The cryptocurrency exchange known as Uphold has denied that it is responsible for paying around $784 million to the settlement trust set up by the defunct cryptocurrency investment platform Cred.

On January 11, 2019, after a court hearing, Uphold filed a motion to dismiss all charges in the lawsuit Cred had filed against the company in June.

Cred was a cryptocurrency lending firm that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November 2020.

In June, Cred’s liquidation trust took legal action against Uphold and two of its affiliates by filing a conflicting lawsuit.

Uphold was said to have collaborated with Cred’s co-founders to promote CredEarn and the company owed the cryptocurrency lender $783.9 million.

The complaint states that Cred said that Uphold collaborated with Cred’s co-founders to promote CredEarn, and that Cred claimed that crypto investments routed from Uphold at the time of the market top would have been valued at more than $700 million.

Retail investors were drawn by the product’s promise of large payouts; however, Cred’s investments went awry, resulting in consumer losses and ultimately leading the company to file for bankruptcy in November 2020.

The circumstances behind Cred’s bankruptcy are very similar to those surrounding the Celsius Network and Voyager Digital.

However, in his decision to dismiss the lawsuit, Uphold called the Cred Trust’s claims against him illogical, conclusive, and conspiratorial, and urged the Delaware bankruptcy court to reject them. The Cred Trust had accused Uphold of being involved in a conspiracy.

Uphold refuted claims that it was aware of the dangers at Cred, saying that Cred was wholly owned and managed separately from Uphold. Furthermore, he said he was not aware of the financial difficulties CredEarn was experiencing at the time it announced the product to Uphold clients.

At the hearing, attorney for the Cred trust, Joseph B. Evans of McDermott Will & Emery, said the allegations against the whistleblowers in connection with their involvement in Uphold had been addressed independently. These claims were in reference to the insiders’ work with the company.