L.P. and certain other Plutus21 entities against Alexander Mashinsky and Shlomi Daniel Leon; c. The following subpoenas issued by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”): . i. A subpoena issued to Celsius and its affiliates in the matter captioned Re: Certain Trading Activities Involving TerraUSD (UST) / LUNA Digital

Assets (No. B9486) dated June 30, 2022; - il. A subpoena issued to Celsius in the matter captioned Certain Persons Engaged in Fraud and Other Unlawful Conduct with Respect to Digital Asset Transactions (C0352) dated September 9, 2022; iit. A subpoena for the production of documents issued to Alexander Mashinsky dated October 14, 2022; d.

residents without registering with the OSC and seeking information regarding Celsius’s activities in Ontario; h. Certain matters relating to the bankruptcy proceeding styled In re: Celsius Network LLC, No. 22-10964 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (the “Bankruptcy Proceeding”): i. A September 14, 2022 order by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York granting a motion filed by the United States Trustee to appoint an examiner to conduct an examination concerning, inter alia, Celsius’s cryptocurrency holdings;

_ li, Certain requests for discovery upon certain Interpleader-Defendants under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 or as identified in the Examiner’s Report; iii. A motion for approval of a joint stipulation between Celsius and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors which included a proposed complaint asserting causes of action against, inter alia, Alexander Mashinsky, Shlomi Daniel Leon, Hanoch Goldstein, Aliza Landes, and Kristine Meehan, filed on February 14, 2023 in the Bankruptcy Proceeding; iv. A June 18, 2022 demand letter to Shiran Kleiderman from White & Case LLP on behalf of Mohsin Y. Meghji, the Litigation Administrator for Post- Effective Date Debtors in the Bankruptcy Proceeding; v. An adversary proceeding styled Meghji v. Mashinsky, Adv. Proc. No. 1:24ap3667 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (the “Adversary Proceeding”), commenced

. on July 10, 2024, naming as defendants Alexander Mashinsky, Shlomi Daniel Leon, Hanoch Goldstein, Roni Cohen-Pavon, Harumi Urata- □□

□□ □ Thompson, Jeremie Beaudry, Johannes Treutler, Aliza Landes, and Kristine Meehan Mashinsky; i. The following letters from Celsius investors: j. A letter sent by Bradley Hart to Celsius dated July 28, 2022 seeking $10,000 that he asserts he was unable to transfer to secure a marginalized loan that he acquired due to Celsius’s freezing of his account; ii, An undated letter sent by Erik-Jan Smulders to Celsius advising that he is owed $27,289.70; j. The following subpoenas served by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”): i. Deposition subpoenas served on Rod Bolger, dated January 10, 2023; on Rodney Sunada-Wong, dated January 23, 2023, and on Vice President of Treasury Jason Perman, dated January 25, 2023, ii. A document subpoena served on Jason Perman dated January 23, 2023;

, iii. A subpoena served on Shlomi Daniel Legn on October 11, 2022; iv. A subpoena served on Alexander Mashinsky on July 25, 2022; k. A lawsuit styled SEC v. Celsius Network Limited, No. 1:23-cv-6005 (S.D.N.Y,), filed on July 13, 2023 by the SEC against Celsius and Alexander Mashinsky;

1. A lawsuit styled New York v. Mashinsky, No. 450040/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty.), filed on January 5, 2023 by the Attorney General of the State of New York against Alexander Mashinsky; m. A motion filed on December 9, 2022 by the plaintiff in the lawsuit styled □

Komarovskiy v. Celsius Networks LLC, No, 2285CV00701 (Mass. Super. Ct.) to amend the complaint to add Alexander Mashinsky and Shlomi Daniel Leon

. as defendants, including a proposed amended complaint; n. A lawsuit styled Bull v. Mashinsky, No. 1:23-cv-01327 (S.D.N.Y.) filed on

February 16, 2023 by alleged Celsius investor, Thomas Bull, against Alexander Mashinsky and Kristine Mashinsky; and o. Numerous investigations and proceedings by state attorneys general, state regulators, and United States Attorneys’ offices; p. The following matters involving the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”): i. A Civil Investigative Demand served by the FTC on Alexander Mashinsky on November 23, 2022; ii. A letter and proposed consent order sent on June 6, 2023 by the FTC to Hanoch Goldstein and Kristine Meehan Mashinsky; iii. A lawsuit styled FTC v. Celsius Network, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-6009 (S.D.N.Y.), filed by the FTC against, inter alia, Alexander Mashinsky, Shlomi Daniel Leon, and Hanoch Goldstein on July 13, 2023; and q. A July 13, 2023 letter from Celsius to counsel for Hanoch Goldstein stating that Celsius intends to move to equitably subordinate Mr. Goldstein’s bankruptcy claims. 34, Interpleader-Plaintiffs have agreed to provide Defense Costs coverage in connection with certain of the Noticed Matters, subject to full reservations of rights of the Lead Side A, Berkley Excess Side A, and QBE Excess Side A Policies’ terms, conditions, and exclusions,