Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-0R70G0JGenerated September 10, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

In re Celsius Network LLC

S.D. New York (Bankruptcy) · Nov 9, 2023

Jurisdiction
federal
Court
S.D. New York (Bankruptcy)
Record ID
in-re-celsius-network-llc-2023-11-09
Observed outcome
Expert report excluded as unreliable.
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

The court excluded the expert's valuation report under Rule 702 because it was generated by AI, lacked sufficient factual support, contained numerous errors, and relied on an unverified, non-peer-reviewed methodology. The expert failed to review the underlying source material, and the report included inaccurate descriptions of the token's features.

Why the decision-maker cared

The court reasoned that the report failed Rule 702 standards because it was not based on sufficient facts or data, lacked citations, contained numerous errors (including duplicated text and incorrect dates), and relied on a personally developed 'fair value' method that was not peer-tested or widely accepted in the industry.

Why it matters now

AI-drafted expert reports must be cite-checked and source-anchored before counsel signs off — unreliable reports get excluded under Rule 702.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Misrepresented Authority
  • Bankruptcy
  • Trial
  • None Adjudicated
AI attribution
Explicitly Recorded
Recorded tool
Unidentified
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
Motion to exclude expert report and testimony granted in part.
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

The court refers to the report as being written by artificial intelligence.

The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.

Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify that all expert reports contain sufficient citations to underlying facts and data.
  2. Ensure expert reports are thoroughly reviewed for factual accuracy and internal consistency before submission.
  3. Confirm that any valuation methodology used in expert reports is peer-reviewed or widely accepted in the relevant field.