As FTX’s bankruptcy liquidation enters a critical stage, a highly controversial motion - a plan to deal with claims from users in “restricted countries” - has caused uproar among creditors around the world.
The FTX liquidator said that it will first seek legal advice to determine whether assets can be distributed to these jurisdictions; if the conclusion is that compensation cannot be paid, the relevant claims may even be legally confiscated and transferred to the liquidation trust account. This means that Chinese creditors may not only not get a penny, but their assets may even become confiscated funds of the trust fund.
According to data disclosed by FTX creditor representative Sunil on social media, the total amount of claims in restricted jurisdictions is US$470 million. Chinese investors are the largest holders of FTX debt, holding US$380 million in claims, accounting for 82% of restricted claims.
BlockBeats conducted an exclusive interview with Will (@zhetengji), who is not only one of FTXs high-value creditors, but also a key initiator of opposing the motion and raising objections. He detailed why he stood up to lead this struggle, the operational process of opposing the motion, the practical difficulties of the creditor community, and his in-depth observation of the motivations behind the motion.
The following is the full interview:
BlockBeats: Could you please introduce yourself and your experience in working or investing in the crypto industry?
Will: My name is Will. I am from a science and engineering background. I studied geophysics in both undergraduate and graduate school, and later obtained a doctorate in geophysics. I officially entered the crypto industry in 2017. I started working at CEX, and later I started investing on my own. I have participated in many projects and also ran my own Crypto Fund for a period of time, which was a relatively early attempt. At the same time, I have invested in many funds and have had in-depth cooperation with many LPs. In addition, I have also mined - I once held a considerable scale of Bitcoin mining machines, and also engaged in mining machines such as Litecoin and Dogecoin. However, domestic policies later did not allow mining, so this part was basically cleared out.
My current status is actually semi-retired. I mainly look at some of the assets I invested in early years and occasionally trade in the cryptocurrency market.
I have always been a Bitcoin-based investor. For me, Bitcoin is not just an asset, but also a belief. In the past few years, my biggest gains have actually come from Bitcoins operations in several large cycles and large bands. It can be said that many of my decisions and judgments are made with Bitcoin as the core perspective.
BlockBeats: What assets do you have pending claims on FTX? Mainly coins or U?
Will: The reason why I allocated a considerable amount of assets on FTX was actually influenced by the industry atmosphere at that time.
I remember clearly that it was the big drop on March 12, and I basically bought the bottom of Bitcoin with all my positions. Then, as Bitcoin rose, I gradually liquidated and sold my positions. At that time, my idea was to wait for the next correction and then re-arrange, so I transferred most of my USDT to FTX, ready to catch the next round of lows.
Unexpectedly, FTX itself became the fuse for the next round of big drop.
Another point is that I was used to keeping my assets in my wallet at that time, but because the regulatory wind was too tight at that time, I wanted to transfer the funds through the trading platform first, and then withdraw the funds from the trading platform back to my wallet. Because of this, I even transferred the Bitcoin in my base position to FTX, and planned to transfer it out at an appropriate time. So in summary, my main assets on FTX are USDT and Bitcoin.
BlockBeats: Could you please tell us the approximate size and magnitude of the assets mentioned above?
Will: I can only say that I am a major creditor, and the total of my several accounts is definitely in the top 100.
Why file an objection?
According to documents provided by representatives of FTX creditors, the core of this motion is to list users in some jurisdictions (mainly including China) as restricted foreign jurisdictions and seek legal opinions to determine whether compensation can be made; if the legal opinion denies the possibility of compensation, the corresponding claims will be regarded as disputed assets and may be taken over by the trust and no longer distributed to the relevant users.
In his formal letter of opposition to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Will clearly stated that the motion lacked factual and legal basis and violated Section 1123(a)(4) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, which provides for equal treatment of creditors of the same class.
The letter outlines three main reasons:
1. Compensation is denominated in US dollars, which is no different from traditional bankruptcy claims. The FTX Recovery Trust has clearly stated that compensation will be made in US dollars or US dollar stablecoins. Even if crypto assets are not used, Chinese users can receive US dollar wire transfers through legal channels such as Hong Kong accounts without any legal obstacles. In the Celsius case, the US court also successfully paid US dollar compensation to Chinese creditors through international wire transfers.
2. Even if payment is made with crypto assets, Chinese law does not prohibit individuals from holding or receiving them. Chinese courts at all levels have recognized that virtual assets such as Bitcoin belong to the property category of the Civil Code, and Hong Kong has also established a compliant crypto regulatory system. The regulatory statement in Macau also does not prohibit individuals from holding coins or participating in liquidation, and the policy text cited by the trust is not legally binding.
3. The market is being manipulated by the motion. The letter also specifically pointed out that some distressed asset funds have used this motion to exert pressure, claiming that Chinese creditors should immediately sell their claims at a discount, otherwise they will never get compensation, and manipulated market sentiment by saying that as long as 5% of Chinese claims are excluded, the remaining 95% will support it. This not only amplified the panic, but also turned bankruptcy liquidation into a game of wealth shuffling.
In his letter of objection, Will implored the court to dismiss the motion to avoid the formation of an arbitrage mechanism of low-price acquisition + full compensation and to ensure that global creditors have equal access to compensation in terms of procedure and substance.
BlockBeats: Is there any precedent of excluding Chinese creditors in previous international compensation cases?
Will: This motion can actually be divided into two steps. The first step is for the liquidator to hire lawyers from 49 countries to issue a legal opinion to determine whether compensation can be made to users in these countries. The second step is more controversial. If the legal opinion determines that compensation cannot be made, the funds must be returned to the trust account they set up.
As far as I know, this second step is unprecedented in previous bankruptcy liquidation cases. The confiscation of user assets in a certain country has never happened in history. To put it bluntly, I think this is not simply non-compensation, but a form of confiscation.
As for the practice of completely excluding Chinese creditors and denying them any claim rights, I have not seen this in other cases. I have studied many bankruptcy and liquidation precedents, but this is the first time I have seen users from a country being systematically excluded.
BlockBeats: Why stand up and express objection to the motion?
Will: The process of this motion is as follows. First, the deadline for creditors to object to the motion is July 15. Once the motion is passed, the liquidation trust will hire lawyers to issue a legal opinion for users in the 49 restricted countries to determine whether compensation can be made to these users.
Restricted jurisdiction claims total $470 million. Chinese investors are the largest holders of FTX claims, holding $380 million in claims, or 82% of restricted claims.
I think the real key lies in this point - if the motion is passed, Trust will lead the selection of lawyers and legal judgment, and the controllability of this matter will be greatly reduced. Because these lawyers are hired by them, we have no way of knowing whether these lawyers truly understand the actual situation of Chinas cryptocurrency regulation and whether they can accurately grasp the boundaries of laws and policies. Once we enter this step, we basically lose the initiative.
Therefore, the purpose of my opposing motion is to prevent the establishment of this motion from the root. Only in this way can we retain more initiative and do more in the future.
In addition, we have also seen a very worrying point of view. Some creditors, especially those who are acquiring debts, have publicly stated that Chinese creditors currently only account for about 4% to 5% of the total debt, while the remaining 95% are creditors from other countries. If this motion can be passed smoothly, the vast majority of people will benefit from it, and only Chinese users will be excluded.
In other words, this motion is very likely to be passed in the overall vote. Therefore, we must stand up and oppose it at this stage. Once it enters the next stage, it will be extremely disadvantageous to us. This is why I decided to launch an opposing motion this time.
BlockBeats: What are the key steps, material preparation and submission process when you initiate an opposition motion?
Will: Regarding the operational procedures for this objection motion, there are actually two main ways to submit objections.
The first is to submit it through your cooperating U.S. lawyer. The lawyer completes the formal objection filing through the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts electronic system. This method is the most recommended in terms of compliance and efficiency.
The second way is to submit by yourself, which means you complete the entire process in your own name. However, please note that self-submission is a relatively complex and demanding process, requiring you to notify at least four relevant parties separately by mail.
Specifically, these four parties include:
1. The presiding judge of the bankruptcy case: Judge Owens, who is currently in charge of the FTX case, you need to mail a paper letter to him, which is the official notification method recognized by the court. If you don’t have a lawyer, you can only mail the letter in person; if you have a lawyer, you can submit it directly through the court system, eliminating the mailing process.
2. FTX Recovery Trust’s legal team: They are divided into two parts, one is the New York law firm responsible for the main case, and the other is a local law firm located in the bankruptcy court and handling the case. Both parties must receive the notice.
If you submit through the lawyers system, the system will automatically copy them; if you submit it personally, you need to send them a paper letter separately, or send an email if it is too late. However, please note that whether the email is officially accepted and recognized is not decided by us.
3. US Trustee (UST): This is the agency under the US Department of Justice responsible for supervising bankruptcy proceedings, which is equivalent to the regulator of this case. Considering that this motion is already biased in terms of procedure and fairness, I think it is necessary to copy our objections to UST so that the regulator can also see it. At present, when I encourage other creditors to write letters of objection, I also suggest that they copy UST at the same time. UST also accepts paper letters and emails, but the formal process still recommends sending paper letters.
In summary, there are two paths in the process of opposing a motion:
First, submit through a lawyer, which makes the process smoother and easier to comply with;
Second, you submit the paper letter in your personal capacity to ensure that all the above four parties receive it.
Finally, I would like to emphasize that the deadline for opposing motions is July 15, which means that no matter which method you choose, the relevant materials must be submitted and delivered before this date. This time node is very critical, and if you miss it, you will no longer be able to participate in the current process.
Regarding sending letters opposing motions, I can share my practical experience.
I am in Singapore, and this is actually my second time to send a letter in the past two days. Today is July 7th, and I use DHL for international express delivery. It is expected to be delivered to the US court on July 9th. This method is relatively safe and the time is more controllable.
But for friends in mainland China, the mailing time will be slightly longer, usually 3 to 4 days, or even 4 to 5 days. Therefore, if you want to ensure that the letter can be received by the court before the July 15 deadline, it is best to send the letter before July 9. If you wait until July 10 or later to send it, there is a great risk that it may be considered to have exceeded the deadline, resulting in the invalidation of the objection.
As for what the opposition motion letter itself needs to include, there are two main parts:
1. A formal letter to the judge: This letter expresses your opposition to the motion and states the reasons and basis for your disagreement. This is the most important part and you need to clearly state your objection.
2. Certification of Service: This is a statement that proves that you not only sent the letter to the court, but also sent it to several other parties at the same time. This step is critical, as it shows that you followed the complete service process in terms of procedure, and the judge will also judge whether your opinion is compliant and valid based on this.
At present, I have set up a coordination group on Telegram to oppose the motion. Now more than 400 creditors have joined, approaching 500 people. In the group, I shared the letter template I wrote myself and sorted out the operation process in detail for your reference. At the same time, I also shot a video to show what materials and formats are included in the four letters I sent, to help everyone understand the whole process more intuitively.
Wills rights protection letter mailing process
BlockBeats: So you didn’t join other creditors in sending the letter?
Will: At the beginning, I did consider whether to submit an opposing motion in the form of joint voice, that is, to organize a group of people to sign and initiate together. I also collected some information in the group at that time, such as everyones debt ID and account information on FTX. The original intention was to gather more peoples voices and enhance representativeness.
But later, I communicated with some legal professionals around me and consulted several lawyers familiar with the US bankruptcy procedure. They gave me a very important feedback: the effect of the letter of objection is not necessarily the more people, the better. In other words, even if more people sign the letter, it does not automatically enhance the legal effect of the letter. On the contrary, it may reduce the judges or lawyers recognition of its professionalism due to inconsistent opinions and mixed content.
So I began to change my strategy, emphasizing diversity instead of centralization and unity. Because I also observed that in the discussion within the group, some opinions that I thought were reasonable may not convince others; on the other hand, some perspectives that I did not agree with could resonate with other members of the group. This diversity of voices is actually an advantage.
Therefore, I now encourage group members to write letters and express themselves independently, and try to express their true thoughts and positions - as long as they do not make obvious procedural errors, everyone can stand up and make their own voices. This method is more extensive and representative in terms of effect.
Before you interviewed me, I roughly counted that I already know about 15 creditors who have sent letters. Although their positions and expressions are different, and there have even been debates and disagreements within the group, I think this is fine. As long as everyone can clearly express their own views, this multi-point strategy is actually more beneficial to the entire Chinese creditor group.
BlockBeats: What do you think the chances of success are?
Will: I am a relatively optimistic person, and I always believe that this thing has a chance to succeed. But to be honest, when we see that this motion has developed to such an outrageous degree today, it is actually difficult to predict what the future may look like. Although I still have hope in my heart, I must admit that anything can happen. I can only say that we will do our best, and the results will be driven by the process.
BlockBeats: When will the final results be released?
Will: Technically its July 22nd.
BlockBeats: Has there been a case in the past where a community filed a motion of objection and the motion was accepted by the judge?
Will: I haven’t systematically studied all similar cases, so I don’t dare to make a particularly clear judgment. But I know that there are actually many creditor communities overseas, and it’s not just Chinese users who are paying attention to this matter. For example, there is a French creditor in our group who has actually received compensation, but he still thinks that this motion is very unfair. In pursuit of fairness, he has been following up continuously, actively helping to give advice in the group, and even assisting other creditors to revise materials and provide substantial help.
He himself has proposed many motions in the past, covering all levels. For example, another creditor representative I know is currently a very influential person in the FTX creditor group, and he is also very active on Twitter. He has always opposed the practice of dollarization settlement in FTXs liquidation plan, and advocated repayment based on the original asset standard. He united a group of people and submitted motions to protest many times, continuously pushing for the right to speak.
From what I know so far, FTX seems to be willing to communicate with him, which means that it is possible to get a response as long as he continues to take action.
So for us, this action is not just about opposing this motion. We will also proactively propose more motions in the future, such as requiring FTX to pay eligible claims immediately; if it continues to delay, it must compensate for this waiting period, such as giving additional compensation or calculating interest.
The losses caused by this blank period are essentially caused by the liquidators, so they should bear the responsibility. Although I am not sure about the proportion of other motions adopted before, our future strategy is very clear, that is, we will continue to put forward more reasonable and well-founded motions to fight for our due rights.
Actually, to be honest, the way we are filing a motion now is not the most powerful way. The most powerful way should be to have a seat on the creditors committee. In fact, I thought about this issue as early as when the incident just happened - because I was one of the relatively large creditors at the time, and I also tried to run for a seat on the creditors committee.
At that time, we had a group with several creditors with larger claims, some of whom were even ranked in the top 30 or top 20, and they were all very important participants. But their attitude was very clear at the beginning: they did not want to disclose their identities or show up. So when the election came, everyone chose to take a step back. On the contrary, my lawyer encouraged me to take a step forward, so I signed up and entered the subsequent telephone interview stage. But in the end, I was not selected.
After that, I didn’t participate actively anymore, but I kept it in my mind. About a year later, a member of the creditor committee withdrew because he no longer held the debt. According to regulations, committee members must continue to hold their debts and cannot transfer or sell them, otherwise they will lose the qualification to speak on behalf of other creditors. I guess he thought the recovery price at that time was not bad, so he chose to withdraw.
Later, they sent me an email asking if I was willing to be on the waiting list. I immediately replied that I was willing. I have always felt that creditors like us should have a voice. It is not that I am so noble, but it is for my own benefit. I hope that this process can be well supervised to ensure that the entire compensation process goes smoothly and that I can get back what belongs to me in the end.
But I was not selected in the end, and I stopped following it. However, my mentality is actually the same as that of many friends in the group now - since asset recovery has made great progress and repayment is on the agenda, there is no reason to deviate from the track. Everyone is actually waiting for the process to be completed and get back their portion of the money. On the contrary, paying too much attention can easily cause a second blow to ones emotions.
That’s why, when I saw this motion, I was really shocked and had to stand up.
Why are FTX bonds so popular?
BlockBeats: Can you share with our readers some of the current situations in your creditor community?
Will: Actually, most of my friends don’t have lawyers to assist them. I have a team of lawyers following up on my case. I have a lawyer in New York who I have been working with for many years. He also brought in a lawyer who specializes in bankruptcy matters to help me deal with related matters. This time, I contacted them as soon as I got the motion documents. But it happened to be a holiday in the United States, so they replied that they needed time to study it and would contact me after the holiday.
But I felt that just waiting was not a solution, so I decided to take action myself. I sent out letters opposing the motion this morning, to the judge and the other four parties involved. At the same time, I also wrote them an email, expressing my wish to arrange a telephone conference as soon as possible. I told them that I hope to communicate as soon as possible - on the one hand, I hope they can help me formally submit the opposing motion in the system to ensure that the procedure is perfect; on the other hand, I also want to hear their more professional opinions and judge the direction of this matter.
In addition, there are one or two friends in our group who are in North America, one in California and two in Canada. They have also tried to contact lawyers recently. But I think it is unlikely that they will catch up this time. Because you have to find a suitable lawyer first, then sign a contract, and then let the other party spend time studying the case. If they are not lawyers who handle this kind of cases, then they will be very tight on time to complete these preparations before July 15.
BlockBeats: Some creditors suggest selling their claims to addresses with compliance qualifications. What do you think of this debt transfer plan? Is it a better option for these small creditors?
Will: First of all, I have no prejudice against the debt trading itself. On the contrary, I think that to some extent, it actually provides a channel for creditors who are in urgent need of money to exit, which has positive significance.
But what I find unacceptable is that some so-called creditor agents or intermediaries, especially a considerable number of them are Chinese, play a very negative role in this process. They constantly sell anxiety to the community, create panic through various means, and then drive down the price of debt. In such an environment, many friends who are already very anxious are forced to choose to sell their debts at a low price. I think this behavior is very unethical.
I am also an ordinary person, and I am doing my best to make things go in a reasonable and fair direction. But if one day I find that the situation has really gone astray, then all I can do is sell my own debt.
But the problem is that the current situation has become a very unfair one. Why cant we, the original creditors, get the final compensation? While those who bought the claims at a discount can get the full amount or even a higher proportion of the compensation? Why should the arbitrage opportunity be left to them instead of letting us, the original creditors, maximize our own interests?
What makes me feel even more unfair is that there is a very critical but easily overlooked clause in this motion - it is written in a very small line: If a third-party institution buys your debt, then your original country of holder will no longer be considered when determining eligibility for compensation. In other words, once this motion is passed, it will artificially create an arbitrage space. Chinese creditors are like being driven away, with no choice but to sell their debts. If someone buys, you have to sell, and the buyer may be eligible for compensation due to policy arrangements.
BlockBeats: How big is this arbitrage space?
Will: A conservative estimate is probably between 20% and 30%. In the bankruptcy liquidation of FTX, the claims are calculated based on an annual 9% interest accumulation, so how much you can get back in the end depends on the time dimension and the scale of the assets recovered in the end. In addition, FTX currently has multiple lawsuits that have not yet been concluded, and the funds recovered in the future are also likely to be redistributed to creditors.
So, to me, this whole arrangement seems extremely unfair. The arbitrage space is transferred to the midway buyer, while the original creditors not only face pressure to sell, but also may lose the rights that should belong to them.
BlockBeats: If what you said is true, and this motion is unfortunately passed, is it possible for Chinese creditors to recover funds through some outside the rules method, such as transferring the claims to foreign persons, who will then collect the compensation on their behalf? Is such a path feasible in practice?
Will: I heard that there are some similar custody schemes now, that is, creditors can entrust their claims to a third party, and the third party will complete the asset recovery operation on their behalf. Of course, the custodian will charge a certain percentage of the fee as a reward.
If it really came to the point where I had to sell the debt, I actually considered selling it when the debt price was still 80%, and I also communicated with several creditor institutions. However, the communication process was not smooth at the time, and I judged that there were some potential risks, so I didnt move forward in the end.
I personally think that if you really want to choose to sell the debt, you should try to find a mature and credible institution to do it. In fact, there are not many big buyers or mature debt institutions in this market, and they have smoother communication with the court and the trust. If it really comes to that, including the friends in the group today who are asking me, my suggestion is that you can only sell it, but you should also try to unite and negotiate a relatively reasonable price, or find a suitable channel and partner to make this step steady.
BlockBeats: Now creditors can sell at a price that is more than 100% of the debt, right?
Will: It has always been over 100%, even up to 120% to 130%.
BlockBeats: Wouldn’t that be more appropriate than direct compensation?
Will: There must be more direct compensation to create this space. I can do a simple calculation for you to understand this logic.
Assuming the principal is 100%, according to the current compensation plan, the creditors can not only get back the entire principal, but also receive interest at an annualized rate of 9%. According to the time calculation, it has been nearly three years since the incident occurred. Calculated at an annualized rate of 9%, the interest over three years is about 27% - that is, the total amount of money that can be recovered is about 127%.
If the compensation cycle continues to lengthen, interest will continue to accumulate, and this does not take into account the further distribution brought by the newly recovered assets. In other words, this is an almost certain and relatively stable income path - a 9% annualized return in the traditional financial system is itself a very attractive product.
This is why there are so many professional securities companies and institutions willing to buy FTX debt at a discount. They are not only looking at the current repayment ratio, but also the potential for additional income in the future.
For these creditor institutions, there is a huge information gap between them and ordinary creditors. In the early days, I actually kept an eye on this matter, and I could feel that they did get a lot of inside information earlier than us during the process of acquiring debts.
For example, the price of debts in the market was constantly changing. Some people offered 40% or 50% to acquire, while others offered more than 80%. This shows that these institutions have been making large-scale layouts since a long time ago. As far as I know, the largest credit reporting financial institutions may have invested hundreds of millions of dollars each, and they expect to recover about 2 billion dollars in assets in this wave.
And they also have more complex financial operation paths. For example, if they can eventually get an annualized return of 9%, they can package this part of the debt into a financial product and then sell it to users or institutional investors at a 5% return. For them, this creates a stable and low-risk arbitrage space.
It is precisely because of this structural arbitrage space that the FTX debt market is particularly attractive. The key is that the amount of this batch of debt is very large. In the traditional financial market, it is indeed possible to achieve a stable return of about 5% by purchasing US bonds, but it is very rare to find an investment target that is both high-yielding and stable and can carry hundreds of millions of dollars in funds.
BlockBeats: Looking back on this rights protection process, what do you think was the biggest challenge? And what costs and resources did you invest in this rights protection?
Will: Actually, from the perspective of financial investment, the cost of this matter itself is not that high. Because I have always hired lawyers to handle related matters in order to ensure that the entire process can proceed smoothly. So although everyone sees me speaking out at the front desk now, I am not motivated by I want to represent everyone, but because my own core interests are deeply tied to it.
At present, the main investment is the lawyers fee and related expenses such as preparation of materials, but this part of the cost is relatively controllable and not large. The real investment is actually time and energy.
I have been dealing with this matter almost day and night these days. First, I have to get my message out, so I started to actively contact the media, and some KOL friends helped to forward it. I need to release information frequently, respond to everyone, and maintain the continuous attention of public opinion, which takes up a lot of my time and energy.
The second is to maintain the normal operation of our community. New people join every day, and I am now almost a customer service representative, constantly popularizing relevant knowledge. Because the entire motion process itself is relatively complicated, many new partners will be very confused at the beginning, especially some creditors who are in China and have poor English proficiency. They will find it difficult to understand the English materials we prepare, and even retreat because of this.
At this time, we not only play the role of information guide, but also psychological supporter. On the one hand, we need to let them know that we are ready and the process is not complicated; on the other hand, we need to soothe their emotions, encourage them to move forward, and let them realize that they are not fighting alone.
For me personally, this period should have been a relatively relaxing period. I had originally planned to take a vacation, travel, or exercise to relax. But now I sit in front of the computer almost all day, constantly preparing materials, answering questions, and maintaining communication. It really invested a lot of time and energy.
BlockBeats: If the court upholds the restrictions after the July 22 hearing, what are your next plans?
Will: If this motion is eventually passed, there are actually two more stages to deal with.
The first is the 45-day objection period. During this period, creditors can still intervene through lawyers, including attending hearings, submitting materials, or taking other legal actions.
At the same time, we can also pay attention to whether the liquidator will appoint a lawyer specializing in Chinese affairs during this period. This regional lawyer actually plays a very critical role - if we can contact this lawyer and communicate his views and judgments through video or other means, we can evaluate whether his opinions are in line with the current reality and whether there is a chance to obtain compensation under the existing framework.
So after the hearing on July 22, I think there are three main actions to take:
First, get a lawyer involved as soon as possible to prepare for possible responses;
Second, pay close attention to the other partys movements, especially whether they will announce further operational details or appoint a legal team to represent Chinese creditors;
Third, if the situation deteriorates further, such as the hope of compensation is basically shattered, you should start preparing for stop loss, such as considering debt transfer or selling at a discount. This is like in the market, if you judge that a certain currency is about to fall sharply, you can only choose to sell it in time.
BlockBeats: What advice do you have for Chinese creditors who haven’t taken action yet?
Will: I think it is still in time to submit the materials before July 9. The next steps are still divided into two paths: first, if conditions permit, try to seek the help of a professional lawyer; second, if you cannot hire a lawyer for the time being, you can also choose to submit an objection letter in your own name. The cost of sending a letter itself is not high, even if it is sent from China, it only costs a few hundred yuan. The key is to act as soon as possible.
