FTX debtors have filed a motion with the court requesting to dismiss its Turkish subsidiaries from the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The defunct crypto exchange’s lawyers believe dismissing the entities “is in the best interests” of creditors, and FTX debtors do not believe Turkish authorities “or any liquidator” in the country will cooperate with officials from the United States.
FTX Lawyers Argue for Expelling Turkish Subsidiaries From Bankruptcy Proceedings
According to a recent bankruptcy court filing, FTX debtors have submitted a motion to remove the company’s Turkish entities from the Chapter 11 proceedings. The FTX-related units named in the court filing include FTX Turkey and SNG Investments. The debtors claim that FTX Turkey was a locally operated crypto exchange and SNG Investments was a wholly-owned Alameda Research subsidiary that acted as a market maker.
Shortly after FTX collapsed, lawyers say “Turkish authorities froze and seized substantially all the assets of the Turkish debtors.” FTX’s lawyers insist the two entities should be expelled from the bankruptcy proceedings, as they “believe it is in the best interests of the debtors and their stakeholders.” Furthermore, the debtors do not think the Turkish government will comply with the U.S. bankruptcy process.
“The debtors do not expect the Turkish authorities or any liquidator in Türkiye to seek recognition of their actions in the United States, and the debtors would intend to object to such recognition if reciprocity is not established,” the filing explains.
The news follows FTX lawyers asking the court’s permission to subpoena FTX co-founder Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) and his inner circle. The filing notes that while SBF has publicly stated he’d like to “explain what happened” and “try to help customers,” he has “not responded to or complied” with requests. “As a result, a court-authorized subpoena is necessary,” the attorneys explained in the motion. In the latest filing, the debtors stress that dismissal of the Turkish debtors’ Chapter 11 cases “is warranted.”
Moreover, given that Turkish authorities froze the debtors’ assets, a Chapter 7 conversion “would not serve the best interests” of the debtors’ estates and creditors, the filing adds. The court document also details that the funds were seized by the Turkish government because the Turkish Financial Crimes Investigation Board (MASAK) was conducting an investigation into FTX’s business dealings. The lawyers conclude the bankruptcy court would not have any “legal or practical effect” in Turkey.
Tags in this story
Alameda Research subsidiary, Assets, Bankruptcy Court, bankruptcy proceedings, bankruptcy process, best interests, business dealings, Chapter 11, Chapter 7 conversion, court-authorized, creditors, crypto exchange, dismissal, Estates, explain, frozen, FTX co-founder, FTX debtors, FTX motion, FTX turkey, help customers, Inner Circle, latest filing, Lawyers, legal, liquidator, locally operated, market maker, MASAK, Sam Bankman-Fried, sbf, seized, SNG Investments, Subpoena, Turkish authorities, Turkish debtors, Turkish subsidiaries, United States
What are your thoughts on the recent motion by FTX debtors to dismiss their Turkish subsidiaries from Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings? Share your opinions in the comments below.
Jamie Redman is the News Lead at Bitcoin.com News and a financial tech journalist living in Florida. Redman has been an active member of the cryptocurrency community since 2011. He has a passion for Bitcoin, open-source code, and decentralized applications. Since September 2015, Redman has written more than 6,000 articles for Bitcoin.com News about the disruptive protocols emerging today.
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.