Voyager Digital Subpoenas FTX Executives
Subpoenas demanding information have been issued on former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried and other FTX and Alameda Research officials by attorneys representing insolvent crypto broker Voyager Digital.
According to the filing made on February 6, the subpoenas have a very broad reach, and the attorneys for Voyager are asking for copies of all documents and communication that may have taken place between FTX businesses and the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Department of Justice.
In addition to a large number of additional papers, the attorneys have demanded information about the loan portfolio held by Alameda and Voyager, as well as FTX’s financial status both before and after the company filed for bankruptcy on November 11.
The other executives who were ordered to deliver the needed material by February 17 include a former CEO of Alameda named Caroline Ellison, the co-founder of FTX named Gary Wang, and FTX’s head of product named Ramnik Arora. Each of these people was issued with a subpoena.
Voyager and Alameda have extensive financial relationships, and Alameda is now attempting to recoup the $446 million that it has already given back to Voyager. It asserted in a document that was submitted on the 30th of January that since it had repaid Voyager inside the first ninety days after filing for its own bankruptcy, it had the legal right to “claw back” the monies for the benefit of its creditors.
After Alameda made a bid for Voyager’s assets that it was unable to honor, which cost Voyager $100 million and rendered Alameda’s claim subordinate to those of its other creditors, Voyager responded by claiming that its creditors had suffered “substantial harm” as a result of Alameda’s actions. Voyager made this claim in its lawsuit against Alameda.
In the meanwhile, according to a story published on February 7 by Law360, United States bankruptcy judge Michael Wiles said that he would be appointing a fee examiner to look into the professional costs associated with Voyager’s Chapter 11 case.
Wiles is said to have claimed that the professional fees expended inside the bankruptcy process were larger than he anticipated, and the rationale that was presented by the U.S. Trustee had apparently persuaded him that a fee examiner would be advantageous.
Wiles did observe, however, that an examiner may wind up costing the estate more than it would be able to save in other professional expenses, and he suggested putting a ceiling on the examiner’s own fees in order to prevent this from happening.
