Linqto and Forge Holdings: the contested trustee obligations

analysisThe debtors and committee say Forge submitted a binding January 5, 2026 bid and won selection as liquidating trustee. The complaint names Holdings and alleges a July 15 refusal at Schwab's direction. Forge admits its bid won selection and operating-company representatives communicated that it would not serve, but denies appointment, an enforceable obligation, the Schwab instruction, breach and causation. It also invokes the plaintiffs' failure to use the backup bid. Selection and corporate ownership do not themselves settle contractual liability. Forge’s September answer says compulsory-performance and equitable demands were withdrawn under the August 19 stipulation, leaving disputed monetary claims. The stipulation itself was not independently retained, and no merits ruling on the instruction or liability was established. ^{1 2 3 4}

analysisForge's answer admits the court granted Ripple-sale motions on July 1, 2026 and approved transition arrangements on July 13, including negotiated forms with a $2 million service fee. It does not admit every asserted purpose of the sale or the plaintiffs' causation theory. ^{2 4}

analysisForge's September 1 answer says the August 19 stipulation withdrew compulsory-performance Count I and injunctive or equitable requests. The stipulation itself was not independently retained, so this is Forge's quotation and characterization of its effect. The retained September 29 account describes four monetary claims still open, denied by Forge, with a jury demand and no judgment, dismissal or settlement. The withdrawal of one route to relief is not a finding on the remaining claims. The complaint’s quotation of the confirmation order describes the liquidating trustee as Liquidshares’ sole manager; Forge admits the order was entered and unstayed but denies that it was itself appointed or bound. ^{1 2 3}