Tom Brady pushed FTX, then the crypto firm failed. Should he pay up?

Tom Brady pushed FTX, then the crypto firm failed. Should he pay up?

Comment

When Michael Livieratos saw quarterback Tom Brady in a commercial for the cryptocurrency trading platform FTX, he knew exactly where he wanted to put his $30,000 crypto investment.

“As a New England Patriots fan my entire life, you can imagine the influence that Tom Brady would have,” said Livieratos, a 56-year-old legal clerk who lives in Connecticut. He soon moved nearly all his money from another crypto exchange to FTX.

Then FTX filed for bankruptcy in a spectacular collapse that vaporized at least $10 billion in assets, according to bankruptcy filings, including all the money Livieratos had on the platform. Now he is a plaintiff in a proposed class-action lawsuit that seeks to hold Brady, his supermodel ex-wife, Gisele Bündchen, and nine other celebrity endorsers of FTX financially responsible for luring him into a very bad deal.

FTX CEO John J. Ray III, who is guiding the collapsed crypto company through bankruptcy, testified before the House Committee on Financial Services on Dec. 13. (Video: Joy Yi/The Washington Post, Photo: Al Drago/Bloomberg/The Washington Post)

Until its collapse, FTX had been one of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges — and one of the most aggressive at marketing digital currencies to the masses. The company had partnerships with National Basketball Association teams, patches on Major League Baseball umpire uniforms and the naming rights to the Miami Heat arena. It ran splashy TV ads during NBA and National Football League games, including last year’s Super Bowl, in which celebrities portrayed FTX as an exciting but safe place to invest money.

On Tuesday, the U.S. government brought both criminal charges and civil actions against Sam Bankman-Fried, the 30-year-old founder of FTX, accusing him of orchestrating one of the biggest financial frauds in U.S. history. But the odds of restitution for FTX customers like Livieratos are slim. “We’re not going to be able to recover all the losses here,” FTX’s new chief executive John J. Ray III told a House committee.

So Livieratos and his fellow plaintiffs are trying a different approach. Working with Coral Gables, Fla., lawyer Adam Moskowitz, their lawsuit seeks to shift the focus from FTX executives to what Moskowitz sees as a larger circle of complicity that includes some of the world’s most celebrated actors and athletes.

Bankman-Fried gave $40 million in political donations. Here’s who benefited.

Moskowitz argues that FTX’s interest-bearing accounts were a security, which would require Brady and other promoters to reveal the details of their payments from FTX. The complaint claims “they have never disclosed the nature, scope, and amount of compensation they personally received in exchange for the promotion.” Instead, they appeared in ads featuring such moments as an enthusiastic Brady dialing up everyone in his contact list to pitch crypto trading on FTX, asking again and again: “You in?”

“You have very rich people we all love telling us that they checked this out, and it was okay,” Moskowitz said in an interview. “Why shouldn’t they be held responsible?”

In part, Moskowitz’s lawsuit reflects the reality that wealthy celebrities are likely to have large amounts of money left — perhaps unlike Bankman-Fried, who has said he has $100,000 in the bank and only one working credit card. Celebrities also may be inclined to settle quickly to avoid the bad publicity of a protracted court proceeding.

But there are significant legal hurdles to holding promoters accountable. Just this month, a federal judge in California dismissed a lawsuit from investors accusing reality-TV star Kim Kardashian, boxer Floyd Mayweather Jr. and others of touting an obscure crypto token known as EMAX as part of a plan to artificially inflate the coin’s value. Though the celebrities agreed to pay millions in fines to the Securities and Exchange Commission for failing to disclose that they had been paid to promote the token, Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald said investors are partly responsible for what happens to their money.

While the case “raises legitimate concerns over celebrities’ ability to readily persuade millions of undiscerning followers to buy snake oil with unprecedented ease and reach,” Fitzgerald wrote, investors should “act reasonably before basing their bets on the zeitgeist of the moment.”

Post Reports: The downfall of FTX

Moskowitz, who specializes in class-action lawsuits, didn’t set out to become a crypto watchdog. But as Miami has become a hub of crypto investment — and as case referrals came to him from consumers who’d lost money from various digital-currency scams — he started scrutinizing the industry.

“It seemed like a lot of investors were getting hurt and no one was really looking out for them,” said Moskowitz, who has also brought prominent lawyer David Boies onto his lawsuit.

If FTX’s accounts are ruled to be securities, Moskowitz argues that the celebrities could be responsible for investor losses under many states’ strict “blue sky” laws that ban the promotion of unregistered securities — and hold promoters liable even if they didn’t understand what they were endorsing.

FTX and most of the crypto industry has maintained that digital assets are not securities. But citing a standard that emerged from a 1946 Supreme Court case, Moskowitz’s complaint argues that they are, saying they fit the definition of a public investment in which the investor benefits from the efforts of others.

Demonstrating that the interest-bearing accounts FTX offered were in fact unregistered securities won’t be simple, given how contentious and unresolved the issue remains among regulators. Moskowitz has separately filed a state class action in Florida against Brady and two others and asked the judge, Michael Hanzman, to rule on that question.

Even if the judge rules FTX interest-bearing accounts were not securities, Moskowitz says, he will argue that celebrities should be liable under a strict Florida consumer protection law, which bans “unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”

All of the defendants in Moskowitz’s federal class action — including tennis champion Naomi Osaka,NBA star Stephen Curry and entrepreneur Kevin “Mr. Wonderful” O’Leary from the business reality show “Shark Tank” — hyped the brand. In a video posted to his website less than a month before FTX filed for bankruptcy, O’Leary said he had total confidence in the exchange. “If there’s ever a place I could be that I’m not gonna get in trouble, it’s going to be at FTX,” O’Leary said.

Moskowitz argues that such comments make his case extremely persuasive — especially coming from someone like O’Leary, who is regarded as a savvy businessman.

“O’Leary is someone people trust because he’s on ‘Shark Tank,’ ” Moskowitz said. “Who doesn’t love ‘Shark Tank’?”

Spokespeople for Brady, Bündchen, Osaka, Curry and O’Leary did not reply to requests for comment. A lawyer for Brady did not provide a comment for this story.

Is crypto a house of cards?

Sunil Kavuri, a 42-year-old crypto investor from Britain and a plaintiff in the case, said O’Leary’s endorsement was the reason he put a seven-figure sum into an FTX account, including funds he intended to use for his 2-year-old son’s education. All that money is now gone, Kavuri said, stuck with the funds of so many others in FTX bankruptcy proceedings. Kavuri said he thought that, since O’Leary ran a successful investment fund that’s regulated by the SEC, he would be familiar with the legal limits of undue promotion.

In an interview last week on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” O’Leary said he was paid just under $15 million to be a spokesman for FTX, much of which is gone. (He says he put the bulk of the money into crypto through the exchange, and prices have since plummeted. About $4 million went to taxes and his agent’s fees, and $1 million went to equity in FTX, which is now worthless.)

Asked about an August 2021 statement that FTX met his “own rigorous standards of compliance,” O’Leary said he and other institutional investors “relied on each other’s due diligence.”

Now, “we all look like idiots,” he said.

In testimony before the Senate Banking Committee on Wednesday, O’Leary said he plans to use his own funds to conduct a forensic audit of what happened at the company. “The truth of this situation will be discovered by following the transaction trail after obtaining the records,” he said. He applied for membership on the FTX creditors’ committee in connection with the bankruptcy proceedings, because he feels “obligated to pursue the facts on behalf of all stakeholders.”

Moskowitz’s pursuit of A-listers actually began with a separate case against Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, O’Leary’s co-star on “Shark Tank,” who promoted Voyager, a now-bankrupt cryptocurrency lender.

In October 2021, Cuban held a news conference with Voyager co-founder Steve Ehrlich announcing a five-year partnership with the Mavericks that would, as Cuban put it, “come up with new ways to introduce Mavs fans to cryptocurrency and help them understand it.”

In a widely circulated YouTube video, Cuban offered $100 in bitcoin to anyone who downloaded the Voyager app and made a trade worth at least $100. “I think Voyager is going to be a leader among sports fans and crypto fans around the country,” Cuban said. American Airlines Center, where the Mavericks play, soon displayed Voyager ads.

FTX’s Bankman-Fried donated about $40M this political cycle. Here’s who benefited.

But then crypto prices collapsed and Voyager filed for bankruptcy, leaving many customers unable to access money they thought they could easily reclaim. In August, Moskowitz and Boies filed a proposed class-action lawsuit in federal court in Miami, arguing that Cuban’s endorsement was a big factor in creating that false sense of security.

Litigants are waiting for the judge to rule on Cuban’s motion to dismiss, with experts divided on the odds of it being granted. In the meantime, Moskowitz is gathering depositions from several NBA veterans, including former Mavericks general manager Donnie Nelson, in a bid to show Cuban’s deep involvement with Voyager.

In a brief email to The Washington Post, Cuban said that as a sponsor of the Mavericks, Voyager was “supported by the team as we would any sponsor.” A lawyer for Cuban and the Mavericks, Stephen A. Best, said Moskowitz has not demonstrated that Cuban’s statements prompted anyone to do business with Voyager.

“Mark Cuban and any comments that he made were part of an announcement of a sponsorship whereby Voyager became an official sponsor of Dallas Mavericks,” Best said, adding: “You’ll find that … there’s a question as to whether any comments were relied upon by the named plaintiffs in this case.”

The FTX case makes similar claims against defendants including basketball stars Shaquille O’Neal and Udonis Haslem, quarterback Trevor Lawrence, baseball players David Ortiz and Shohei Ohtani, and comedian Larry David. A representative for Ortiz declined to comment. Representatives for O’Neal, Haslem, Lawrence, Ohtani and David did not respond to requests for comment.

There is precedent for celebrities paying up after pushing failed investment schemes. In 1990, the actor Lloyd Bridges settled a case for an undisclosed sum after he made a commercial touting A.J. Obie & Associates, a Detroit-based company whose executive was sentenced to jail in a mortgage scam.

Jeff Greenbaum, a New York advertising attorney, said celebrity endorsers can be held liable in false-advertising claims, but the Federal Trade Commission has typically been the main enforcer. It’s far less common for a private plaintiff to bring legal action against an endorser, he said, adding that courts have generally been hesitant to hold spokespeople responsible when investments go bad.

In the FTX case, “what we’re all going to be watching really closely is: What standards are the courts going to apply?” Greenbaum said. “In other words, what level of involvement does the celebrity need to have? What level of knowledge does the celebrity need to have” to be found responsible.

To be found liable under Florida’s consumer protection law, Moskowitz will have to offer evidence that the celebrities knew FTX may have been deceiving investors, said Florida attorney Daniel Lustig, which is tough to prove. He said that it’s likely no one, including Brady, expected FTX to collapse.

Moskowitz acknowledges the case’s difficulties. But he notes that the celebrities neglected their responsibility to their fans, who lost large sums of money. They lost other things, too.

After the FTX bankruptcy, Livieratos took down a photo of Brady that had hung on his wall for years.

“I can’t look at it anymore,” he said.

correction

An earlier version of this article incorrectly identified Donnie Nelson as the Dallas Mavericks’ general manager. He’s the Mavericks’ former general manager. The article has been corrected.

FTX Lawyer: ‘Substantial Amount’ of Assets Stolen | Arkansas Business News

FTX Lawyer: ‘Substantial Amount’ of Assets Stolen | Arkansas Business News

We ended up unable to ship the write-up.

NEW YORK (AP) — Attorneys for FTX disclosed Tuesday that a “considerable volume” of property has been stolen from the accounts of the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange, diminishing the odds that its hundreds of thousands of buyers will get their money again.

The admission came through FTX’s 1st courtroom visual appearance considering that the firm filed for individual bankruptcy security on Nov. 11. This kind of hearings typically transpire days following a submitting, but this one particular was delayed mainly because FTX’s collapse arrived quickly and management held number of if any data.

“This company was operate by inexperienced, unsophisticated and perhaps personally compromised individuals,” said James Bromley, a lover with Sullivan & Cromwell, the regulation agency employed by FTX’s debt holders to navigate the corporation by way of personal bankruptcy. “It is just one of the most abrupt and hard organization collapses in the historical past of corporate The usa.”

FTX, brief billions of pounds, sought personal bankruptcy security following the exchange seasoned the crypto equal of a bank operate. The firm estimates that there are a lot more than 100,000 claims from it so far, and that number is likely to increase to earlier mentioned 1 million at the time the individual bankruptcy circumstance is settled.

Nevertheless having all individuals resources again has grow to be more and more challenging. In the days immediately after FTX’s collapse, hundreds of hundreds of thousands of pounds of cryptocurrencies had been moved out of FTX’s accounts and into other cryptocurrency wallets. Though there experienced been some studies that a portion of individuals resources may possibly have been seized by the government of the Bahamas— where FTX is headquartered — as aspect of its have investigation, the bulk of all those cryptocurrencies have been moving as a result of several various wallets, in what appears to be the crypto equivalent of revenue laundering.

In court docket, FTX’s legal professionals admitted that a “considerable amount of money” of assets had been stolen from FTX accounts.

“We fully grasp the issue and outrage, and we are doing work day and night time to provide order to problem,” Bromley said.

FTX’s personal bankruptcy has produced sizeable desire past just cryptocurrency traders. The enterprise had important sporting activities sponsorships as effectively, such as offers with Method Just one racing and Main League Baseball. FTX experienced the naming legal rights to a athletics arena in Miami, and many celebrities had been either invested in FTX or did sponsorship specials with the organization.

Nearly 700 individuals had been in the Zoom conference area for U.S. Individual bankruptcy Choose John Dorsey on Tuesday, and the hearing was also streamed on YouTube.

Judge Dorsey did temporarily grant FTX 1 buy that experienced produced some controversy: redacting the names and addresses of FTX’s shopper listing. Commonly in individual bankruptcy law, all promises towards a bankrupt firm are community. But FTX’s legal professionals argued that safeguarding the identities of FTX’s clientele — at the very least on an interim basis — was needed to stay clear of probable long term thefts of FTX’s accounts.

Dorsey granted momentary redaction of FTX customers’ names and information, with the expectation of releasing all those names at the time the situation finalizes.

______

All contents © copyright 2022 Connected Push. All legal rights reserved.

How the Bankruptcy Code Impacts User Access to FTX Assets

How the Bankruptcy Code Impacts User Access to FTX Assets

Subsequent the the latest string of crypto bankruptcies, about a million people today are contacting for entry to their accounts, coins, and tokens.

Standing in their way is the reply to this concern: What is residence of a debtor’s estate, or far more to the stage, what is not home of the estate?

The other problem that might make a difference just as a lot is what variation it makes.

Centered on a filing in the FTX case on Nov. 21, it appeared there was only $1.2 billion of money offered from an unidentified total of claims held by in excess of a million probable lenders, the major 50 of whom are owed, in accordance to FTX’s filings, over $3.1 billion. Extra assets may well be uncovered.

What it Suggests

Property of the estate is a single of the most essential ideas in US individual bankruptcy legislation. A debtor’s estate is composed of “all authorized or equitable passions of the debtor in assets,” together with tangible and intangible residence, as of the starting of the situation “wherever located and by whomever held.”

And this consists of all “proceeds, item, offspring, rents, or profits of or from assets of the estate.”

For our applications, there is a person salient exception to the voracious urge for food of the estate: residence held by a debtor in some sort of believe in. No matter if the hollowed-out crypto estates hold an individual’s money, coins, or tokens in rely on is perhaps the most crucial issue in all the crypto bankruptcies, primarily FTX.

Who Holds the Key

Let’s start off with a severe truth test and a fundamental mantra of crypto. If your crypto is stored in a wallet with a personal key that only you hold, no a single can dispute that the crypto is yours. But eliminate the crucial and you reduce the crypto. Even so, if your crypto is saved in a wallet on an exchange, and that exchange goes into individual bankruptcy, then what?

Frequently, counsel in other crypto bankruptcies have taken the posture that no matter what is in the estate or can be recovered by the estate, and belongs to the estate in gross, not any particular creditor. So what does this definitely indicate for FTX consumers?

FTX.com’s phrases of service give that “you manage the electronic belongings held in your account,” and that “title to your electronic belongings shall at all instances continue to be with you and shall not transfer to FTX Investing.”

In addition, “none of the electronic belongings in your account are the home of, or shall or may perhaps be loaned to, FTX Buying and selling.” The company “does not symbolize or address electronic property in user’s accounts as belonging to FTX Investing.”

Lawful Have confidence in

This definitely seems to produce a lawful “trust” relationship—“in which one person holds title to house, subject matter to an obligation to retain or use the property for the profit of one more.”

In this regard, FTX digital assets appear to resemble the property held in a “custody” account at Celsius, a crypto asset-dependent finance platform that filed for personal bankruptcy on July 13, which Celsius has acknowledged is buyer home and not home of its estate.

Even so, Celsius’s placement may well now be in dilemma dependent on an interim report issued by the examiner appointed in Celsius’s individual bankruptcy case.

The Nov. 19 report exposed that there were being insufficient accounting and operational controls or technical infrastructure in the custody accounts and that “as a consequence, prospects now face uncertainty about which belongings, if any, belonged to them as of the individual bankruptcy filing.”

It may perhaps not be ample to have agreements that develop interactions that should be inviolate, for the reason that the actions taken by the holders of a customer’s crypto in violation of those people agreements may perhaps continue to leave individuals buyers unprotected.

Venue

Yet another difficulty that have to have to be resolved relates to venue—where the case will acquire place, and to preference of law—what legislation will govern the lawful inquiries.

FTX was integrated in Antigua and Barbuda, headquartered in the Bahamas, and did small business globally. While 100-additionally FTX circumstances were submitted in the personal bankruptcy court in Delaware, a situation has also started off in the Bahamas. This has triggered a jurisdictional battle.

Conditions decided underneath the US bankruptcy code make distinct that house matter to a rely on is excluded from property of a debtor’s estate.

But no matter if a rely on relationship has really been developed is a make any difference of “state regulation,” meaning that the personal bankruptcy courtroom, which is a federal courtroom, will look to the legislation of the related state or region to interpret the provisions of the contract.

In this scenario, the provisions are the TOS—that the get-togethers entered into as effectively as the validity and effect of that contract.

The conditions of company of FTX state that disputes are to be determined “in accordance with English regulation.” What exactly that implies, is not absolutely distinct.

Outlook

Now, assuming these are trust cash, does it issue? Probably. Except all the push is improper, which it may possibly be, billions of dollars are just long gone. Regardless of whether an individual will be held criminally liable is to be determined by folks with badges and .gov in their e-mail addresses, not personal bankruptcy lawyers or the new CEO of FTX.

What happens to whichever cash is still left in FTX or can be recovered by the estate for lenders? Whose dollars is it? Everyone’s?

In which case, the regular personal bankruptcy method would make a pro rata distribution to lenders in accordance with the precedence of payment scheme in the bankruptcy code.

Or, are any of the belongings remaining regarded as have confidence in assets? This means, do they belong to distinct get-togethers independently and not to all functions collectively?

Bottom line—it is way too shortly to notify.

This post does not automatically replicate the opinion of Bloomberg Market Team, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Regulation and Bloomberg Tax, or its entrepreneurs.

Write for Us: Creator Guidelines

Creator Information

Jason Gottlieb is chair of the White Collar, Regulatory Enforcement & Digital Belongings Follow at Morrison Cohen.

Joseph T. Moldovan is chair of the Business Methods, Restructuring & Governance Practice at Morrison Cohen.

‘Wave’ of lawsuits over FTX expected, but investors will face legal hurdles

‘Wave’ of lawsuits over FTX expected, but investors will face legal hurdles

Nov 17 (Reuters) – A lawsuit by FTX account holders in the United States is most likely the first of a lot of that will be introduced about billions of dollars in losses on the cryptocurrency exchange, while the scenarios will facial area hurdles such as proving that U.S. securities law applies to FTX’s products, industry experts explained.

The lawsuit, submitted in Miami federal court docket on Tuesday, statements FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried and celebs which includes NFL quarterback Tom Brady and basketball Hall of Famer Shaquille O’Neal, engaged in misleading company methods by advertising unregistered securities.

Although some courts have ruled that sure cryptocurrencies in shape the legal definition of securities, the difficulty continues to be unsettled.

Situations in opposition to FTX, which is based mostly in the Bahamas, will be created more advanced by the point that U.S. securities legal guidelines usually utilize only to domestic transactions, mentioned Yuliya Guseva, a professor who heads the fintech and blockchain analysis plan at Rutgers Law University.

“It is more complicated than your plain vanilla crypto exchange story,” she mentioned.

Reps for Bankman-Fried, O’Neal and Brady did not reply to requests for remark on the lawsuit.

FTX submitted for bankruptcy on Nov. 11 and is going through scrutiny from U.S. authorities. Sources instructed Reuters that $10 billion in consumer belongings ended up shifted from FTX to Bankman-Fried’s buying and selling enterprise Alameda Research, and that more than $1 billion of shopper money is missing.

Tuesday’s lawsuit, a proposed class action brought on behalf of FTX generate-bearing account holders in the United States, statements the accounts were unregistered securities simply because they utilized investors’ pooled money to have interaction in actions that produced the returns account holders acquired.

It is an open up concern no matter if U.S. securities guidelines utilize to interest-bearing crypto accounts like these presented by FTX.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Fee has lately alleged that other yield-bearing accounts constituted unregistered securities. Buyers have made similar allegations in courtroom against Voyager Electronic Ltd and Celsius Network around their crypto accounts, but judges have but to rule on those people promises.

The lawsuit submitted on Tuesday did not name FTX as a defendant but as a substitute qualified people.

Other investors will probably provide more lawsuits as the facts of FTX’s collapse arrive to gentle.

Guseva mentioned a “wave” of litigation is the “predicted result of a large debacle like this.”

FTX’s new CEO, John J. Ray III, claimed in personal bankruptcy filings on Thursday that the firm’s condition was “unprecedented” and associated a “entire failure of company controls.”

Circumstances against FTX and relevant businesses will be paused through individual bankruptcy proceedings, but scenarios towards people who have not filed for personal bankruptcy might be authorized to go ahead, reported Guseva.

Quite a few law companies have reported they are contemplating bringing promises on behalf of traders in the FTX Token, or FTT, a cryptocurrency tied to the trade whose worth has plummeted from all around $25 per token to a lot less than $2 in the wake of the FTX liquidity crisis.

New lawsuits may possibly also focus on celebrity promoters of FTX crypto items.

Tuesday’s complaint alleges that this sort of promoters violated Florida consumer security legislation by failing to disclose what they had been paid to endorse the firm.

Traders have introduced equivalent promises versus truth Tv set star Kim Kardashian over her advertising of EthereumMax tokens. A choose has not nonetheless dominated on no matter whether the scenario can go forward.

Kardashian has argued that the lawsuit should really be dismissed since payment aspects would not have mattered to traders in the token.

She settled identical statements earlier this calendar year by the SEC for $1.26 million devoid of admitting wrongdoing.

Future investor lawsuits over the FTX meltdown are probably to allege statements beyond securities registration and purchaser safety violations, plaintiffs’ lawyers claimed.

Sean Masson, an legal professional at legislation company Scott+Scott who signifies buyers in the situation versus Kardashian, explained there may possibly be prospective industry manipulation statements centered on Bankman-Fried’s actions at Alameda.

Masson did not supply details. Current market manipulation will involve a trader or firm trying to secretly transfer or maintain the sector price tag of a security or commodity.

“We feel that what has appear out so significantly is just scratching the floor on what truly transpired,” he mentioned.

(This tale has been refiled to fix a typographical mistake in paragraph 13)

Reporting by Jody Godoy in New York
Modifying by Noeleen Walder and Matthew Lewis

Our Specifications: The Thomson Reuters Have confidence in Principles.