Since FTX’s demise, Sam Bankman-Fried has been the focus of numerous legal actions and investigations, with more expected to come.
Sam Bankman-Fried, the former CEO of FTX, has been named in seven class action lawsuits since the bankruptcy of FTX, increasing the number of cases against him since the collapse of his crypto empire.
These lawsuits stand apart from the numerous inquiries and investigations looking into FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried, such as a rumored market manipulation investigation by federal prosecutors and a probable investigation by the Federal Election Commission into Bankman-dark Fried’s money contributions to the Republican Party.
The class-action lawsuits filed against Sam Bankman-Fried since November 11 are listed below.
Podalsky et al. v. Bankman-Fried et al., Dec. 7.
Former FTX customers accuse the Golden State Warriors, Bankman-Fried, and numerous other celebrities of defrauding “unsophisticated investors” into buying unregistered securities in the form of yield-bearing accounts, causing customers to lose billions of dollars in a class action lawsuit filed by Gregg Podalsky and four other people.
Tom Brady, Kevin O’Leary, Stephen Curry, Trevor Lawrence, and Shaquille O’Neal are the other famous people mentioned in the lawsuit. Podalsky is requesting a jury trial in the matter.
Jessup v. Bankman-Fried et al., Dec.
A class action lawsuit filed by FTX client Michael Elliott Jessup accuses Bankman-Fried, former Alameda CEO Caroline Ellison, and other FTX executives of fraud, unjust enrichment, and conversion.
In legal proceedings, unjust enrichment refers to instances in which one person benefits at the expense of another under conditions that the law deems unfair. In contrast, conversion refers to cases in which one person “converts” another person’s property for their benefit.
According to Jessup, customers who held funds on FTX had legal ownership of their crypto assets; he has also requested that the case goes before a jury. According to Jessup’s attorneys, the defendants transferred these assets to Alameda Research without permission, which they claim amounts to conversion.
Hawkins v. Bankman-Fried et al., December 2.
Russell Hawkins, a customer of FTX who had funds on the exchange, filed this class action complaint in California on behalf of everyone similarly situated. He claims that unfair and misleading business practices duped customers.
Along with Bankman Fried and other FTX executives, the defendants also include Armanino and Prager Metis, two accounting firms with approved papers stating that FTX was in good financial standing. According to the filing:
“As shown below, the Individual Defendants made claims about the FTX Entities and YBAs [Yield-bearing accounts] that were false or deceptive. To trick customers into investing with the FTX Entities, they falsely claimed that the YBAs and FTX Entities were a reliable and secure means to do so.
Pierce v. Bankman-Fried et al., November 23.
Stephen Pierce, a customer of FTX, filed a class action lawsuit in California against the same defendants as the Hawkins case, calling Bankman-Fried “one of the great frauds of history” and claiming that he and his inner circle “treated those assets as a slush fund to fund their proprietary investments and a variety of personal boondoggles.”
The plaintiff (Pierce), who asserts that the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) has been broken, has once more requested a jury.
A form of organized crime known as racketeering involves establishing an illegally coordinated plan or operation that enables the offenders to turn a profit continually.
Kavuri v. Bankman-Fried et al., November 21.
Sunil Kavuri, a customer of FTX, has filed a class action lawsuit in Florida that is comparable to Podalsky v. Bankman-Fried in that it names celebrities or public figures accused of endorsing or otherwise promoting FTX without disclosing their compensation or ownership interest in the company.
The Securities and Exchanges Commission may also closely monitor this matter because Kavuri claims that FTX promoted unregistered securities that were falsely presented as securities to draw consumers and generate interest.
Lam v. Bankman-Fried, 20 November
Elliot Lam, a resident of Hong Kong and a customer of FTX, is the plaintiff in another class action lawsuit brought in California. He claims that Bankman-Fried, Ellison, and the Golden State Warriors broke the state’s laws against unfair competition, false advertising, civil conspiracy, and fraudulent concealment.
Lam asserts that the public could not have understood the “actual nature of FTX and YBAs” when the defendants sold and promoted to them and that if the people had had the same knowledge as the defendants, they would not have opted to utilize FTX products, making this fraudulent concealment.
Garrison v. Bankman-Fried et al., November 15.
The class action lawsuit brought by Edwin Garrison in Florida claims that FTX’s YBAs were improperly given securities and again names a wide range of famous actors and public people known to have supported or participated in marketing initiatives for the company.
In addition, Garrison claims that FTX engaged in dishonest and unfair business practices and was complicit in a “fraudulent scheme” that targeted “unsophisticated investors.”
These complaints were given a docket number and assigned to a judge immediately after filing the required paperwork and objections. Following the service of a summons and complaint on each defendant, the court will then establish a timeline outlining the subsequent procedures.
