New York Judge Michael Wiles of the District Court of the Southern District of New York has denied the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) appeal to stay the $1 billion asset-sale plan between bankrupt crypto broker Voyager Digital and Binance.US.
During a Wednesday hearing on the DOJ’s motion to halt the order pending appeal, Judge Wiles reiterated his approval of the plan on the basis that further delay would harm the interests of Voyager’s customers.
Judge Denies DOJ’s Appeal Motion
Recall that the DOJ filed an appeal motion on Friday, seeking to review Judge Wiles’ approval of the Voyager-Binance.US plan barely 24 hours after the judge ruled in favor of the deal.
CryptoPotato reported yesterday that the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Damian Williams, and U.S. trustee William K. Harrington, filed a supporting memorandum requesting a stay of the order pending the appeal motion.
Williams and Harrington asked for a two-week stay so authorities would have enough time to sort out legal issues with Voyager. However, Judge Wiles noted in the latest hearing that the duration of the current stay, which elapses by March 20, is enough for any other formalities.
The judge reiterated that the argument against Voyager and Binance.US showed no irregularities in the asset-sale plan.
“As I explained in my Decision, the evidence and argument before me during the confirmation hearing did not suggest there were any illegalities in what the plan contemplated, and compelled a conclusion that the transactions could and should proceed,” the judge said.
DOJ’s Appeal Failed to Discuss Cited Authorities: Judge
Furthermore, Judge Wiles referred to the DOJ’s claim that the appeal motion was likely to succeed, disclosing that the government failed to discuss the theory that the order relied on.
“The Government contends that it will likely win on appeal, but in making its arguments, the Government has not even discussed any of the authorities that I cited, or the actual theory on which I relied,” Judge Wiles stated.
The judge insisted that the DOJ’s papers exaggerated and mischaracterized his decision and the authorities he cited while relying on “straw man arguments.”