1. Home
  2. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors

Mainstream media renew push for non-US FTX user identities

A May 3 filing to the United States Bankruptcy Court brings new objections to a motion that aimed to redact customer identities.

Four media outlets in the United States have continued efforts to get the identities of non-U.S. FTX customers revealed, filing new objections to a previous motion to seal their identities. 

Bloomberg, Dow Jones, The New York Times and the Financial Times first filed a motion objecting to FTX and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors being authorized to redact and withhold customer information on Jan 11.

While the court previously had heard similar arguments by the four firms, the May 3 filing made a new objection to the Committee’s motion to seal the identities of non-U.S. customers.

The four media firm’s most recent filing against FTX and the Committee. Source: Kroll.

The media outlet's most recent argument is that there is no legal basis to redact the names pursuant to non-U.S. data privacy laws.

The media giants argued that under section 105 of the Bankruptcy Code — the provision which grants the bankruptcy court judicial power — there is no part that permits foreign law to override the right of access to information under U.S. constitutional and statutory law:

“At bottom, Movants desire to avoid ‘enforcement of the public disclosure requirements of U.S. bankruptcy law’ [...] furnishes no basis for sealing.”

“The law of the United States — constitutional and statutory — guarantees the public a strong presumptive right to inspect bankruptcy filings. That right cannot be abrogated by a party’s assertion of legal obligations under foreign law,” the media firms added.

The first argument raised — which was claimed in an earlier filing — was that the names of FTX’s creditors do not constitute “confidential commercial information.”

The second — also raised in an earlier filing — is that such disclosure wouldn’t subject the creditors to “undue risk.”

Related: FTX has recovered $7.3B in assets, will consider rebooting exchange

FTX and the committee have until May 4 at 4:00 pm Eastern Time to submit an objection.

The hearing date for the filing will take place on May 17 at 1:00pm.

Magazine: Can you trust crypto exchanges after the collapse of FTX?

Korean Hackers Lose Big Trading on Hyperliquid: Are They Poking for Holes?

FTX lawyers, creditors slam SBF’s petition to get legal fees reimbursed

The creditor's committee and FTX lawyers have raised several arguments in objecting to Bankman Fried’s request. A hearing date is set for April 12.

Sam Bankman Fried’s new petition to have his legal expenses reimbursed has been met with fierce objection from lawyers representing the crypto exchange and its creditors committee.

As per previous reporting by Cointelegraph, Bankman-Fried’s lawyers had filed a motion on March 15 seeking to have his court costs covered by directors and officers (D&O) insurance policies, which if approved by the judge would see him placed at the top of the payout queue.

In March 29 objection filing, FTX’s lawyers objected to Bankman-Fried’s attempt to prioritize his own legal fees at the expense of other potential claimants, stating:

“It would be unfair, inequitable, and contrary to the interests of justice to allow Mr. Bankman-Fried to drain the D&O Policies for his sole benefit”

FTX’s lawyers argue that if the court rules in favor of Bankman-Fried then the insurance payout should apply to other directors and officers who have a claim to the funds.

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors also filed an objection on the same day, noting that D&O insurance policies only apply “where they make honest decisions in the ordinary course of the business,” which it argues “is not the case” regarding Bankman-Fried’s request.

The committee argued that the court should thus decline the request, labeling Bankman-Fried the “alleged perpetrator of one of the largest criminal frauds in the last decade.”

This sentiment has been echoed by some from the crypto community prior to Sam Bankman Fried’s request.

Directors and officers (D&O) liability insurance is a type of insurance coverage that protects individuals from personal losses if they are sued as a result of serving as a director or an officer for a firm. Such policies can also be used by the firm to cover legal fees and costs incurred as a result of a lawsuit against a former officer or director.

The creditors committee however argued that Bankman-Fried had failed to justify his claim to the $10 million in available coverage which should instead go towards covering FTX’s losses.

Related: SBF banned from using online messengers under new bail agreement

According to reports, the former FTX CEO is currently paying his legal fees with $10 million he had previously gifted to his father Joseph Bankman, after Bankman-Fried loaned the funds from Alameda Research.

Bankman-Fried was charged with 12 criminal counts on Feb. 22, which included numerous fraud charges, and was rounded up to a baker’s dozen on Feb. 28 following allegations that he used $40 million in an attempt to bribe a Chinese official.

Web3 Gamer: Shrapnel wows at GDC, Undead Blocks hot take, Second Trip

Korean Hackers Lose Big Trading on Hyperliquid: Are They Poking for Holes?