On March 17, 2025, pro se shareholder Jason Voelker (“Voelker”) of iCapital Management LLC (“iCapital”) filed an emergency motion (the “Motion,” ECF Doc. # 8015) that seeks, among other things, (i) enforcement of the Court’s May 8, 2024 decision (the “May 8 Opinion,” ECF Doc. # 4873); (ii) an exemption for certain alleged assets of iCapital from the Order (I) Setting Deadline for Forfeiture of Unclaimed Property, (II) Approving Related Procedures and Notice and (III) Granting Related Relief (the “Forfeiture Order,” ECF Doc. # 7983); (iii) placement of such assets in escrow; (iv) a stay of the Forfeiture Order; or (v) certain other relief pursuant to judicial estoppel.

The May 8 Opinion denied a prior motion (ECF Doc. # 4825) Voelker filed that sought (i) leave to file a late adversary proceeding against Celsius Network LLC and its affiliates and (ii) permission to use the Court’s Electronic Court Filing system.

The appeal is currently pending before the Honorable Lewis J. Liman.

22-10964-mg Doc 8017 Filed 03/18/25 Entered 03/18/25 08:28:46 Main Document Pg 2 of 2 THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Litigation Administrator must file a response to the Motion no later than March 25, 2025.

Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge

On March 17, 2025, pro se shareholder Jason Voelker (“Voelker”) of iCapital Management LLC (“iCapital”) filed an emergency motion (the “Motion,” ECF Doc. # 8015) that seeks, among other things, (i) enforcement of the Court’s May 8, 2024 decision (the “May 8 Opinion,” ECF Doc. # 4873); (ii) an exemption for certain alleged assets of iCapital from the Order (I) Setting Deadline for Forfeiture of Unclaimed Property, (II) Approving Related Procedures and Notice and (III) Granting Related Relief (the “Forfeiture Order,” ECF Doc. # 7983); (iii) placement of such assets in escrow; (iv) a stay of the Forfeiture Order; or (v) certain other relief pursuant to judicial estoppel.1 Annexed to the Motion is the declaration of Voelker in support of the Motion (ECF Doc. # 8015-1).

Subsequently, on March 26, 2025, Voelker filed a reply to the Objections (the “Reply,” ECF Doc. # 8061) in further support of his Motion.

Computer Sys., Inc. v. United States, 480 F.3d 621, 624 (2d Cir. 2007) (“Under the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, ‘[a] final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action.’” (alterations in original) (quoting St. Pierre v. Dyer, 208 F.3d 394, 399 (2d Cir. 2000))); Chariot Plastics, Inc. v. 22-10964-mg Doc 8062 Filed 03/27/25 Entered 03/27/25 14:47:09 Main Document Pg 3 of 4 United States, 28 F. Supp.

Additionally, as the Litigation Administrator has remained consistent in its position concerning the issues raised in the May 8 Opinion, the doctrine of judicial estoppel, which Voelker asserts entitles iCapital to a distribution of $1.1 million, is also inapplicable here.

In light of this representation, Voelker’s request for a stay of the Forfeiture Order as it pertains to iCapital is not needed.