NY Court Delays Aave ETH Unfreeze Bid, Tests DeFi Freeze Rules

A New York federal court has paused ruling on Aave’s emergency bid to unfreeze approximately $71 million in ETH tied to the Kelp DAO hack, delaying a decision until a June hearing while the court seeks additional information from both sides. The dispute centers on whether Arbitrum’s freeze of the funds should be lifted to support ongoing recovery efforts after one of DeFi’s most significant exploits this year.

Aave contends that unlocking the funds is necessary to prevent forced liquidations and potential destabilization of DeFi markets, while a restraining notice filed by Gerstein Harrow LLP asserts that its clients have a claim to the assets. The Southern District of New York case under Judge Margaret M. Garnett has drawn attention for how courts balance crypto asset freezes against creditor interests and user protection.

Documents filed in the court indicate that Judge Garnett found Aave’s prior briefing insufficient to show how continuing the restraining notice would cause “compounding losses” to user funds if kept in place, signaling the need for more detailed briefing before any ruling. The judge described the matter as complex and vulnerable to near-term harm to Aave LLC and Aave Protocol users, and ordered both sides to provide supplemental submissions ahead of a June 5 hearing.

Key takeaways

• The court postponed ruling and ordered supplemental briefing, citing the case’s complexity and potential near-term harm to users.
• Briefs are due by May 22, 2026, with a hearing scheduled for June 5, 2026.
• The court identified six information gaps for clarification, including whether the shelter principle applies under New York law, the distinction between fraud and theft and the hackers’ interest in stolen assets, which law governs creditor priority over frozen assets, the potential use of a constructive trust, and whether Aave or Arbitrum can identify individual victims to enable pro rata restitution.
• Recovery steps for Kelp DAO: rsETH backing is being restored and the burned tokens will be reconciled; about $278 million in lost tokens will be restored over roughly two weeks from the Aave Recovery Guardian multisignature wallet, pending contract reactivation.
• The case highlights regulatory and policy considerations for DeFi asset freezes, creditor rights, and cross-border enforcement in the evolving landscape of crypto oversight.

Judicial probes into the Aave restraining notice

The SDNY proceedings center on Aave’s motion to unfreeze the ETH tied to the Kelp DAO exploit. Judge Garnett acknowledged the challenge of applying traditional remedies to a decentralized finance scenario and requested detailed briefing to better map the legal framework. In particular, she asked the parties to address how a shelter principle under New York law could interact with the restraining notice, and how such freezes should be reconciled with the transnational nature of crypto assets.

Among the issues identified for clarification are the legal distinction between fraud and theft and the extent to which hackers retain any interest in stolen assets, which law governs creditor priority over frozen property, whether a constructive trust would be an appropriate remedy, and whether either Aave or Arbitrum can identify individual victims to enable pro rata reimbursement. The court’s questions underscore the delicate balance between protecting users and honoring creditor interests in DeFi contexts, and the need for precise legal framing in this rapidly evolving space.

As noted in court filings, the parties have until May 22 to submit supplemental briefs, with the June 5 hearing set to adjudicate unresolved questions. The outcome could influence how future DeFi-related freezes are treated under U.S. law and may shape institutional approaches to recovery, enforcement, and compliance for lenders, exchanges, and wallets operating in cross-border environments.

Regulatory and policy context for frozen DeFi assets

Industry observers view the case as a focal point for broader regulatory and enforcement considerations surrounding DeFi asset freezes. While protocols may implement automatic or voluntary freezes to facilitate recovery, courts must determine how these actions align with doctrines on priority of claims, constructive trusts, and user protections. The proceedings touch on how regimes like MiCA and U.S. agencies—such as the SEC, CFTC, and DOJ—may evaluate asset freezes, civil actions, and enforcement associated with DeFi exploits.

Analysts also weigh implications for cross-border operations and banking compatibility, especially for entities seeking to safeguard customer assets while remaining compliant with AML/KYC requirements. The June decision could influence how exchanges and liquidity venues structure recovery processes and how courts treat frozen funds in multi-party incidents.

Kelp DAO recovery steps and broader implications for DeFi asset recovery

Parallel to the court proceedings, Kelp DAO and Aave have outlined concrete steps toward restoring the compromised rsETH backing. The hacker’s rsETH on Arbitrum has been burned, while the tokens lost in the incident—valued at approximately $278 million—are expected to be restored over the next two weeks from the Aave Recovery Guardian multisignature wallet. Once the related smart contracts are reactivated, rsETH usage is anticipated to return to normal, stabilizing the ecosystem’s collateral and liquidity framework on the affected chain.

These recovery actions illustrate a growing practice of coordinated asset restitution within DeFi ecosystems, while raising questions about victim identification and proportional compensation in decentralized environments. The Kelp‑Aave updates emphasize resilience and post-incident recovery even as legal proceedings unfold in parallel.

Source: Kelp DAO status and related announcements, with corroboration from court filings and industry reporting.

Related coverage: DeFi can freeze stolen funds, but not everyone agrees it should.

Watching the June proceedings will be essential for compliance, risk management, and governance considerations across DeFi protocols and their banking and legal counterparts.