SBF Fights for Robinhood Shares — Says He Needs Them More Than FTX Customers Who Only Suffer ‘Possibility of Economic Loss’ – Featured Bitcoin News

Disgraced FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) is attempting to regain access to his Robinhood shares, worth over $460 million. The former CEO of the collapsed crypto exchange claimed that he needs them to “pay for his criminal defense,” stressing that without them the consequences would be serious and “irreparable.” FTX customers, on the other hand, “face only the possibility of economic loss,” SBF’s court filing states.
Disputes Over Robinhood Shares
FTX co-founder and former CEO Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) is trying to regain control of his Robinhood shares that are currently disputed by several parties, including SBF himself, the new FTX management, and bankrupt crypto lender Blockfi.
Bankman-Fried has asked the bankruptcy court to deny the motion to enforce the automatic stay (stay motion) filed by the new FTX management on 56,273,269 shares of Robinhood Markets Inc. (Nasdaq: HOOD), worth more than $460 million, a Thursday court filing shows.
The court document details that the former FTX chief “requests that the stay motion be denied” because the new FTX management has “failed to carry their heavy burden of establishing that such an extraordinary remedy is warranted.” Moreover, the stay motion should be “moot” since the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has obtained a warrant to seize the Robinhood shares, the court filing adds, noting that the new FTX management has not withdrawn the stay motion, prompting Bankman-Fried to file an objection.
The court filing further explains that SBF “requires some of these funds to pay for his criminal defense,” claiming that a “financial inability to defend oneself has serious consequences, and is irreparable.” The filing continues:
Conversely, the FTX debtors face only the possibility of economic loss.
Bankman-Fried argued that the Robinhood shares in dispute are not owned by Alameda Research or any other entities implicated in the FTX bankruptcy. Instead, they are owned by Emergent Fidelity Technology Ltd., a company that is 90% owned by him. According to the court filing, Bankman-Fried and Gary Wang, another FTX executive, borrowed the funds from Alameda for Emergent to purchase the Robinhood shares.

Crypto Community Outraged by SBF’s Statements
Many people on social media are outraged by Bankman-Fried’s claim that he is facing greater harm than FTX customers who only suffer “the possibility of economic loss.”
One person tweeted: “SBF gives new meaning to chutzpah. Arguing in court that the balance of equities weighs in favor of him selling HOOD to pay his own legal fees because prison is a priceless harm and FTX creditors will only suffer economic loss.” Another opined:
This is one of the most disgusting lines I’ve ever read. Associating your name with a claim that debtors’ economic loss isn’t a matter of life and death for some people is heartless and out of touch. What happened to ‘Nothing matters more than making customers whole’?

Tags in this story

Alameda Research, DOJ, FTX customers, FTX debtors, FTX users, HOOD shares, Robinhood shares, Sam Bankman-Fried, Sam Bankman-Fried Robinhood shares, sbf, SBF Robinhood shares
What do you think about Sam Bankman-Fried claiming that he needs the Robinhood shares more than FTX customers who only face “the possibility of economic loss”? Let us know in the comments section below.

Kevin Helms

A student of Austrian Economics, Kevin found Bitcoin in 2011 and has been an evangelist ever since. His interests lie in Bitcoin security, open-source systems, network effects and the intersection between economics and cryptography.

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.

More Popular NewsIn Case You Missed It