Celsius Rated Neutral by Rothschild Redburn

Rothschild Redburn’s initiation of coverage on Celsius with a neutral rating on May 6, 2026, marks a formal re-entry of sell-side research into a once-disrupted crypto-lending franchise (Investing.com, May 06, 2026). The move is newsworthy because it places an established equities research house behind a public reassessment of a business that previously filed for Chapter 11 on July 13, 2022 (court filings / Reuters). For institutional investors tracking restructuring outcomes and recovery trajectories across crypto creditors, the initiation is a data point — not a verdict — on where broker-dealers see risk versus reward in an asset class that remains bifurcated between regulated incumbents and distressed legacy players. This article synthesizes the initiation, places it against the company’s historical capital structure and bankruptcy disclosures, compares Celsius to peer events, and lays out the implications for creditor recoveries and market signaling.

Context

Rothschild Redburn’s research initiation (neutral) on May 6, 2026 is documented by Investing.com and represents the first named coverage note by that house on Celsius in the current restructuring cycle (Investing.com, May 06, 2026). The neutrality of the rating signals neither a bullish endorsement nor a sell recommendation; rather it implies that the research house views upside and downside as balanced given existing public information. For market participants, the presence of formal sell-side coverage reduces information asymmetry: issuance of a full initiation note often includes valuation frameworks, scenario analysis and recovery assumptions that institutional desks can integrate into their models.

To understand why coverage matters, it is essential to recall the company’s prior insolvency event. Celsius filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on July 13, 2022; in initial court disclosures the estate reported assets in roughly the $1.2bn–$1.6bn range against liabilities cited between $4.2bn–$4.8bn (Celsius court filings, July 2022). Those figures framed creditor expectations and underpinned subsequent restructuring negotiations with unsecured creditors, institutional counterparties and token holders. Rothschild Redburn’s initiation is therefore as much about parsing the tail-risk embedded in legacy claims as it is about attempting to value any ongoing or future operating business.

Coverage initiation by a well-known sell-side shop also has signalling value: it indicates that the analyst believes there is now a coherent public record and potential for price discovery. In other words, a neutral rating can expand the investor universe by making the equity or traded claim investable for funds constrained to buy only covered names. That institutionalization can influence bid/ask liquidity, even when fundamental recovery uncertainty remains high.

Data Deep Dive

Key public data anchors relevant to any valuation exercise include the bankruptcy filing on July 13, 2022, the estate’s reported asset and liability ranges in those filings, and the timeline of creditor proposals and settlements through 2023–2025. The court filings (July 2022) listed assets of approximately $1.2bn–$1.6bn and liabilities of approximately $4.2bn–$4.8bn; those ranges established a baseline unsecured deficit greater than $2.6bn in the worst-case schedules (Celsius court filings, July 2022). The presence of material liabilities relative to assets explains why unsecured claimants and token holders endured protracted negotiations and why outcome scenarios are wide-ranging.

Since the filing, creditor committees, ad hoc groups and the company have produced multiple restructuring proposals with materially different implied recoveries. Publicly filed restructuring plans through 2023 and early 2024 contained recovery estimates that ranged from low single-digit percentages for some unsecured token-holder cohorts to potentially higher recoveries (20–50%) for secured lenders or those with contractual priority (court records, 2023–2024). Those disparities are central inputs into any neutral valuation: a sell-side initiation will typically offer scenario-weighted recoveries across creditor classes rather than a single-point price target.

Rothschild Redburn’s neutral rating should be interpreted against the backdrop of sector-wide volatility. Comparison to other distressed crypto platforms provides perspective: BlockFi filed Chapter 11 on Nov. 28, 2022 and pursued a creditor settlement process that, relative to Celsius, emphasized expedited asset recoveries for retail depositors (court filings, Nov 2022). FTX’s collapse in Nov. 2022 produced a far larger asset liquidation and complex cross-border creditor matrix. Compared with those peers, Celsius’s restructuring timetable has been slower and more convoluted, which increases model uncertainty and justifies conservative initial ratings from new coverage.

Sector Implications

Sell-side re-engagement with distressed crypto names signals a maturation of the market’s information environment. For institutional desks that monitor counterparty credit in crypto markets, the availability of a neutral initiation on Celsius may adjust counterparty exposure limits, collateral haircuts, and provisioning assumptions. Coverage can translate into market liquidity — not necessarily price direction — by making the asset visible to funds that allocate only to covered names. That can compress spreads over time if the research note is comprehensive and credible.

From a peer perspective, the initiation raises a relative-value question versus other post-distress assets. Where BlockFi creditors reached a faster resolution and FTX involved larger, cross-jurisdictional asset pools, Celsius’s outcome remains more outcome-dependent on legal settlements and asset realizations. Institutions comparing recovery prospects will weight the speed of resolution and the legal clarity of claims. A neutral rating essentially communicates that, at present, Celsius does not present a superior risk-adjusted pick relative to either fully restructured peers or market benchmarks such as liquid crypto-asset ETFs.

Policy and regulatory developments also matter for sector valuation. Changes in custody rules, stablecoin regulation, or explicit legal clarity on token-holder rights would be catalysts that could reorder recovery expectations. For example, any regulatory provision that elevates depositor protections or assigns higher priority to certain classes of claims could materially shift modeled recoveries even if nominal asset values remain constant. Sell-side coverage is therefore a mechanism for feeding regulatory developments into market pricing in an organized way.

Fazen Markets Perspective

Fazen Markets views Rothschild Redburn’s neutral initiation as an important, but not definitive, inflection point. Contrary to a narrative that coverage implies imminent resolution, our analysis suggests the initiation reflects improved public information, not a resolved capital structure. The neutral rating is consistent with scenario-weighted valuation approaches that place significant probability on low recoveries for residual equity or token claims while retaining non-trivial upside in stress-tested asset realizations. In short, the note likely codifies a wait-and-see stance rather than a directional trade call.

A contrarian inference is that increased sell-side coverage could, paradoxically, increase volatility in the short term. As covered research enters the public domain it creates focal points — valuation assumptions, recovery percentages, legal timelines — that market participants will latch onto. Differences between Rothschild Redburn’s assumed recovery path and those embedded in market prices may produce repricing events that are sharp but temporary. For long-horizon institutional allocators, the value of coverage is therefore as much in disambiguating scenarios as it is in providing a static recommendation.

Fazen Markets also highlights that coverage initiation often precedes more granular disclosures and management interaction. Institutional investors should expect subsequent updates that refine assumptions around asset monetization timelines, legal contestation, and creditor waterfall prioritization. Those updates, not the initiation itself, will determine the material shifts in valuation.

Risk Assessment

The principal risks to any assessment of Celsius are legal, asset-realization, and informational. Legally, the outcomes hinge on the superiority or subordination of claims that remain contested; historical court filings illustrate wide ranges for unsecured recoveries. Asset-realization risk is non-trivial because conversion of illiquid or cross-border crypto holdings into cash depends on market conditions and enforcement dynamics. Finally, information risk remains: new filings, settlements, or regulatory guidance can materially change recovery profiles in a compressed time window.

Liquidity risk is another consideration. Even if Rothschild Redburn’s initiation draws institutional interest, the depth of bids for residual claims may be shallow. That illiquidity amplifies price moves on limited flows and increases transaction costs for large institutional allocations. As a result, neutral coverage does not imply investability at scale; rather it indicates that covered research now exists to support a more disciplined negotiation and execution framework for firms that elect to participate.

Bottom Line

Rothschild Redburn’s neutral initiation on May 6, 2026 provides an organized research framework for assessing Celsius’s uncertain recovery trajectory, but does not resolve core custody, legal, or asset-realization risks; institutions should treat the note as an input, not a determinant, in their exposure calculus. Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.

FAQ

Q: Does Rothschild Redburn’s neutral rating imply a price target has been set?

A: Not necessarily. Initiations with a neutral rating often include scenario analyses and recovery-weighted valuations rather than a single-point bullish price target. According to the Investing.com note (May 06, 2026), Rothschild Redburn initiated coverage with neutral coverage; subsequent research updates may publish more explicit price or recovery guidance.

Q: How does Celsius compare to BlockFi and FTX in recovery prospects?

A: Historically, BlockFi (filed Nov. 28, 2022) achieved a comparatively faster creditor resolution path, while FTX’s cross-border liquidation produced larger and more complex asset pools. Celsius’s restructuring timeline (filed July 13, 2022) has been longer and more contested, leading to wider modeled recovery ranges. Comparative recovery estimates depend chiefly on legal priority, asset realization timing, and settlement terms.

Q: What practical actions do institutions take when a sell-side house initiates coverage?

A: Common institutional responses include integrating the research into recovery models, reassessing counterparty exposure limits, and engaging in due diligence calls. Coverage can also be used as a basis for requesting supplemental disclosure from debtors or filing formal votes in creditor meetings.

Learn more about our coverage approach and research methodology at Fazen Markets. For background on restructuring dynamics in crypto lending, see our sector hub at Fazen Markets.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.