according to document FTX Debtor Filed Dec. 12 Obfuscates Bankruptcy Proceedings By Continuing To Claim All Individual And Corporate Client Identities Are Sealed Unless Requested To Reveal I’m trying
Seal of personal information
While the personal information of individual investors may be considered personal information that should not be made publicly available, the identity of FTX’s corporate customers may not be subject to the same moral objections.
On December 9, several popular media organizations filed motions to release the identities of all individuals. Bloomberg LP, Dow Jones & Company, Inc., The New York Times Company, and The Financial Times Ltd, as “media intermediaries,”
“Intervene for the limited purpose of challenging a debtor’s motion seeking the entry of a final order authorizing the debtor to redact or withhold certain confidential and personal information of a customer. ”
Such a claim, if passed, would expose the identities of FTX’s retail investors and similarly drive ordinary retail users into bankruptcy for Celsius. Given the mess investors have already suffered, a leak of personal information will only lead to more heartache and pain.
However, FTX’s corporate client identities must definitely be in the public domain. The current proposal is to protect companies exposed to FTX and seal all client information unless specifically requested.
Not only does this method allow companies to avoid public scrutiny, it also slows down the bankruptcy court due diligence and discovery process. In a claim filed on December 12, the United States Trustee requested:
Extensive redaction authority from “documents filed or to be filed with court, or published in these Chapter 11 cases,” with the following information: (a) all clients (and , creditors of the debtor), whether such customer is an individual or a legal entity. “
US Trustee Objections to Claims
However, it went on to maintain that “the United States Trustee has no objection to the sealed submission of addresses or e-mail addresses of customers or other creditors who are individuals.” Regardless, individual names that are not protected by law such as GDPR in the UK or EU must be unsealed under claims.
The motive for filing was alleged to be “fundamental to the operation of the bankruptcy system,” and the debtor said it was “no more than vague statements in support of the claim.”
The argument cites the Celsius lawsuit as a precedent for not redacting customer names while protecting user addresses and email addresses.
It further argued that the debtor’s proposal to provide unredacted copies to the court “only upon request” was “contrary to the stamping procedures outlined in the court’s local rules.”
claim to further
“As a matter of promoting the integrity of the judicial system, it has been satisfactorily resolved that bankruptcy proceedings must be open and transparent.4 Accordingly, the debtor’s request should be denied.”
An omnibus hearing at which related claims will be heard will be held on December 16 in the Delaware area.