EquitiesFirst, a private lending firm, has been revealed to be owing Celsius Network $439 million, Financial Times reported.
According to the report, the debt owed by the Indianapolis-based firm will form a part of Celsius’ assets that customers would depend on for the withdrawals of their assets.
Celsius CEO Alex Mashinksy had earlier revealed that the firm was being owed by an unnamed private lending firm.
The report said Celsius first borrowed from EquitiesFirst in 2019 but upon trying to repay its loan in July 2021, the lender said it was unable to return its collateral on a timely basis.
EquitiesFirst has been repaying the loan monthly from September 2021. The firm pays Celsius $5 million monthly.
Meanwhile, filings showed that the debt is made up of $361 million in cash and 3,765 units of Bitcoin.
EquitiesFirst reportedly said it is “in ongoing conversation with our client and both parties have agreed to extend our obligations.”
Celsius Faced With Another Lawsuit
The troubles facing the embattled crypto lending firm, Celsius Network LLC, have increased as it has been enmeshed in a new class action lawsuit filed by an investor who said the company operated “like a literal Ponzi scheme.”
According to Law360, the lawsuit was filed in the U.S. state of New Jersey by Taylor Goines.
A review of the suit indicated that Celsius Network was accused of losing roughly $10 billion worth of assets by trading unregistered securities in a Ponzi scheme.
Much like a literal Ponzi scheme, Celsius could only maintain its yield rate promises by continually bringing in new investors whose new influx of money would be used to pay off the yield for old investors.
Goines explained that his purchase of Celsius Financial Products only resulted in investment losses because of the company’s actions.
The plaintiffs also argued that the recent market meltdown has revealed that the crypto lender lacked the assets to meet withdrawal obligations.
Earlier this month, Jason Stone, a former investment manager of Celsius filed a lawsuit against the company.
In the suit, Stone claimed the lender was involved in market manipulation without implementing basic accounting measures to protect customer deposits.