As Prime Core Technologies enters bankruptcy proceedings and liquidation begins to trace historical transactions, its representative agency PCT Litigation Trust has sued the operational entity of Swan Bitcoin, Electric Solidus, in the Delaware bankruptcy court, accusing it of transferring customer fiat and crypto assets from Prime Trust accounts in advance after obtaining undisclosed information about Prime Trust's deteriorating solvency, thereby preemptively "withdrawing" risk exposure before bankruptcy, and filed a claim for a "near $1 billion" level of restitution; almost simultaneously, another cryptocurrency infrastructure stock, Soluna Holdings, released a quarterly earnings report showing "increased revenue but increased losses"—with first-quarter revenue of approximately $9.4 million, up about 58% year-over-year, but a net loss ballooning to approximately $17.9 million, indicating that the costs of its transition from Bitcoin mining to AI data centers and hosting services are far from being absorbed. On the same trading day, while the three major U.S. stock indices fluctuated little (the Dow Jones rose about 0.32% while the S&P and Nasdaq slightly retreated), cryptocurrency-related stocks collectively faced pressure: Upexi once plummeted about 8%–9%, while American Bitcoin, DeFi Development, and Tron Inc. fell about 7.21%, 7.08%, and 6% respectively. One is an asset recovery battle under bankruptcy law, and the other is a profit warning signaling expanded losses from a public company, collectively re-pricing the market's perception of judicial risks, compliance costs, and the sustainability of business models related to crypto custody and associated stocks.

Prime Trust's Downfall: Swan Accused of Insider Withdrawal

The story begins with the downfall of Prime Trust's parent company, Prime Core Technologies. In 2023, Prime Core entered bankruptcy proceedings and subsequently established PCT Litigation Trust, specifically responsible for digging up seemingly "abnormal" transactions that occurred before bankruptcy, to seek restitution through litigation for all creditors to recover assets that can enter the distribution pool. At that time, Swan Bitcoin was one of Prime Trust’s important partners, with their customers' fiat and crypto assets held in Prime Trust accounts, which has now become the subject of recovery. According to the complaint filed in the Delaware bankruptcy court, PCT Litigation Trust alleges that Swan, before Prime Trust officially filed for bankruptcy, obtained undisclosed information regarding its deteriorating payment ability through cooperative channels and subsequently organized the transfer of fiat and crypto assets held by its clients out of the Prime Trust custody accounts, thereby significantly reducing its own and its clients’ exposure during the subsequent bankruptcy process.

The price tag of this lawsuit has been described by the plaintiffs as “approaching $1 billion.” A single source claims that the detailed assets being sought in the lawsuit include approximately 11,994 BTC, about $24.66 million in fiat, about $5 million related to a certain type of collateralized asset position, and some XRP, translating to about $970 million based on the prices at the time; however, these particulars have yet to be independently verified. For PCT Litigation Trust, the legal path is relatively clear: under U.S. bankruptcy law, the liquidator can initiate avoidance and recovery lawsuits for "fraudulent transfers" and "preferential payments" made during a certain period before bankruptcy. The recovered assets will be viewed as property that rightfully belongs to the bankruptcy estate and will be redistributed according to creditor priority; in the narrative accusing Swan of utilizing undisclosed information for "withdrawals," whether it involves violations of fiduciary duties and abuse of informational advantages will be determined by the judge and factual investigation. A single source also stated that Swan claims the related transfers were made to protect customer interests, asserting that these assets belong to client trust property and are not within Prime Trust's free disposal range, yet this statement has not yet been fully disclosed in public court materials. In the end, whether it is "insider withdrawal" or “due diligence for self-protection” will become the critical judicial issue that can redefine industry behavior boundaries in this custody liquidation battle.

Who is the Bankruptcy Liquidation Trust Attempting to Recover Money From?

After Prime Core Technologies entered bankruptcy proceedings, PCT Litigation Trust was established, essentially separating the “digging up old accounts” responsibility originally borne by the bankruptcy administrator and specifically tasked with monitoring historical transactions on behalf of the entire bankruptcy estate: wherever there might be "fraudulent transfers" or "preferential payments," lawsuits will be filed. U.S. bankruptcy law allows liquidators to prosecute related transactions that occurred during a certain time frame before the bankruptcy, aiming to prevent specific partners or creditors from prematurely withdrawing assets before the corporate funding chain breaks, leaving other creditors to "foot the bill." Within this framework, PCT Litigation Trust is not chasing "its own money" but attempting to pull back the consideration that has already flowed out into the bankruptcy estate, thereby increasing the pool available for all creditors.

If the court ultimately determines that the asset transfers related to Swan constitute such revocable transactions, the funds recovered in the lawsuit will not be "returned to Swan's customers," but instead will be incorporated into Prime Trust's bankruptcy estate, to be reallocated by the bankruptcy court according to established creditor priorities between different categories such as custodial customers and general unsecured creditors. This outcome represents a very intuitive lesson for other brokers, trading platforms, and institutional clients that have collaborated with troubled custodians: even if assets have already been transferred out of the custodial institution's accounts, as long as they are subsequently determined to have enjoyed informational advantages or unfair preferential treatment, they could be sued in bankruptcy liquidation years later and required to "pay back the money." This recovery risk is becoming a new legal boundary in the relationships of cryptocurrency custody and partners.

From the Swan Case to the Red Line in the Custody Industry

In the narrative of PCT Litigation Trust's accusations, the core conflict is not just about who transferred the money first, but rather whether "the party possessing undisclosed risk information can use that to prioritize withdrawal for themselves and their clients." On one side, the bankruptcy estate attempts to pull back everything related to “preferential payments” made prior to Prime Trust’s bankruptcy into a unified pool; on the other hand, according to a single source, Swan argues that its asset transfers were made to protect customer interests, with the related funds belonging to client trust property rather than assets freely disposible by Prime Trust. This indicates that both parties stand on different legal coordinates regarding "whose money this is" and "whose interests are being protected": from the liquidator’s view, this is an unfair preferential treatment to other customers and general creditors; from the cooperating platform’s perspective, it is fulfilling its fiduciary duty to its own clients. Such differing interpretations regarding the boundary of "undisclosed information + custodial collaboration" have been directly moved into the Delaware bankruptcy court, becoming a compliance issue that the industry must address.

This issue collides directly with the regulatory trends for cryptocurrency custody in recent years. Several jurisdictions have proposed stricter requirements for customer asset segregation, risk disclosure, and custodial fiduciary duties for cryptocurrency custody and trading-related businesses. Regulators have repeatedly emphasized that customer assets must not be mixed with the platform's own assets and are highly sensitive to behaviors that exploit undisclosed information. In traditional finance, some institutions have already been required to set up information walls for internal risk information, allowing action on proprietary or client positions only when predefined risk control thresholds are triggered; some compliance teams are also attempting to replicate this practice in cryptocurrency businesses to reduce the risk of being accused of "withdrawing funds based on inside information." After the Swan case, custody cooperation contracts will likely be forced to be detailed: first, clarifying what types of liquidity pressures or credit events can trigger asset migration; second, explicitly stating who makes the decision to withdraw and under what procedures; third, stipulating risk-sharing and information disclosure obligations during the triggering conditions and disposal process, and reserving channels for reporting to regulators or post-event reporting. For platforms, whether they can preemptively draw this red line of "what information not to use, under what circumstances not to move first" in contracts, risk control, and disclosure processes will determine whether similar disputes in the future are viewed as responsible protection of clients or seen as preferential transactions subject to recovery.

Soluna's Expanding Losses Testing Capital Patience

At the same time the news of the Swan lawsuit broke, Soluna Holdings presented a typical "expansion-type loss" financial report: first-quarter revenue of approximately $9.4 million, up about 58% year-over-year, but net losses expanded to approximately $17.9 million, significantly larger than the same period last year. The company explained that this loss is closely related to equity incentives and expansion investments, with its main narrative shifting from traditional Bitcoin mining to data centers and hosting services aimed at AI business—using faster revenue growth to hedge larger current losses, positioning itself as a player in the "cryptocurrency infrastructure + AI infrastructure" intersection. A single source also provided more detailed metrics regarding data hosting revenue, installed capacity, power project reserves, cash, and debt, but these specific figures await validation through company announcements or regulatory documents, causing the market to apply an additional layer of discount to its expansion quality and sustainability.

For capital markets and regulators, Soluna's story is no longer just about the fluctuations of mining cycles, but rather whether a publicly listed platform undergoing a major transition while in a loss state can maintain the boundaries of information disclosure and fiduciary duties. In the U.S. capital market environment, companies like Soluna must fully disclose business transitions, capital expenditures, and ongoing viability to investors and securities regulators; otherwise, they may not only face inquiries or potential enforcement investigations but directly increase future equity and debt financing costs. The current pricing of cryptocurrency-related stocks is reflecting both the bankruptcy recovery risks of custody institutions and the joint litigation risks of partners, as well as the earnings uncertainty brought by "high investment, high volatility" transition paths like those of Soluna. For all publicly listed companies at the intersection of cryptocurrency and AI infrastructure, the real challenge is not just whether they can articulate their transition stories but whether they can align expansion investments with shareholder return expectations within a compliance framework; otherwise, so-called "expansion-type losses" may ultimately be revalued by the capital market as discounts for governance and risk control.

New Regulatory Signals Amidst Pressure on Cryptocurrency Stocks

Swan is being pursued for nearly $1 billion by PCT Litigation Trust in the Delaware bankruptcy court, alongside Soluna's report of "approximately 58% year-over-year revenue increase and net losses expanding to about $17.9 million," which has been interpreted by the capital markets as conveying the same message: courts, regulators, and investors are collectively re-pricing compliance and credit risks for cryptocurrency-related businesses. On that trading day, the Dow Jones rose approximately 0.32%, while the S&P and Nasdaq slightly declined, with limited volatility, but Upexi fell approximately 8%–9%, and American Bitcoin, DeFi Development, and Tron Inc. dropped about 7.21%, 7.08%, and 6% respectively. The significant excess retracement in the sector reflects investors' triple concerns about custody recovery, partners being pulled into litigation chains, and whether the "high investment, high losses" model can smoothly undergo a transition. The Swan case brings a retrospective examination of the transactions occurring before Prime Trust's bankruptcy, with PCT Litigation Trust representing the bankruptcy estate in initiating recovery, effectively sending a signal to the market: in cryptocurrency custody and trading businesses, every link in the cooperation chain could be subject to re-examination and recovery under the bankruptcy law framework. Agreements previously viewed as "business arrangements" now must be re-evaluated against the measures of customer asset segregation, information disclosure, and fiduciary duties. Companies like Soluna attempting to transition from Bitcoin mining to AI data centers and hosting services are forced to accept another set of questions beyond their expansion narratives: in an environment compounded by energy usage, data center regulations, and high volatility in earnings expectations, regulatory thresholds and information disclosure obligations will only increase, not decrease. Should more custody recovery lawsuits or regulatory enforcement similar to Swan arise in the future, cryptocurrency-related stocks could face stricter disclosure rules and higher compliance costs, necessitating a thicker legal and regulatory risk premium in their valuation models, with this re-pricing process driven by bankruptcy courts, regulatory agencies, and capital markets continuously reshaping the risk boundaries of this sector over a prolonged and uncertain timeline.

Join our community to discuss together and become stronger!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。