Alameda

SBF’s inner circle received $3.2B, mainly from Alameda: Court filings

Billions worth of loans and payments flowed from FTX entities to Sam Bankman-Fried and five other former executives of FTX and Alameda Research.

FTX and Alameda Research’s former top brass received $3.2 billion in payments and loans from FTX-linked entities, according to the FTX administrators handling the firm’s restructuring.

FTX, now helmed by CEO John Ray III, has been tracking missing funds from the exchange since its collapse. It estimates a total of $8.9 billion is missing.

According to a March 15 statement from FTX Debtors, financial statements it filed in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court point to billions of dollars worth of loans and payments that allegedly flowed to Sam Bankman-Fried and high-ranking executives, which came mainly from trading house Alameda Research.

Bankman-Fried, however, reportedly received the lion’s share of the funds at $2.2 billion.

Others named in the list include former FTX director Nishad Singh, FTX co-founder Gary Wang, and former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison, among others.

It provided a rough breakdown of the payments made to the FTX executives, as follows:

  • $2.2 billion to Sam Bankman-Fried
  • $587 million to Nishad Singh — former FTX director of engineering
  • $246 million to Zixiao “Gary” Wang — FTX co-founder
  • $87 million to Ryan Salame — former co-CEO of FTX Digital Markets (FTX’s Bahamian entity)
  • $25 million to John Samuel Trabucco — former co-CEO of Alameda
  • $6 million to Caroline Ellison — former CEO of Alameda

The amounts exclude over $240 million used for various purchases, such as luxury properties in the Bahamas, donations to political and charitable causes and “substantial transfers” to non-FTX subsidiaries, it noted.

FTX’s management said it is currently investigating its rights to pursue potential action against the recipients, along with their subsequent transferees, and that ongoing efforts are “expected to result in the further identification of assets, liabilities and transfers.”

It added it’s looking at ways to claw back the funds from the former executives but said the “amount and timing of eventual monetary recoveries cannot be predicted at this time.”

Related: Sam Bankman-Fried’s bail conditions still too lenient, says judge

Bankman-Fried is facing 12 charges relating to conspiracy, wire and securities fraud in connection to the alleged mishandling of funds at FTX and its affiliates. He previously plead not guilty to eight similar original charges.

Ellison, Wang and Singh have pleaded guilty to charges similar to those brought against Bankman-Fried and are cooperating with investigations spearheaded by federal prosecutors.

The first known instance of an executive from FTX or Alameda assisting authorities came as Salame blew the whistle to Bahamian regulators of the potential fraud being perpetrated at FTX, which led them to shutter the exchange just two days later, on Nov. 11.

89% still trust centralized custodians despite 2022’s collapses: Survey

A January survey from Paxos found that 89% of respondents still trusted “intermediaries” to hold their crypto, despite the collapses and bankruptcies last year.

American crypto users haven’t lost their trust in “intermediaries” to hold their crypto, with a January survey from Paxos suggesting a majority of United States crypto hodlers still trust banks, exchanges and mobile payment apps to custody their assets.

An annual online survey published on March 7 by the stablecoin issuer conducted on Jan. 5 and Jan. 6 sought to understand how the crypto winter and “large industry fallouts” in 2022 — including the bankruptcies of FTX and Alameda Research — impacted consumer behavior and confidence in the crypto ecosystem. Paxos noted:

“2022 was a rollercoaster year for the crypto industry.”

“Ranging from some of the highest Bitcoin prices ever to some of the lowest, largescale industry fallouts from companies like Terra, FTX, Alameda Research, and more — it was a volatile and potentially confidence-testing year for the ecosystem,” Paxos added.

However, the survey found that of those that heard and followed the FTX saga, more than half (57%) of respondents either planned to buy more crypto or simply do nothing as a result of the news.

It also found that 89% of respondents still trusted “intermediaries” such as “banks, crypto exchanges and/or mobile payment apps” to hold their crypto, stating:

“In fact, despite the high-profile collapses and underlying poor risk management practices seen in several crypto companies, crypto owners still trust intermediaries to hold crypto on their behalf.”

The survey also found more desire from consumers to be able to buy Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH) and other digital assets from household or traditional banks, with 75% of respondents indicating they were “likely or very likely” to purchase crypto from their “primary bank” if it were offered, a 12 percentage point increase from the year before.

Graph showing respondents who indicated they were likely to purchase crypto from their primary bank. Source: Paxos

“Additionally, 45% of respondents reported they would be encouraged to invest more in crypto if there was more mainstream adoption by banks and other financial institutions,” Paxos added. 

It said a “significant untapped opportunity” existed for banks if they expanded offerings to digital assets. “Not only would these services satisfy increasing demand, but they would also result in higher engagement,” Paxos claimed.

Related: Paxos is engaged in ‘constructive discussions’ with SEC: Report

Respondents qualified for the survey if they lived in the United States, were over 18 years of age, had a total household income greater than $50,000 and purchased cryptocurrency sometime within the last three years. The survey recruited 5,000 participants.

75% of respondents continued to be confident in the future of crypto. Source: Paxos

“Despite the volatile 2022 crypto landscape, consumers didn’t lose faith in their crypto investments. This number was unchanged from the previous year’s report, underlining the long-term confidence of those participating in crypto markets,” wrote Paxos. 

The timing of the survey, however, means that the gleaned results did not take into account more recent crypto headwinds, such as the bankruptcy of crypto lender Genesis, the crackdown on Binance USD (BUSD) involving Paxos and the financial uncertainty of crypto bank Silvergate Capital.

FTX customers warned of scammers baiting them with return of assets

Scammers have been trying to trick customers by offering them the prospective return of their assets.

Bankrupt crypto exchange FTX has acknowledged a recent spate of third-party scams and frauds aimed at swindling its already-embattled customers.

On Feb. 3, FTX issued an alert to its customers regarding recent attempts by fraudsters about scam attempts, including asking them for money, fees, payments or account passwords.

“We are aware of active third-party scams and frauds seeking to take advantage of FTX customers,” the company warned.

FTX added that its debtors and agents will never ask customers to pay fees or provide account passwords in connection with the “return or prospective return of customer assets,” and encouraged potential victims to contact the official FTX debtors email address to confirm the legitimacy of the messages.

Scammers riding on the collapse of FTX have been upping their game for the past couple of months.

In late December, the Oregon Division of Financial Regulation warned that scammers were seeking opportunities to “re-victimize those who have already been harmed and are trying to find ways to recover their losses.”

It cited a fake website claiming to be managed by the U.S. Department of State working on getting FTX customer assets returned to them and asking for their account details.

In November, a deep fake video surfaced online featuring FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried claiming to double customer crypto compensation. It lured victims into visiting a malicious website offering the crypto giveaway in exchange for tokens sent to the fraudsters.

Related: FTX sister company Alameda Research sues Voyager Digital for $446M

Meanwhile, in a recent development in FTX’s bankruptcy proceedings, the states of California, Texas, and New Jersey have joined calls for for an independent examination of company financial statements.

Another report concerning Bankman-Fried, published by Reuters on Feb. 2, has revealed that the crypto entrepreneur is in talks with federal prosecutors to resolve a dispute over his bail conditions.

Earlier this week, the judge overseeing the case temporarily barred Bankman-Fried from contacting FTX or Alameda employees.

Silvergate faces DOJ investigation over FTX and Alameda dealings: Report

The crypto bank hasn’t been accused of wrongdoing, but prosecutors want to see how deep the dealings between the crypto bank and FTX went.

Crypto bank Silvergate is reportedly being probed by the United States Department of Justice fraud unit over its involvement with the bankrupt FTX exchange and its affiliates.

The probe is investigating Silvergate’s hosting of accounts linked to former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried’s businesses, according to a Feb. 3 report by Bloomberg, which cited “people familiar with the matter.”

The California-based crypto bank is not accused of any crime, but investigators are attempting to discover how deep the dealings with FTX and Alameda went.

Silvergate was heavily impacted by the collapse of FTX in November, reporting a $1 billion loss last quarter. The bank axed 40% of its staff and disclosed taking out billions of dollars in loans to prevent a liquidity crisis and bank run following the fall of the SBF empire.

The federal investigators are trying to ascertain whether Silvergate and any other companies working with FTX were aware of the situation.

According to Silvergate, Alameda opened an account with the bank in 2018, before the launch of FTX. It claims to have conducted due diligence and ongoing monitoring at the time, according to the report.

This week a bank representative said that the firm “has a comprehensive compliance and risk management program.”

Crypto trader Josh Rager commented on how this latest criminal investigation may impact crypto exchanges with ties to Silvergate.

On Jan. 27, Silvergate suspended its dividends, citing “recent volatility in the digital asset industry.” It maintained that it had a “cash position in excess of its digital asset customer-related deposits,” at the time.

Related: US lawmakers renew request for answers from Silvergate on FTX: Report

Silvergate stock has lost 13% on the day tumbling to $17.14 in after-hours trading, according to MarketWatch. Furthermore, SI prices were currently 92% down from their all-time high of $220 in November 2021.

Cointelegraph reached out to Silvergate for comment but had not received a response at the time of publication.

Voyager victim calls for trustee to seize control of the estate

The 120-page motion came from a creditor who asked for the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee, citing alleged fraud and incompetence at Voyager.

A Voyager creditor and finance lawyer wants to see a Chapter 11 trustee appointed in crypto brokerage Voyager Digital’s bankruptcy trial, which would see Voyager lose control of its estate.

In a Feb. 1 motion, Voyager creditor Michelle DiVita accused Voyager of having a “history of financial statement inaccuracies and public misrepresentations that were known, or reasonably discoverable, at the beginning of the bankruptcy proceeding.“

Due to this pre-bankruptcy conduct, DiVita believes that an examiner or trustee should have been requested and is now doing so herself.

The filing alleges that Voyager “concealed the true nature of its lending activities by publishing financial reports that materially understated its loan positions by more than $1 billion.”

Shigo Lavine, a former director and chief investment officer for Voyager, highlighted some of the key accusations made in the filing in a lengthy Feb. 1 Twitter thread.

For example, Voyager allegedly underreported a loan to crypto hedge fund Three Arrows Capital by $609 million and undervalued Bitcoin (BTC) in its financial reports by 546% to downplay the size of its loans.

According to the filing, crypto exchange Coinbase also caught wind of Voyager’s “financial reporting inconsistencies” and had reportedly backed out of a potential deal to acquire the assets of Voyager after finding “the financials don’t add up.”

The bankruptcy proceedings already involve a United States rustee, who is required to bring a motion to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee when there are “reasonable grounds to suspect” that the debtor “participated in actual fraud, dishonesty or criminal conduct.”

While the U.S. trustee appoints a creditors committee and reviews applications for the recompensation of professionals amongst other duties, they may also hire a bankruptcy trustee to manage the debtor’s affairs if the debtors are not allowed to do so themselves.

Cointelegraph has contacted Voyager for a response to the allegations and the motion but did not receive an immediate response.

Related: Voyager tells court Binance acquisition plan is ‘sound business judgment,’ urgently needed

In other news, both Voyager and its creditors have pushed back at an attempt by bankrupt trading firm Alameda Research to claw back $446 million in loan repayments.

After commencing Chapter 11 proceedings on July 5, Voyager demanded the repayment of all its outstanding loans to Alameda which was repaid in full.

However, Alameda sought to recover the funds in a Jan. 30 court filing, arguing that because they repaid the loans within 90 days of filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, they could “claw back” these funds for the benefit of Alameda creditors.

Voyager says that its creditors have suffered “substantial harm” due to Alameda making a bid for Voyager’s assets that it could not honor, costing them over $100 million. Voyager argues that this makes Alameda’s claim subordinate to those of its other creditors.

FTX sister company Alameda Research sues Voyager Digital for $446M

FTX lawyers claim that Voyager Digital was complicit in its own collapse by “knowingly or recklessly” channeling customer funds to Alameda.

Embattled crypto investment firm Alameda Research is suing bankrupt crypto lender Voyager Digital in an effort to claw back loan repayments that FTX made before it collapsed in November.

Lawyers managing the FTX and Alameda bankruptcy case sued Voyager for $445.8 million in a Delaware court on Jan. 30.

While both companies filed for bankruptcy in 2022, Voyager’s Chapter 11 filing came four months earlier, in July. Following Voyager’s filing, the crypto lender demanded repayment of all outstanding loans to FTX and its affiliate investment firm, Alameda.

According to FTX lawyers filing on behalf of Alameda, these loan repayments are eligible to be clawed back as they were made so close to FTX and Alameda’s own bankruptcy in November.

FTX claims it paid Voyager $248.8 million in September and $193.9 million in October. The exchange also made a $3.2 million interest payment in August, according to the court filings.

FTX acknowledged allegations that Alameda used FTX customer deposits for its risky investments but added that Voyager and other crypto lending firms were also complicit, “knowingly or recklessly” funneling customer funds toward Alameda with “little or no due diligence.” It stated:

“Voyager’s business model was that of a feeder fund. It solicited retail investors and invested their money with little or no due diligence in cryptocurrency investment funds like Alameda and Three Arrows Capital.”

The embattled crypto exchange hopes to repurpose any reclaimed funds to repay some of its creditors.

FTX had planned to buy Voyager out of bankruptcy before its collapse in November.

Related: Which tokens could FTX dump on the market?

In a separate development, FTX has asked the court to exclude two of its Turkish subsidiaries from the bankruptcy proceedings.

In a motion filed on Jan. 27, the company has asked for the exclusion of FTX Turkey and SNG Investments, as it believes U.S. courts have no jurisdiction in the country and customers had already begun private claims against the company.

“The orders entered by this Court do not have legal or practical effect in Türkiye and the Debtors have no reason to believe that the Turkish government will comply with this Court’s orders,” the filing stated.

Voyager and Binance.​US deal given initial nod amid national security probe

The deal has received initial approval from the bankruptcy judge but will require the approval of creditors and final court approval.

Bankrupt crypto lender Voyager Digital has received initial court approval for its proposal to sell its assets to Binance.US for $1.02 billion.

The approval comes amid a national security probe concerning Binance.US that Voyager is seeking to speed up.

On Jan. 10, Judge Michael Wiles of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York allowed Voyager to enter into the asset purchase agreement and seek creditor approval, but the sale will not become final until a future court hearing, according to a Jan. 11 Reuters report.

It comes as Voyager wants to expedite a review of its proposal to sell assets to Binance.US, which could result in the deal being blocked or delayed.

Voyager’ attorney Joshua Sussberg noted during the court hearing that Voyager has been responding to questions from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and will address any concerns that CFIUS has which could see it oppose the transaction.

“We are coordinating with Binance and their attorneys to not only deal with that inquiry, but to voluntarily submit an application to move this process along,” Sussberg said.

CFIUS is an inter-agency body that reviews foreign investments or acquisitions of U.S. companies for national security concerns.

If it determines that national security concerns regarding the deal are justified CFIUS can block or unwind the transaction or tell involved parties to alter the deal to mitigate concerns.

Cast your vote now!

CFIUS filed a court notice on Dec. 30 indicating “one or more transactions contemplated” by Voyager could be subject to a review, resulting in possible blocks or delays.

Binance’s global entity is reportedly being probed by the U.S. attorney’s office over money laundering allegations, but its CEO, Changpeng “CZ” Zhao, has stated that Binance.US is a “fully independent entity” headquartered in California.

Zhao is a Chinese-born Canadian citizen and CFIUS is authorized to review any transactions that could result in foreign control of a U.S. business or thaaffords a foreign person an equity interest.

Related: Mark Cuban to face questioning under oath over promotion of Voyager

The Voyager Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors — a body representing creditors with no security interests in Voyager — supported the transaction in its current form, noting the deal would result in greater recoveries for creditors than if Voyager liquidated its holdings itself — which is what would occur if CFIUS blocks the transaction.

Previously, objections to the acquisition proposal from Alameda Research, the Securities and Exchange Commission, four U.S. states and the U.S. trustee were rebutted by the bankrupt lender on Jan. 8.

Voyager claimed that the transaction is in the best interest of its creditors and the objections “fail to put forward any factual or legal support” for its arguments.

Voyager announced on Dec. 19 that it had agreed to Binance.US’s bid to acquire its assets for $1.022 billion, after a $1.4 billion deal with FTX.US fell through following the bankruptcy of the crypto exchange.

SBF borrowed $546M from Alameda to fund Robinhood share purchase

An affidavit by the FTX founder revealed that Alameda funded the purchase of Robinhood shares, which were later used as collateral for Alameda to secure a loan from BlockFi.

Sam Bankman-Fried, the disgraced founder of cryptocurrency exchange FTX, borrowed over $546 million from the exchange’s sister firm Alameda Research to fund his purchase of Robinhood shares.

Those same shares were later used by Bankman-Fried as collateral for a loan taken by Alameda from BlockFi, one of the entities that are laying claim to the shares.

An affidavit by Bankman-Fried filed in the Antigua and Barbuda High Court on Dec. 12 — the day of his arrest — and made public on Dec. 27, revealed that he and FTX co-founder Zixiao “Gary” Wang took out the loans from Alameda through four promissory notes between April and May.

On April 30, loans of around $316.6 million and $35.1 million were given to Bankman-Fried and Wang, respectively. On May 15, two loans of around $175 million and $19.4 million were given to Bankman-Fried.

The loans were used to fund Bankman-Fried’s Antiguan-based shell company, Emergent Fidelity Technologies Ltd., which acquired a 7.6% stake in brokerage firm Robinhood in May at a price of $648 million at the time.

He added that if the sum paid by Emergent for the shares was more than the stated $546 million he has “not [sic] doubt that such additional sum was borrowed by Gary and I” to fund the acquisition of the Robinhood shares.

The revelation of the loans could complicate the ongoing legal tug of war for the over 56 million  Robinhood shares, which are now worth around $430 million.

Embattled crypto lender BlockFi is suing Bankman-Fried’s Emergent for the Robinhood shares, which were allegedly pledged as collateral for BlockFi’s loans to Alameda on Nov. 9.

Related: Crypto OTC trading to get traction due to FTX fiasco, exec says

FTX stepped in on Dec. 23, asking for assistance from a U.S. bankruptcy judge to prevent BlockFi from claiming the shares. It said the shares are owned by Alameda and insisted FTX companies should keep the Robinhood stake while investigations continue into other claims of their ownership.

Additionally, Bankman-Fried and FTX creditor Yonathan Ben Shimon are laying claim to the shares.

Previously, FTX’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings in the United States revealed Bankman-Fried was on the receiving end of a $1 billion personal loan from Alameda.

Former Alameda CEO Caroline Ellison said on Dec. 23 as part of her plea deal that “Alameda was borrowing funds that FTX’s customers had deposited onto the exchange.”

CFTC declares Ether as a commodity again in court filing

The community is hopeful that the assertion by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission will put to bed claims that staked coins are securities according to the Howey Test.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has again labeled Ether (ETH) as a commodity, this time in a Dec. 13 court filing — in contrast to statements from chief Rostin Behnam on Nov. 30 suggesting that Bitcoin was the sole cryptocurrency that should be viewed as a commodity.

In its lawsuit against Sam Bankman-Fried, FTX, and sister company Alameda Research, the regulator on multiple occasions referred to Ether, Bitcoin (BTC) and Tether (USDT) “among others” as “commodities” under United States law.

“Certain digital assets are “commodities,” including bitcoin (BTC), ether (ETH), tether (USDT) and others, as defined under Section 1a(9) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(9).”

However, there appears to be some disagreement within the CFTC itself regarding whether Ether should be viewed as a commodity or not, at least in recent weeks. 

During a crypto event at Princeton University on Nov. 30, CFTC chief Rostin Benham reportedly suggested that Bitcoin is the only crypto asset that should be viewed as a commodity — walking back previous comments asserting that Ether may also be a commodity.

The chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Gary Gensler, has also had an undetermined stance on Ether in recent months.

In an interview with Jim Cramer during his Mad Money show on Jun. 27, Gensler confirmed that Bitcoin was a commodity, adding: “That’s the only one I’m going to say.”

Gensler has previously suggested Ether was a security after its initial coin offering but had become more decentralized and turned into a commodity since then.

His stance appeared to have shifted again following Ether’s transition to proof-of-stake, with Gensler arguing in September that staked tokens may constitute securities under the Howey test.

The designation of crypto assets in the U.S. is particularly important, as the CFTC regulates commodities futures while securities like bonds and stocks are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Related: Judge orders CFTC to serve Ooki DAO founders with lawsuit

Crypto-skeptic Senator Elizabeth Warren is reportedly working on a bill that would give the SEC most of the regulatory authority over the crypto industry. Intercontinental Exchange Inc CEO Jeffrey Sprecher is also confident that crypto assets will be handled like securities — suggesting at a financial services conference on Dec. 6 that this would result in greater consumer protections.

Belgium has taken a different stance, however, with its Financial Services and Markets Authority asserting Nov. 22 that Bitcoin, Ether and other crypto assets issued solely by computer code do not constitute securities.

7 class action lawsuits have been filed against SBF so far, records show

Sam Bankman-Fried has been the subject of many lawsuits and investigations since the collapse of FTX, with more likely to follow.

The number of lawsuits against former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried has been racking up since the fall of his crypto empire, with the former “white knight” of crypto finding himself a defendant in seven class action lawsuits filed since FTX’s bankruptcy.

These lawsuits are separate from the numerous probes and investigations examining FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried, such as a reported market manipulation probe by federal prosecutors and the Federal Election Commission’s likely investigation into Bankman-Frieds dark money donations to the Republican Party.

Below is a summary of the class-action lawsuits brought against Sam Bankman-Fried since Nov. 11. 

Dec. 7: Podalsky et al. v. Bankman-Fried et al.

In this class-action lawsuit brought by Gregg Podalsky and four other individuals, the former FTX customers accused Golden State Warriors, Bankman-Fried and numerous other celebrities and FTX executives of fraudulently inducing “unsophisticated investors” into purchasing unregistered securities in the form of yield-bearing accounts, resulting in customers losing billions of dollars.

Other public figures also named in the lawsuit are Tom Brady, Kevin O‘Leary, Stephen Curry, Trevor Lawrence and Shaquille O’Neal, with Podalsky demanding that the case have a jury trial.

Dec. 5: Jessup v. Bankman-Fried et al.

FTX customer Michael Elliott Jessup has brought a class-action lawsuit against Bankman-Fried, former Alameda CEO Caroline Ellison and other FTX executives, accusing them of fraud, unjust enrichment and conversion.

Unjust enrichment in legal cases refers to situations where one person is enriched at the expense of another, in circumstances which the law sees as unjust, while conversion refers to situations where one person ‘converts’ another person’s property for themselves.

Jessup, who has also demanded the case have a jury, alleges that customers who held funds on FTX had rightful possession of their crypto assets and that the defendants transferred these assets to Alameda Research without the authority to do so — which constitutes conversion in the eyes of Jessup’s lawyers.

Dec. 2: Hawkins v Bankman-Fried et al.

Filed in California, this lawsuit is a class action brought by Russell Hawkins — an FTX customer who held funds on the exchange — on behalf of all those similarly situated and alleges that customers were misled by unfair and deceptive practices.

The defendants include Bankman Fried and other FTX executives, as well as accounting firms Armanino and Prager Metis, who had issued certified reports deeming FTX to be in good financial health, with the filing noting:

“As set forth herein, the Individual Defendants made statements regarding YBAs [Yield-bearing accounts] and the FTX Entities that were untrue or misleading. They publicly represented that the FTX Entities and YBAs were a viable and safe way to invest in crypto, a statement designed to deceive consumers into investing with the FTX Entities.”

Nov. 23: Pierce v. Bankman-Fried et al.

With the same defendants as the Hawkins case, FTX customer Stephen Pierce filed a class-action lawsuit in California accusing Bankman-Fried of being “one of the great frauds of history,” and that he “and his inner circle treated those assets as a slush fund to fund their own proprietary investments and a variety of personal boondoggles.”

A jury has once again been demanded by the plaintiff (Pierce), who alleges that the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) has been violated.

Racketeering is a type of organized crime in which an illegal coordinated scheme or operation is set up which enables the perpetrators to consistently collect a profit.

Nov. 21: Kavuri v. Bankman-Fried et al.

FTX customer Sunil Kavuri has filed a class-action lawsuit in Florida similar to Podalsky v Bankman-Fried, in that the defendants listed include celebrities or public figures that have endorsed or otherwise promoted FTX allegedly without disclosing their payment or stake in the company.

It is also a case that the Securities and Exchange Commission may be keeping a close eye on, with Kavuri alleging that FTX was promoting unregistered securities which were fraudulently presented as securities in an effort to attract customers and generate interest.

Nov. 20: Lam v. Bankman-Fried

Hong Kong resident and FTX customer Elliot Lam is the plaintiff in another class-action lawsuit filed in California, who alleges that Bankman-Fried, Ellison and the Golden State Warriors have violated California’s false advertising and unfair competition laws and have also committed fraudulent concealment and civil conspiracy.

Lam claims that the defendants sold and marketed to the public who could not have known the “true nature of FTX and YBAs,” and that had the public had the same information as the defendants, they would not have chosen to use FTX’s products — thus constituting fraudulent concealment.

Nov. 15: Garrison v. Bankman-Fried et al.

This lawsuit once again includes the full suite of celebrity actors and public figures who are understood to have endorsed or been involved in marketing campaigns for FTX, the class-action lawsuit filed by Edwin Garrison in Florida alleges that FTX’s YBAs were illegally offered securities.

Related: Sam Bankman-Fried misses deadline to respond to testimony request, now what?

Garrison also accuses FTX of having engaged in deceptive and unfair business practices, and was engaged in a “fraudulent scheme” that intentionally took advantage of “unsophisticated investors.”

Once these complaints and the necessary documents were filed, they were given a docket number and immediately assigned to a judge. From there, each of the defendants is served with a summons and complaint, and the judge will set out a schedule outlining the next steps.