Can finally say the settlement is here 13.094156% on assets
87% of the Total Distributed in Lump Sum 13% held for a final distribution for any debated claims
Taxes paid may need to update your losses
If your claim was disputed check and follow up to get a payout everyone who was approved no action required unless you need to update your address it's been a while

Check Claim ID at EY
Bankruptcy -> Notice to Cred. 300pg pdf update. Getting 13% of $ back. All claims posted (no names, just userID)
https://documentcentre.ey.com/api/Document/download?docId=37250&language=EN
https://documentcentre.ey.com/#/detail-engmt?eid=342

Highlight's

Pursuant to section 148(1) of the BIA, the Trustee, with approval of the Inspectors, has declared an interim dividend for distribution to creditors with proven claims.  Each creditor with a proven claim will receive 13.094156% of their proven claim less the levy amount payable to the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy pursuant to the BIA. The interim dividend provides for a distribution of approximately 87.0% of the funds the Trustee is currently holding.  The remaining funds will be held as a reserve for future disbursements related to the administration of the bankruptcy.  A final distribution will be made at a later date.  

Additionally, since the First Interim Status Report, the Trustee provided various information and documents in the Trustee’s possession to the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) in respect of its audit of Quadriga pursuant to subsection 231.2(1) of the Income Tax Act.  Following the audit, the CRA determined that Quadriga had not reported income during its 2016 – 2018 fiscal periods and as a result certain taxes were owing.  The Trustee subsequently responded to CRA requesting that certain losses of Quadriga be considered in the CRA’s analysis, which the Trustee believed should reduce the amount of unreported income.  The Trustee’s submissions were partially accepted by the CRA.  As result, the CRA has filed a revised claim in the amount of $11,787,528.17.  The Trustee, in consultation with the Inspectors, has accepted this proof of claim filed by CRA.

Table of Claim Rates locked in

 The rates for conversion as at the conversion date established by the Court are set out below:
 Denomination Rate
Bitcoin Cdn $6,739.08 / 1.00 Bitcoin  
Bitcoin Cash SV Cdn$78.84 / 1.00 Bitcoin Cash SV
Bitcoin Cash Cdn $419.37 / 1.00 Bitcoin Cash
Bitcoin Gold Cdn $22.14 / 1.00 Bitcoin Gold
Litecoin Cdn$104.84 / 1.00 Litecoin
Ethereum Cdn$223.45 / 1.00 Ether
U.S. Dollars Cdn$1.34 / US$1.00

Colored Coins are Back Baby ^^
Long live the Inordinate Ordinals for ordinary Bitcoiners

That was a good call when you wrote this now I am just following it on Altcoindaily man the bitcointalk days were fun times

NecroBump EY Statement on Coin movement

EY Statement
https://documentcentre.ey.com/api/Document/download?docId=36635&language=EN

NOTICE TO AFFECTED USERS
UNAUTHORIZED TRANSFER OF QUADRIGA BITCOIN
In the matter of the Bankruptcy of Quadriga Fintech Solutions Corp., Whiteside Capital
Corporation and 0984750 B.C. Ltd. D/B/A Quadriga CX and Quadriga Coin Exchange
(collectively the “Estate”).
The Trustee and Representative Counsel have become aware of an unauthorized movement of
bitcoin from certain cold wallets held by Quadriga. The cold wallets, listed below, were previously
noted in the First, Second and Third Reports of the Monitor in the CCAA Proceedings. As previously
reported, on February 6, 2019, the day after the Initial Order was granted in the CCAA proceedings,
Quadriga inadvertently transferred certain cryptocurrency into cold wallets that the Applicants were
unable to access.

Ernst & Young Inc. acting in its capacity as court appointed Monitor and subsequently as Trustee in
Bankruptcy worked with management and others to recover the bitcoin transferred to these
wallets. However, the private keys associated with the cold wallets have not been located despite
the detailed review. The locked bitcoin remained within the Quadriga cold wallets until December
16, 2022, prior to the unauthorized transfers being initiated. The Trustee confirms that it did not
initiate the transfers.

The Trustee and Representative Counsel are actively investigating the unauthorized transfers for the
benefit of the Estate. The addresses of the Quadriga cold wallets are as follows:

(a) 1MhgmGaHwLAvvKVyFvy6zy9pRQFXaxw;
(b) 1JPtxSGoekZfLQeYAWkbhBhkr2VEDAD;
(c) 1ECUQLuioJbFZAQchcZq9pggd4Ewcpu;
(d) 1J9Fqc3TicNoy1Y7tgmhQznWrP5AVLX;
(e) 1HyYMMCdCcHnfjwMW2jE4cv9qVkVDFU; and
(f) 1JZJaDDC44DCKLnezDsbW43Zf8LspCKBYP
Dated at Halifax, Nova Scotia, this 20th day of December 2022.
ERNST & YOUNG INC.
Licensed Insolvency Trustee
Trustee of the Estate of Quadriga Fintech Solutions Corp.,
Whiteside Capital Corporation and 0984750 B.C. Ltd.

-

Articles and Speculation is Cotten back, did he move the funds since he lost in FTX or Genesis etc and needed that BTC munching popcorn.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/ey-did-not-initiate-transfers-110426750.html

Accountancy firm Ernst & Young has denied moving funds mistakenly transferred three years ago to inaccessible cold wallets associated with QuadrigaCX, the infamous Canadian crypto exchange that lost $190 million in user funds before its CEO died under mysterious circumstances.

On December 19, researcher ZachXBT flagged the movement of 104 Bitcoin ($1.7 million) split across five cold wallets, much of it to the privacy wallet Wasabi.

This Bitcoin had been dormant for over three years since employees at the collapsed exchange had “inadvertently” sent the Bitcoin to these wallets under the auspices of EY.

An alleged accomplice of Cotten, Michael Patryn, who reemerged in February 2022 under the pseudonym 0xSifu as part of the DeFi project Wonderland, said in response to ZachXBT’s findings this week that the funds had been transferred by a QuadrigaCX employee, “Alex,” acting under instructions from EY.

“They claimed to have accidentally lost the funds by sending to defunct wallets. Now it's suddenly moving again,” Patryn said. “Wen competence.”

ZachXBT
·
Dec 19, 2022
@zachxbt
·
Follow
Five wallets attributed to QuadrigaCX unexpectedly moved ~104 BTC on Dec 17 for the first time in years.

1ECUQLuioJbFZAQchcZq9pggd4EwcpuANe
1J9Fqc3TicNoy1Y7tgmhQznWrP5AVLXj9R
1MhgmGaHwLAvvKVyFvy6zy9pRQFXaxwE9M
1HyYMMCdCcHnfjwMW2jE4cv9qVkVDFUzVa
1JPtxSGoekZfLQeYAWkbhBhkr2VEDADHZB
0xsifu
@0xSifu
·
Follow
So... Alex, the dev at Quadriga, was instructed to send these coins while the company was under the control of Ernst & Young, three years ago. They claimed to have accidentally lost the funds by sending to defunct wallets. Now it's suddenly moving again. Wen competence.

https://twitter.com/0xSifu/status/1605005443847188480?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1605005443847188480%7Ctwgr%5Ef516e824f870515f35cfa5a72d61fb917214b0a3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdecrypt.co%2F117716%2Fey-did-not-initiate-transfers-1-7m-bitcoin-linked-defunct-quadrigacx

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/article-quadrigacx-ftx-money-gone/

Some time last year, I stopped getting regular e-mail updates from Miller Thomson, even when updates were posted on its website. It appeared that I was taken off the list for some reason. I raised this with the law firm and was told: “We will ensure our database is updated.” I’m still waiting.

It feels as if we are no closer to getting our money back than we were when QuadrigaCX first collapsed. And now, with the recent revelation that more than 100 bitcoins previously held in inaccessible virtual wallets have been transferred, it feels as if we are even further away from recovering our funds.

In 2019, coins had been essentially misplaced under the watch of EY, when they were transferred to a digital wallet over which it had no control – the very trustee that was supposed to help the users. Now, neither EY nor Miller Thomson has any information on what happened. This does not exactly inspire confidence.

There is also the matter of the taxman wanting to wet his beak on the spoils. One of the reasons cited by Miller Thomson for why the Quadriga bankruptcy is dragging on this long is that the Canada Revenue Agency wants to conduct an audit to determine taxes owed by Quadriga.

Of the little money that remains in Quadriga, after paying off lawyers and the taxman, how much of it will trickle down to the users? I can’t say, but let me direct you to an even older such event.

In 2014, Tokyo-based cryptocurrency exchange Mt. Gox imploded and a New York private firm was going around trying to buy users’ claims for 10 cents on the dollar. Yet even now, no Mt. Gox user has seen a cent, as the case meanders through the Japanese bankruptcy process.

For those who used FTX as your exchange of choice, no doubt, your experiences will be similar to mine. Treat your money as already gone. It will be less heartache.

May be worth starting a class action in light of EY sending it directly to Cotten mismanagement of funds under management.
https://www.reddit.com/r/QuadrigaCX/comments/zrsb4g/class_action_lawsuit_against_ey/

Well EY said they were in the reports of the monitor I assume the rest of the addresses are in those reports

Throwing two bets up and a necro to good old betmoose since its world cup time

___________

World Cup Semi-Final Bet 1 Options: Netherlands/Croatia | Netherlands/Brazil | Argentina/Croatia | Argentina/Brazil

___________

World Cup Semi-Final 2 Options: England/Morocco | England/Portugal | France/Morocco | France/Portugal

Hot damn this is chugging may well see 100 by July 16 .... trolololo was a psychic man.

https://www.coindesk.com/cryptopia-exchange-currently-in-liquidation-gets-hacked-again-report


The Cryptopia exchange has reportedly been hacked again, even as it is being liquidated following a previous breach that stole NZ$24 million (US$15.5 million).

According to a Stuff report Thursday, a creditor, U.S. firm Stakenet, has been told that about NZ$62,000 (US$45,000) in the XSN cryptocurrency had been transferred out of its cold wallet on Feb. 1.

Unused since the first Cryptopia hack in January 2019, the wallet is reported to contain crypto assets worth NZ$2.7 million (US$1.97 million) in total.

Liquidator Grant Thornton New Zealand said it hadn't authorized the movement of funds and that it is investigating the incident, according to an email seen by Stuff.
Stakenet had not lost funds in the 2019 hack and had been hoping to eventually receive all its assets back.

“If this unauthorised transaction has happened under Grant Thornton’s watch then they need to explain to the users why they failed to secure ... [the] assets like they were supposed to do and how someone was able to access them,” the company told Stuff.

The news comes soon after Grant Thornton had finally started allowing former users of the exchange to enter claims to retrieve their assets

Money and value are coordination games; what we use for money depends on the channels that we use to coordinate social activity. Once society was mediated by governments, and we used fiat currency. Now society is mediated by Twitter and Reddit and Elon Musk, so, sure, Dogecoin.”

Dogecoin runs on a public, decentralized blockchain that no one controls. It may dwindle into insignificance as people move on to the next shiny thing. But as long as there are fans who enjoy the silliness, it will have value.

How to abuse it, have “fun” drive value?

Why not? As we saw with the GameStop drama, the market’s understanding of “value” is shifting. The relentless rise of the stock market despite record uncertainty and risk, and the relatively new phenomenon of day-trader media stars, show that performance is increasingly a matter of message in a world where messages are coming at us thick, fast and everywhere.

Get rich making illogical moves and use the jealousy of missing out on the fun as a weapon.

The struggles of the rich are in the ethereal cloud. You can only fight if you fly up. If you don’t want to fight, you can lie down and roll. However, no matter how you struggle, you will still be in amongst the clouds…

However, the struggle of the poor is always sinking into the quagmire, and hard work is just to prevent oneself from falling any deeper. Once they stop struggling, they will be swallowed by the quagmire.





Just a matter of time till each face is used to represent a certain type of person, and the AI uses the lives of a rich and a poor person to reflect the lives of the poor and the rich.

Yep just like Krugman always in denial and will not surrender
Marketwatch guy is just jealous at this point or didn't take the time to understand and is not willing to learn.

Owning One BTC In 2035 Will Make You Free From SJWS
Cause you will have FU money to ignore their sensitivities and cancel culture Honeybadger don't give a damn!

Looked at Twitter saw Elon post looked at ATH yep another #1 day incoming sitting at 47500 as I write this just teasing that 50 K line

I would say greater than 100 days
However, if we had to choose between 1 to 100 days we are already at 40 and I feel like skipping 42 so let's go with 69 Days
29 Days to hit that 69 for the bullrun 

This thread has not been updated for years felt like reviving it as we have a few legal precedents being argued as of Jan 19 2021
Supplementary Report of the Trustee - 19 Jan 2021 - 7675 KB
https://documentcentre.ey.com/api/Document/download?docId=32800&language=EN

TLDR: The settlement of losses must share a common date, individual loss dates would add a significant burden to legal settlement times to the extent of 17000 individual claim valuations. QuadrigaCx acted as a securities or derivatives firm due to the way custody was held.

Summary of Legal Case:

The debate was whether the claim should be based on the date of CCCA receivership or the Date of Bankruptcy and on how to value Cryptocurrency.
The legal argument for the CCCA date was that it would have been equitable as this was the date where funds were frozen and unable to be taken out of the exchange, meaning that users were not able to mitigate their losses at this time. Ernst and Young argued that the claim should be enacted on the date of bankruptcy.

BlockCAT has made a claim of 4 million Canadian dollars (US$3.14 million). Seeking to maximize its payout, it has brought a motion arguing the date for valuing cryptocurrency claims of other users should commence from the exchange’s initial court order with respect to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The issue at hand pits Quadriga’s former users who had predominantly cryptocurrency claims against creditors who predominantly have claims for fiat currency. In total, Quadriga users have made 17,053 claims with a value of either CAD$224 million or CAD$291 million, depending on the date used for asset valuation.

The trustee has to pay out claims made for cryptocurrency and U.S. dollars in Canadian dollars, meaning the court must decide on a date for valuation before it can proceed with disbursement.



The result of the court case will set a novel precedent in Canadian Law
No bankruptcy court in Canada has previously been asked to determine as to what date claims made in cryptocurrency should be valued in Canadian dollars.

--

What occurred Trustee disagreed with BlockCAT's claim for two key reasons

(a) First, the Cryptocurrency Claims are liquidated claims and not contingent or unliquidated claims as submitted by BlockCAT;
(b) Second, if BlockCAT’s argument is accepted, that the Cryptocurrency Claims are unliquidated claims and mitigation obligations are relevant, then the logical
conclusion would be that the date for valuation of each of the Cryptocurrency Claims may not be the CCAA Date but different dates unique to each individual Affected User’s claim scenario.

-

The trustee then broke down the facts that Quadriga was intended to operate like a traditional securities brokerage institution in so much as Affected Users could view their individual account holdings but their funds and cryptocurrency were maintained in the custody of Quadriga in general pooled accounts pending further Affected User transactions.

However, Quadriga did not segregate Affected Users’ funds and Quadriga funds, and Affected Users’ funds were used for various purposes beyond funding withdrawals to Affected Users, including funding operating expenses and payments to related parties.

All fiat currency and cryptocurrency were provided to Quadriga on the basis that it would be traded using the Quadriga platform. These funds were commingled with all of
Quadriga’s available reserves and in many instances either disbursed to an Affected User with a queued withdraw request or transferred to entities not controlled by Quadriga or directly to Mr. Cotten. In such circumstances, the commingled assets available for distribution are not traceable to any particular Affected User

As a result In their assessment, this custody model—whereby Quadriga retained custody, control and possession of its clients’ crypto assets and only delivered assets to clients following a withdrawal request—meant that clients’ entitlements to the crypto assets held by Quadriga constituted securities or derivatives.

They then went into a breakdown and rebuff of BlockCAT's arguments and how using various dates would cause issues as different users would have different claim dates, with various ones used as examples.

The Quadriga platform, for example, was plagued with liquidity concerns and withdrawal issues long before the CCAA Date. Accordingly, the date of breach for some Affected Users may be much earlier than February 5, 2019 if they tried and failed to withdraw funds prior to that date, which some Affected Users did indeed try to do.

Reasonable alternative dates of breach include the date of an individual Affected Users’ failed withdrawal request; the date of Mr. Cotten’s death; the date when the Quadriga platform was shut down; the CCAA Date; the Date of Bankruptcy; and the date of the Monitor’s Fifth Report, which first outlined Quadriga’s potential misconduct and concluded that the “missing” cryptocurrency may never have actually existed.

BlockCAT suggests that the date of assessment for the Cryptocurrency Claims should also incorporate a reasonable mitigation period. If BlockCAT is correct, then each
Cryptocurrency Claim will have its own corresponding and unique reasonable mitigation period, just as each Cryptocurrency Claim has a unique date of breach.
Questions such as “When did each Affected User become aware of the breach?”, “Were they in a financial position to mitigate their loss by purchasing replacement cryptocurrency?”, and “What is reasonable mitigation?” would have to be considered. The burden in establishing the mitigation obligation would rest with the Trustee

If Cryptocurrency Claims are to be assessed as of the date of breach, and a relevant mitigation period, as suggested by BlockCAT, then it follows that each Cryptocurrency Claim may have its own unique date of breach and mitigation period depending on the facts specific to that Cryptocurrency Claim. Therefore, there may be potentially hundreds of unique dates to assess each of the Cryptocurrency Claims.

Should this Court ultimately find that the Cryptocurrency Claims should be assessed as unliquidated claims and the Date of Bankruptcy is not the appropriate date for valuing these claims, then the Trustee submits that a single date should still be selected for valuing all Cryptocurrency Claims. This conclusion would be more in line with the principles of efficiency and economy applicable to bankruptcy claims administration than would be the case if the Trustee was required to incur the time and expense to carry out 17,000 individual claim valuations.

As stated above, the Trustee is of the view that the applicable provisions of the BIA, as well as the principles of efficiency and economy underlying determination of claims under the BIA, dictate that the Date of Bankruptcy should be chosen as the date to assess the Cryptocurrency Claims. The logical conclusion of valuing the Cryptocurrency Claims using the principles outlined by BlockCAT could be a near-administrative impossibility and would significantly erode recoveries to the Affected Users.

--
Bonus detail was reading up on Tether and a question came to mind who are Crypto Capital
https://amycastor.com/2019/01/17/the-curious-case-of-tether-a-complete-timeline-of-events/
https://amycastor.com/2021/02/14/news-tether-now-prints-1b-at-a-time-tesla-buys-bitcoin-roubini-calls-saylor-a-cokehead-scammers-hijack-quadrigacx-website/
She may not be a crypto user however her research is top notch

Let us ride the rocket this is Elon we are talking about
At the very least he will bring money in that was observing on the sidelines 
Glad to hodl and be on the ride haha

Worth doing it's better to be in with a small amount than to miss an opportunity that could pay a lot more out.
2013 Btc was 1000 with 200 that's 0.2 today in 2021 that's over 9000

Well that was a powered breakout it's about to hit 50K USD worth asking how strong is the Tesla effect

Tesla is easy money when Elon moves a market he moves a freaking market I know when to capitulate and it's not right after this news
50K incoming

Nothing beats a sexy ATH for Bitcoin
Let's see how much momentum there is this time looking forward to the charts this week may get a lot of new #1's incoming