Linqto: structure, investor interests and proceedings

analysisThe account connects the investment mechanism to the debtor entities, funding terms and proposed post-confirmation structure, while separating each participant’s capacity and the different procedural outcomes. ^{1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14}

analysisLinqto began in 2010 as a financial-technology software business and later became a platform for indirect investments in private companies. The July 2025 corporate diagram places Linqto, Inc. above Texas, Liquidshares and Liquidshares Manager, the other three Chapter 11 debtors. Capital, Investment Management and QP were identified separately as nondebtor affiliates. ^{1 2}

analysisCustomers bought units intended to provide exposure through series, while Liquidshares held the underlying securities. New management acknowledged defective series formation and missing transfers. Customers and their representatives argued that the assets should be protected for them; the ownership compromise prescribed customer treatment without deciding the contested legal and equitable title. ^{3 4}

analysisThe July 2025 financing began with a $60 million commitment and $10 million interim borrowing authority. A September settlement contemplated a smaller $25 million facility from Sandton Capital Solutions Master Fund VI, LP. Its customer-treatment structure combined a liquidating trust with a potential closed-end fund; the wind-down arrangements separately addressed estate claims and residual equity interests. ^{1 2 3}

analysisThe written confirmation order was entered February 13, 2026. Confirmation did not itself activate the plan or begin distributions. The latest retained September 29 account, based on a filings review through September 18, said effectiveness had not occurred. Liquidshares’ contemplated ownership transfer to the trust therefore remains conditional, and issuer transfer and first-refusal rights remain relevant. The estate attributed delay to Forge’s refusal, while Forge denied appointment and causation; no replacement effective date appeared in the filings that account reviewed. ^{4 3 5 6}

analysisThe debtors and committee sued Forge Holdings after Forge Global, Inc. representatives said they would not serve as liquidating trustee. Forge disputed enforceable appointment, breach, causation and the alleged instruction from Schwab. Its September 1 answer characterized the August 19 stipulation as withdrawing compulsory-performance and equitable demands, leaving four contested monetary claims. The latest retained account identified no judgment, dismissal or settlement; the stipulation itself was not retained. ^{1 2 3}

analysisFederal prosecutors announced charges against William Sarris on September 2, 2026. He is presumed innocent; his lawyer Tim Treanor said he would fight the charges and attributed recovery uncertainty to the later bankruptcy. Endoso’s August 27 guilty plea and government cooperation concern Endoso; no retained sentence is established, and the plea does not establish Sarris’s guilt. The November customer complaint names a different set of civil defendants, whose co-defendant status does not show shared culpability or a business partnership. ^{4 5 6}

analysisParent revenue, Liquidshares’ scheduled investments, separate customer cash, nondebtor Capital accounts and monthly debtor reports measure different things. The complete scheduled investment register contains 117 positions. Private-company percentages were unknown, and the values are not an assured recovery estimate. Later operating reports retain inconsistent unit headings and petition-date valuations. ^{1 2}