Silicon Valley law firm moves to dismiss lawsuit over role in $32B FTX fraud

Law firm Fenwick & West pushed back against accusations that it was deeply involved in the fraudulent activities leading to FTX’s ￰0￱ to its Monday filing, Fenwick told the Florida federal court that FTX users’ motion to amend the case should be ￰1￱ firm insisted the accusations were groundless, maintaining that its role was limited to ordinary legal ￰2￱ wrote , “Fenwick is not liable for aiding and abetting a fraud it knew nothing about, based solely on allegations that Fenwick did what law firms do every day — provide routine and lawful legal services to their clients.” FTX clients claim Fenwick developed structures for SBF’s fraud In a motion filed this month, FTX customers claimed fresh disclosures in bankruptcy and criminal proceedings bolster their argument that Fenwick was instrumental in the scheme that led to the exchange’s ￰3￱ claimed they can establish that Fenwick was well aware of the misconduct and substantially aided in the ￰4￱ lawsuit, brought under RICO statutes, seeks to show that the law firm actively participated in client fraud rather than merely providing faulty legal ￰5￱ to the plaintiffs, Fenwick “designed, approved, and implemented” corporate structures that allowed Sam Bankman-Fried and his inner circle to divert customer assets through sham “loans.” Aside from Fenwick, plaintiffs have gone after various alleged FTX enablers, from celebrities to major ￰6￱ & Cromwell was once included in the suit but ultimately dropped when claims could not be ￰7￱ its filing, Fenwick said the revised complaint was untimely, relying on old information, and both misleading and ￰8￱ wrote, “These new claims come far too ￰9￱ Plaintiffs truly thought they had state securities claims against Fenwick, they had every opportunity to allege them at the outset.” The firm further pointed out that the accusations closely resemble those that plaintiffs had once pursued against Sullivan & Cromwell, before dropping them after a report cleared the firm of knowing about the ￰10￱ law firm maintained that the plaintiffs had offered nothing convincing to explain why the same claims should move forward against ￰11￱ says Singh’s testimony does not include accounts of fraudulent actions Fenwick pushed back against assertions that Nishad Singh, FTX’s lead engineer, had made a testimony at Bankman-Fried’s trial that implicated the firm in concealing the “misuse of customer funds” and sham ￰12￱ firm asserted that Singh’s testimony only showed that its role was simply to give routine advice on how to structure founder loans — a common tool for private companies like ￰13￱ firm added that many other witnesses had already made clear the fraud was carried out without the knowledge of FTX’s own lawyers, managers, accountants, or outside ￰14￱ argued it was in the same position.

Additionally, it claimed that the plaintiffs’ newest allegations were a reaction to a judge narrowing the case against celebrities who promoted ￰15￱ described the move as a last-minute attempt to keep weak arguments alive by trying to paint lawyers as promoters, a theory it said doesn’t hold ￰16￱ seen where it ￰17￱ in Cryptopolitan Research and reach crypto’s sharpest investors and builders.