Saturday, January 21, 2023

CRIMINAL CRYPTO CAPITALI$M
An FTX executive flagged worries about Alameda Research's use of customer funds to Sam Bankman-Fried as early as 2020, report says


Pete Syme
Thu, January 19, 2023 

Sam Bankman-Fried leaves a bail hearing in New York

A senior FTX exec raised concerns about Alameda Research's use of customer funds as early as 2020.


That's according to a report from the New York Times, which cites government documents.


CEO Sam Bankman-Fried dismissed the concerns saying the funds were backed by FTX's cryptocurrency, FTT.


A senior FTX executive raised concerns to Sam Bankman-Fried about trading firm Alameda misusing funds from FTX customers as early as 2020, The New York Times reported, citing documents shared between US and Bahamian governments.

According to the Times' report, the unnamed executive, who is described as being a "high-level software developer" at the firm, met with Bankman-Fried after looking through a company database and finding that Alameda had a negative balance in its FTX account of "approximately hundreds of millions of dollars."

This information, the Times reports the governments documents as saying, led the executive to believe Alameda was "inappropriately using FTX.com customer funds," and to take that information to Bankman-Fried.

Bankman-Fried dismissed the concerns, the Times report says, because the money was backed by FTX's cryptocurrency, FTT. He also dismissed worries that the potential irregularity may be picked up by auditors, the documents reportedly say.

Insider previously reported how the Securities and Exchange Commission's complaint against SBF revealed that Alameda's FTX account had special treatment. It was the only one allowed to have a negative balance thanks to special code, and had a $65 billion 'secret' line of credit to draw on customer's funds.

Court documents seen by Insider show how $256.3 million of Bahamian real estate was registered in FTX's name, and the company spent $6.9 million on "meals and entertainment" in nine months.


FTX collapsed in November 2022.


Filings from the CFTC show that Bankman-Fried considered shutting down the trading firm in September 2022, saying circulating a document titled: "We came, we saw, we researched."

"I think it might be time for Alameda Research to shut down. Honestly, it was probably time to do that a year ago," the document read.

Around the same time as the document was circulated, another unnamed executive spoke to Bankman-Fried to express concerns about how much Alameda had borrowed from FTX, the Times reported, citing the documents, adding that he acknowledged that he was also concerned, to the extent that it made him "5-10% less productive."

SBF was well known for sleeping for just four hours a night on a beanbag chair next to his desk – and for taking work calls at 3:00 a.m.

Bankman-Fried and his attorney did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment, sent outside normal working hours.

He faces eight criminal charges for his role in FTX's collapse, including fraud and conspiracy, and faces a maximum prison term of 115 years if convicted, though such a long sentence is highly unlikely.

Sam Bankman-Fried has serious beef with FTX's new boss, John Ray III

Phil Rosen
Fri, January 20, 2023 at 4:05 AM MST·5 min read

Good morning, Opening Bell crew. I'm Phil Rosen. At this point, maybe we should rebrand this newsletter to "FTX Watchers" or "SBF Fan Club," or something that conveys why we all seem so keen on watching the collapse and its aftermath in real time.

But I get it — the drama just keeps coming. We're all rubbernecking.

As our final send-off before the weekend, I'm breaking down how the two biggest players are still trading barbs about who did what with whose money, and why the other has no idea what they're talking about.


John J. Ray III, CEO of FTX Group, testifies during the House Financial Services Committee hearing titled Investigating the Collapse of FTX, Part I, on Tuesday, FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried (C) is led away handcuffed by officers of the Royal Bahamas Police Force in Nassau, Bahamas.


John Ray, CEO of FTX Group, described a litany of amateurish business practices used to run the multibillion-dollar exchange.Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Mario Duncanson / AFP

1. This much we know for certain: Sam Bankman-Fried and FTX's new boss, John Ray III, are not each other's biggest fans.

From their comments, we can see that they disagree on how to run a company, where certain cash went, and who can repay who.

On Thursday, Ray gave the Wall Street Journal his first public interview since taking over FTX. He said he's mulling a potential revival of the crypto exchange, and that new leadership doesn't need to hold a dialogue with Bankman-Fried.

"He hasn't told us anything that I don't already know," Ray said.

It doesn't take a stoic to make Bankman-Fried look chatty, given the extensive media tour he embarked on after FTX went under. But the founder didn't take kindly to what Ray had to say.

"This is a shocking and damning comment from someone pretending to care about customers," Bankman-Fried said to the Journal via text message. He's maintained that the US branch of FTX is still solvent and can make customers whole again, but the company has denied this claim.

In a Substack post last week, Bankman-Fried shared his estimation of what his crypto empire's books looked like over the last two years.

But Ray pointed out that those calculations seem to include improperly diverted funds — meaning, in effect, Bankman-Fried's figures imply covering losses using customers' money.

"This is the problem," Ray said. "He thinks everything is one big honey pot."

Here's Bankman-Fried's rebuttal to that comment:

"Mr. Ray continues to make false statements based on nonexistent calculations. If Mr. Ray had bothered to think carefully about FTX US, he would likely have realized both that his interpretation is wholly inconsistent with bankruptcy law, and also that even if one were to subtract $250m from my balance sheet, FTX US would *still* have been solvent. Rather, Mr. Ray sees everything as one big honey pot—one he wants to keep."

And strangely, as the boss and former boss duke it out, FTX's native token FTT is quietly skyrocketing again.

It's possible that the crypto — which was invented by FTX and helped tank the whole enterprise with its massive plunge in value — is rallying as traders speculate on a potential reboot of the bankrupt exchange that Ray mentioned Thursday.

The token is now up more than 160% from its December low.

 Crypto broker Genesis has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, becoming the latest casualty of the fallout from the implosion of FTX last year. Per CNBC, the company listed over 100,000 creditors in a "mega" bankruptcy filing, with aggregate liabilities ranging from $1.2 billion to $11 billion. Read the full story.


The new CEO of FTX says the failed crypto exchange could be revived and resume normal operations

Jennifer Sor
Thu, January 19, 2023 

SMUG

John Ray, the new CEO of FTXN

FTX's new CEO, John Ray III, has said the failed crypto exchange could be revived and resume normal operations.

He told the Wall Street Journal that investors have praised the platform, and some shareholders still see it as a "viable business."

Ray has been searching for assets within FTX to pay off its shortfalls, including the $8 billion it owes to customers.

FTX's new boss, John Ray III, said FTX could be revived and eventually resume normal operations while the crypto exchange is undergoing Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.

In his first interview since FTX collapsed in November, he told the Wall Street Journal that he set up a task force to look into restarting the international exchange FTX.com.

"Everything is on the table," Ray said. "If there is a path forward on that, we will not only explore that, we'll do it."


Some customers have praised the platform for its technology and suggested bringing it back to business, he added.

Ray, who was brought in to sort out FTX's disarrayed finances, and has spent the past few months searching for assets within the exchange to cover its shortfalls, including the $8 billion it owes in customer deposits.

The exchange recently recovered $5 billion in liquid assets, but tracking down all of the money could take months, Ray warned, since FTX had virtually "no record keeping whatsoever" and used QuickBooks, a small accounting software, to run its multibillion-dollar business.

A key question Ray flagged is whether restarting FTX.com would recover more value for customers than liquidating assets or selling the platform.

"There are stakeholders we're working with who've identified what they see is a viable business," he told the Journal.

Meanwhile, Sam Bankman-Fried, who was ousted as CEO when FTX filed for bankruptcy in November, has disputed figures from FTX's new management, said FTX's US platform is solvent, and that a bankruptcy filing was avoidable.

The exchange reportedly comingled customer funds with those of Alameda Research, Bankman-Fried's crypto investing arm, and spent millions on lavish employee purchases, like vacation homes in the Bahamas.

He was charged with fraud in December and pleaded not guilty earlier this month. He is currently on house arrest as he awaits trial.

Sam Bankman-Fried tweets away while under house arrest


Breck Dumas
Fri, January 20, 2023 at 2:13 PM MST·2 min read

FTX founder and former CEO Sam Bankman-Fried apparently cannot resist weighing in on his cryptocurrency exchange's bankruptcy proceedings as he awaits trial on several federal charges linked to the platform's collapse.

The 30-year-old continues to tweet away about the goings-on while under house arrest at his parents' home.


FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried leaves the courthouse following his arraignment in New York City on December 22, 2022.

Bankman-Fried has refused to stay quiet ever since the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy after a proverbial run on the bank led to its downfall, and upwards of a million customers lost billions of dollars. Prior to his arrest, he made several public statements to media outlets and on Twitter spaces events explaining his version of what led to his platform's downfall.

FTX CRYPTOCURRENCY JUMPS MORE THAN 35% AFTER CEO JOHN RAY SAYS BANKRUPT CRYPTO EXCHANGE MAY RESTART

After being released from custody on a $250 million bond, the disgraced former chief executive picked up where he left off before his incarceration in the Bahamas, defending himself in a lengthy Substack post.


Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder and chief executive of FTX, in Nassau, Bahamas, on April 26, 2022.

But this week, he took to Twitter re-upping previous claims and taking further shots at FTX's new leadership along with Sullivan and Cromwell, one of the law firms representing it in bankruptcy.

On Tuesday, Bankman-Fried posted his own balance sheet purportedly showing the FTX U.S. "is solvent" and "always has been," pushing back against Sullivan & Cromwell's claims to the contrary.

Then on Thursday, the FTX founder celebrated the news that the CEO who replaced him, John Ray III, is considering re-opening the exchange.

"I'm glad Mr. Ray is finally paying lip service to turning the exchange back on after months of squashing such efforts!" Bankman-Fried tweeted. "I'm still waiting for him to finally admit FTX US is solvent and give customers their money back..."

Bankman-Fried retweeted several posts from others, agreeing with his view that Sullivan & Cromwell should not represent FTX, alleging that Sullivan & Cromwell pressured him to file for bankruptcy and appoint Ray as the new CEO.

A bankruptcy judge on Friday agreed to allow the law firm to continue representing FTX, dismissing objections brought before the court.


Sam Bankman-Fried is weaponizing Twitter in FTX bankruptcy battle, says crypto exchange's law firm

Brian Evans
Fri, January 20, 2023 

Sam Bankman-Fried.

Lawyers for FTX say Sam Bankman-Fried is weaponizing Twitter as he pushes back against bankruptcy proceedings.

"One of the things that the debtors have been facing generally in these cases is assault by Twitter," a lawyer said.

A judge in the FTX bankruptcy case also rejected claims that the Sullivan & Cromwell law firm has a conflict of interest.

Lawyers for FTX said former CEO Sam Bankman-Fried is weaponizing Twitter in an attempt to disrupt the bankruptcy process.

In recent tweets and Substack posts, Bankman-Fried has accused the Sullivan & Cromwell law firm of pressuring him to file for bankruptcy as FTX was collapsing in November. The firm served FTX before the crash and is also representing it in Chapter 11 proceedings.

Sullivan & Cromwell partner James Bromley said in a court proceeding on Friday that the firm is "fighting a ghost" as it disputes SBF's claims without being able to confront him in court.

"One of the things that the debtors have been facing generally in these cases is assault by Twitter," Bromley said.

Bankman-Fried remains under house arrest at his parents' home Palo Alto, California, as he awaits trial on fraud charges. He has pleaded not guilty.

Bromley's comments occurred at a hearing where the bankruptcy judge weighed a motion from FTX clients who argued the law firm's appointment as FTX counsel was a conflict of interest due to Sullivan & Cromwell's history with the crypto exchange.

But Judge John Dorsey rejected to those claims, saying there was no evidence of actual conflict.

Still, Bromley told the court the firm should have been more forthright about its connection to FTX sooner in the bankruptcy process.

Earlier in the week, the law firm disclosed that it performed $10 million worth of legal work on behalf of FTX before the exchange filed for bankruptcy.

"In retrospect, your honor, we should have gone further in the original declaration," he said.

Top Republican calls FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried a "world-class sociopath"



Arden Farhi
Fri, January 20, 2023

The chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Rep. Patrick McHenry, thinks FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried is a "world class sociopath" who "represents what is [the] absolute worst about the world of crypto."

Earlier this month, Bankman-Fried entered a not guilty plea on a host of fraud charges stemming from the collapse of his cryptocurrency exchange.

Bankman-Fried operated FTX from the Bahamas. He was extradited to the U.S. in December.

McHenry told CBS News' Major Garrett on "The Takeout" this week that new technologies tend to attract fraudsters, and cryptocurrency in particular needs to be regulated. "The reason why they're able to take advantage in this marketplace is our failure to actually provide clear rules of the road and a clear set of regulation that protects consumers and enables innovation," McHenry said.

He dismissed notion that Bankman-Fried may been unaware or misunderstood what caused FTX to lose $8 billion in customer funds and declare bankruptcy.

"That's bullsh*t," McHenry said. "[Bankman-Fried has] proven himself to be a sociopath by his actions. He's proven himself to be untrustworthy by his actions. No word he utters should be believed. Period."

His committee will hold cryptocurrency hearings in February and plans to present legislation this summer.

"Clear rules of the road here in the United States can unlock this economic potential," he said.

McHenry said it should be up to members of his committee whether they accept donations from the cryptocurrency industry.

"The people that contribute to my campaign are making a decision for themselves. I'm not making a decision to endorse their ideas. They're making a decision, endorse my ideas. That's been my longstanding view," he said.

Feds seize over $170 million in cash accounts linked to Sam Bankman-Fried

The Justice Department has seized more than $170 million in cash from multiple accounts associated with disgraced FTX co-founder Sam Bankman-Fried, according to court documents filed Friday. This is in addition to an estimated $526 million in stock which was also seized by the federal government.

According to the federal court documents obtained by CBS News, the seizures occurred on Jan. 4.

They included $94.5 million in an account in Silvergate Bank, a California based bank specializing in cryptocurrencies, along with nearly $50 million held at Farmington State Bank, which is based in Washington state, and $20.7 million in currency in accounts in ED&F Man Capital Markets.

Prosecutors also seized 55.27 million shares of Robinhood stock from an ED&F Man Capital Markets account, according to the court filing. The stock for Robinhood, an online trading platform, closed at $9.52 a share Friday, putting the value of that seizure at more than $526 million.

On Dec. 12, the 30-year-old Bankman-Fried was arrested in the Bahamas on federal charges of wire fraud and conspiracy related to the collapse of his cryptocurrency exchange FTX.

After being extradited to the U.S., he pleaded not guilty to all charges in a Jan. 3 hearing. He remains free on $250 million bond. He has been ordered to live at his parents' house in California until his trial, which is scheduled to begin in October.

The sudden collapse of FTX has reverberated throughout the financial world and garnered questions about the viability of cryptocurrency. On Nov. 11, FTX filed for bankruptcy, just after Bankman-Fried told investors the company was experiencing an $8 billion shortfall.


Nearly $700M Worth of Assets Linked to Sam Bankman-Fried, FTX Seized by US




Jason Nelson
Fri, January 20, 2023 

United States prosecutors have seized nearly $700 million worth of assets either owned by collapsed crypto exchange FTX or tied to founder and former CEO Sam Bankman-Fried, authorities disclosed in a Friday court filing.

Federal authorities in the Southern District of New York have seized just over $698 million worth of assets linked to the disgraced crypto founder, according to the filing, which was first reported on by CNBC.

The bulk of the value comes from a stack of shares that Bankman-Fried purchased in Robinhood, the stock and crypto trading app, allegedly using stolen FTX customer funds.

The document submitted by U.S. Attorney Damian Williams details the holdings, with nearly 55.3 million shares of Robinhood stock seized on January 4. As of this writing, the shares are collectively worth about $526 million. They were held by Emergent Fidelity Technologies, a shell company that Bankman-Fried created with FTX co-founder Gary Wang.

FTX Restructuring Team Has Clawed Back $5B in Lost Assets

In a December affidavit, Bankman-Fried wrote that he and Wang formed the new company—using funds loaned by FTX sister company Alameda Research—to acquire shares in Robinhood Markets Inc. totaling $546.4 million. FTX customer funds were reportedly used to plug a trading hole in Alameda's balance sheet last summer, ahead of the exchange's eventual collapse.

Other funds seized on January 4 include $20.7 million held by Emergent at ED&F Man Capital Markets, Inc, and another $49.9 million at Farmington State Bank, held under FTX Digital Markets. Between January 11 and 19, authorities seized just over $100 million of FTX’s funds held in Silvergate Bank.

Today’s court filings also list three accounts held at rival cryptocurrency exchange Binance and its Binance US affiliate. However, the value of the assets in those accounts was not specified.

FTX and Alameda filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November following a liquidity crisis at FTX, with billions of dollars apparently missing from the once-popular crypto exchange. Bankman-Fried now faces various charges from the U.S. Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) related to his actions at the companies.

The FTX restructuring team, led by new company CEO John J. Ray III, said last week that it has separately recovered more than $5 billion worth of company assets between cryptocurrency, cash, and liquid investments in securities.

Feds have seized nearly $700M from FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried




Jared Gans
Fri, January 20, 2023 

Federal authorities have seized almost $700 million from FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, mostly from shares of Robinhood that he owned.

A court filing from Friday shows that the federal government seized more than 55 million shares of Robinhood stock along with tens of millions of dollars from each of several bank accounts.

Bankman-Fried was arrested last month in the Bahamas and extradited to the United States to face charges including wire fraud, money laundering and conspiracy to commit fraud as part of an alleged scheme to defraud investors.

Prosecutors have alleged that Bankman-Fried used funds from investors for his own purposes to fund investments from his hedge fund, Alameda Research, buy real estate and to make political donations.


He pleaded not guilty to all charges earlier this month. He has said he has not stolen any money, and FTX’s customers should be able to get their money back despite the cryptocurrency exchange’s bankruptcy declaration in November.

Federal authorities have said Bankman-Fried used the money that investors intended to put into FTX to buy the Robinhood shares.

The total value of the shares seized is more than $500 million. Five of the sums that officials seized were accounts held in the name of “FTX Digital Markets,” while three were for all money, assets and funds contained in three accounts for 



Feds seized nearly $700 million from FTX founder Bankman-Fried


 Bankman-Fried attends a hearing on FTX fraud case in New York City


Fri, January 20, 2023 at 5:22 PM MST·1 min read
By Dietrich Knauth

(Reuters) - Federal prosecutors have seized nearly $700 million in assets from FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried in January, largely in the form of Robinhood stock, according to a Friday court filing.

Bankman-Fried, who has been accused of stealing billions of dollars from FTX customers to pay debts incurred by his crypto-focused hedge fund, has pleaded not guilty to fraud charges. He is scheduled to face trial in October.

The Department of Justice revealed the seizure of Robinhood shares earlier this month, but it provided a more complete list of seized assets Friday, including cash held at various banks and assets deposited at crypto exchange Binance.

The ownership of the seized Robinhood shares, valued at about $525 million, has been the subject of disputes between Bankman-Fried, FTX, and bankrupt crypto lender BlockFi.

The most recent asset seizure reported by the DOJ took place on Thursday, when prosecutors seized $94.5 million in cash from an account at Silvergate Bank which was associated with FTX Digital Markets, FTX's subsidiary in the Bahamas. The DOJ seized more than $7 million from other Silvergate accounts associated with Bankman-Fried and FTX.

The DOJ previously seized nearly $50 million from an FTX Digital Markets account at Moonstone Bank, a small bank in Washington state.

DOJ also said that assets in three Binance accounts associated with Bankman-Fried were subject to criminal forfeiture, but did not provide an estimate of the value in those accounts.

(Reporting by Dietrich Knauth; Editing by Noeleen Walder and Daniel Wallis)


FTX spillover continues to spread as 2 more crypto exchanges initiate layoffs

Phil Rosen
Thu, January 19, 2023 

Sam Bankman-Fried.Tom Williams/Getty Images

FTX's collapse has rocked the digital asset sector, and two more crypto exchanges have started cost-cutting measures.

The crypto exchanges Amber Group and OSL will move to reduce operating expenses via staff cuts, according to the South China Morning Post.

Amber is "anticipating and preparing itself for an extremely conservative position, so that it can go the long mile."

FTX's downfall continues to reverberate through the digital asset sector, with two more crypto exchanges moving to cut costs and reduce staff.

OSL and Amber Group will both reduce operating expenses in light of damages to the cryptocurrency market, the South China Morning Post reported Thursday.


A subsidiary of Hong Kong-listed BC Technology Group, OSL told the SCMP that it will cut costs by about 33% "in response to current market conditions," and that the process will include a reduction in headcount.


As for Amber, which is now based in Singapore and was founded in Hong Kong, the company will slash jobs in its IT, risk management, and compliance departments, after cutting its entire internal audit team, the SCMP reported.

At the same time, Amber has been delaying payables to third-party vendors and shuttered an office in Hong Kong's downtown district for a more affordable location. This comes despite Amber completing a $300 million funding round in December, Crunchbase data shows.

In a message to the SCMP, Amber said that it's "anticipating and preparing itself for an extremely conservative position, so that it can go the long mile, even if it means having to go back to core business fundamentals during this period."

Other crypto exchanges have also announced steep staff reductions recently, including Coinbase and Crypto.com, while Binance said it plans to grow its headcount.

Meanwhile, crypto lender Genesis will significantly reduce its workforce amid expectations it will file for bankruptcy, after FTX helped induce a liquidity squeeze.

And crypto-friendly bank Silvergate Capital reported a $1 billion fourth-quarter loss this week, as the FTX crash sparked a run at the end of 2022 when customers pulled $8.1 billion in deposits.

Alameda Research-Connected Bank Exits Crypto Business




Stephen Alpher
Thu, January 19, 2023 

Farmington State Bank, which does business under the Moonstone Bank name, is returning to its longtime role as a community lender and eschewing the crypto business, the company said in a press release Thursday.

The bank, which is based in Farmington, Wash., a tiny town in the eastern part of the state, is dropping the Moonstone Bank brand and will do business as Farmington State Bank instead.

Eyebrows were raised after the collapse of FTX when court documents showed the crypto exchange's sister company Alameda Research purchased an $11.5 million stake in Farmington State Bank last January. It was a sizable amount, American Banker noted, given that Farmington generally had only about $10 million in assets over the last decade.

Farmington was owned through a holding company by French banking executive Jean Chalopin. Chalopin is the chairman of Bahamas-based Deltec Bank & Trust, whose parent company, Deltec International Group, reportedly received a $50 million loan from FTX.

Read more: FTX’s Collapse Was a Crime, Not an Accident

A tiny rural bank which Alameda bought an $11.5 million stake in is giving up its crypto and weed ambitions to return to its community roots


Pete Syme
Fri, January 20, 2023 

The Palouse hills in Whitman County, Washington, where Farmington State Bank is located.

Sam Bankman-Fried's Alameda research invested $11.5 million in Farmington State Bank last year.

That's despite the bank being one of America's smallest, with just 32 employees.

New owners planned to serve the crypto and cannabis industries, but are giving up after FTX's collapse.

The tiny rural bank, which the now-bankrupt Alameda Research bought a controversial stake in, has given up its crypto and cannabis ambitions and will return to being a community bank.


The New York Times reported last November that Sam Bankman-Fried's Alameda had bought an $11.5 million share in Farmington State Bank. That raised eyebrows because it was the 26th-smallest bank out of America's 4,800, and had just three employees until 2022.

The town of Farmington, Washington has just 146 residents, and is so remote that Google Street View doesn't cover the whole town. In 2010, local paper The Spokesman Review described the bank as "strictly no-frills" because it didn't offer credit cards or online banking, instead specializing in agricultural loans to farmers.

Farmington State Bank was purchased in 2020 by FBH, a company owned by the "Inspector Gadget" co-creator Jean Chalopin. It then began doing business as Moonstone Bank, which aimed to serve digital assets and the cannabis industry. According to the bank's website, the owner's son, Janvier Chalopin, is its Chief Digital Officer.

Alameda bought 10% of FBH for $11.5 million in January 2022, even though the bank had a net worth of $5.7 million at the time, according to The Times. After that report, the bank clarified that it now has 32 employees, and said its $115 million valuation "was consistent with other similar technology banks and trust-banks startups at the time."

In a statement released on Wednesday night, the bank said it will now exit the crypto space and refocus on being a local community bank.

"The change in strategy reflects the impact of recent events in the crypto assets industry and the resultant changing regulatory environment relating to crypto asset businesses," the statement read.

It added that it will retire the Moonstone Bank name, "reflecting this return to its roots."

Jean Chalopin is also the chairman of Deltec Bank, which is based in The Bahamas. Forbes reported on Monday that Deltec secured a $50 million loan from FTX.

FTX's bankruptcy lawyers did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment, sent outside US working hours.

Alameda Research and Genesis' multi-billion dollar relationship reportedly began years ago with Sam Bankman-Fried asleep in a beanbag chair at their first meeting

Morgan Chittum
Thu, January 19, 2023

Former FTX Chief Executive Sam Bankman-Fried, who faces fraud charges over the collapse of the bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange, leaves following a hearing at Manhattan federal court in New York City, U.S. January 3, 2023
.Andrew Kelly/Reuters

Alameda Research and Genesis reportedly kicked off their relationship at a meeting in 2018.

Genesis doled out hundreds of millions of dollars in unsecured loans to Alameda, the Wall Street Journal reported.

At the peak, Alameda had $6.5 billion from Genesis through loans that were only 50% secured, sources told the WSJ.


Sam Bankman-Fried's crypto trading firm Alameda Research met with lender Genesis Global Capital in 2018, kicking off a years-long, multi-billion dollar lending relationship between the two embattled firms, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

When Genesis' team, including former chief exec Michael Moro, arrived to the Berkeley, California office where Alameda had been working, Bankman-Fried was reportedly found asleep on a beanbag chair. The former crypto billionaire was "surprised they showed up" since the fund, which was capturing bitcoin arbitrage opportunities, was still very small in late 2018.

The two parties didn't ink a deal that day because Genesis saw Bankman-Fried's nap as "a sign of [his] dedication to his company," the report reads, citing people familiar. Moro denies attending this meeting.

At the time, Alameda was on its way to making more capital-intensive crypto bets. This led to a deepening lending relationship between the two firms over the years.

Genesis doled out hundreds of millions of dollars in unsecured loans to Alameda. At the peak, the trading firm reportedly had $6.5 billion from Genesis through loans that were often only 50% secured.

Alameda has since been accused of using customer deposits from Bankman-Fried's crypto exchange FTX for daily operations like making risky investments. As a result, Bankman-Fried is charged in an eight-count indictment with money laundering, fraud, and campaign finance violations. The disgraced founder has pleaded not guilty.

Meanwhile, Genesis is reportedly making bankruptcy plans after taking hits from exposure to defunct crypto hedge fund Three Arrows Capital and FTX.

Digital Currency Group, the parent company of Genesis, did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment

DCG's crypto-lending subsidiary Genesis files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy



Jacquelyn Melinek
Thu, January 19, 2023 at 10:24 PM MST·3 min read

Genesis Global Trading, a subsidiary of the crypto conglomerate Digital Currency Group (DCG), filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) court late Thursday night.

Genesis Global Holdco and two of its lending business subsidiaries, Genesis Global Capital and Genesis Asia Pacific, filed voluntary petitions under the bankruptcy code for SDNY, its press release stated. “Genesis’s other subsidiaries involved in the derivatives and spot trading and custody businesses and Genesis Global Trading are not included in the filing and continue client trading operations,” it added.

Genesis stated it has over $150 million in cash, which it plans to use as liquidity to support its ongoing operations and facilitate its restructuring process.

As part of its filing, Genesis plans to consider a “dual track process” for sale, capital raise or equitization transaction that would potentially allow the business to “emerge under new ownership,” the release said.

The filing followed a series of attempts from Genesis to stay afloat.

The firm struggled to raise capital for its lending unit, cut 30% of its staff in early January and took a financial hit from major catastrophic crypto events last year like the collapse of crypto hedge fund Three Arrows Capital and the decline of crypto exchange FTX.

Genesis had a trading and lending relationship with both Three Arrows Capital and Alameda, FTX’s sister company, DCG’s CEO Barry Silbert shared in a letter from January 10.

“While we have made significant progress refining our business plans to remedy liquidity issues caused by the recent extraordinary challenges in our industry, including the default of Three Arrows Capital and the bankruptcy of FTX, an in-court restructuring presents the most effective avenue through which to preserve assets and create the best possible outcome for all Genesis stakeholders,” Derar Islim, interim CEO of Genesis, said in a statement on Thursday.

In mid-November 2022, Genesis halted withdrawals and new loan originations and later that month the firm warned of a possible bankruptcy filing as creditors looked for alternative options to prevent it. Around that time, a Genesis spokesperson told TechCrunch, “We have no plans to file bankruptcy imminently.” The spokespersson added, “Our goal is to resolve the current situation consensually without the need for any bankruptcy filing. Genesis continues to have constructive conversations with creditors.”

Aside from Genesis, DCG is the parent company of digital currency asset manager Grayscale, media company CoinDesk, mining and staking company Foundry, digital asset exchange and wallet Luno and API-centric platform TradeBlock. Silbert said in the mid-January letter that Genesis is a “separate and distinct operating subsidiary” from DCG.

On January 12, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission charged Genesis and cryptocurrency exchange, wallet and custodian Gemini for the unregistered offer and sale of securities to retail investors through Gemini Earn crypto asset lending program. The prosecutors said Genesis and Gemini raised billions of dollars’ worth of crypto assets from hundreds of thousands of investors.

“In November 2022, Genesis announced that it would not allow its Gemini Earn investors to withdraw their crypto assets because Genesis lacked sufficient liquid assets to meet withdrawal requests following volatility in the crypto asset market,” the SEC release stated. “At the time, Genesis held approximately $900 million in investor assets from 340,000 Gemini Earn investors. Gemini terminated the Gemini Earn program earlier this month. As of today, the Gemini Earn retail investors have still not been able to withdraw their crypto assets.”

This is a developing story and may be updated to reflect new information.

Sam Bankman-Fried's 2 mysterious bail sponsors ponied up a total of $700,000 to get the alleged fraudster out of jail

Jacob Shamsian
Fri, January 20, 2023

Former FTX Chief Executive Sam Bankman-Fried, who faces fraud charges over the collapse of the bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange, leaves following a hearing at Manhattan federal court in New York City, U.S. January 3, 2023.Andrew Kelly/Reuters

In addition to his parents, Sam Bankman-Fried has two anonymous bail sponsors keeping him out of jail.

They contributed $500,000 and $200,000 respectively, one of his lawyers disclosed in a court filing.

The judge is weighing a request from media organizations, including Insider, to unseal their names.

The two anonymous sponsors of Sam Bankman-Fried's bail posted a total of $700,000 to help get him out of jail, the lawyer for the FTX cofounder said in a court filing Thursday night.


One of the two sponsors posted $500,000 while the other posted $200,000 to help guarantee the $250 million bond, which allows Bankman-Fried to remain under house arrest in his parents' California home while awaiting trial in a Manhattan federal court.

In addition to the anonymous bail sponsors, Bankman-Fried's parents used their $4 million Palo Alto home as collateral to help secure the bond. If Bankman-Fried violates its conditions, he'll be on the hook for $250 million.

Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York allege Bankman-Fried "orchestrated a years-long fraud" in which he diverted funds from his FTX cryptocurrency exchange to Alameda Research, a crypto hedge fund he controlled as well. In court, prosecutors estimated he defrauded more than 1 million customers.

The prosecutors have secured guilty pleas from Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang, two of Bankman-Fried's top lieutenants at Alameda Research. Bankman-Fried has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him.

Christian Everdell, one of Bankman-Fried's defense attorneys, disclosed the contributions of the two anonymous bail contributors so that US District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who is overseeing the case, would include them in the bail condition documents.

"We therefore respectfully request that the Court update the bail conditions to reflect that the two non-parent sureties will sign separate appearance bonds prepared by the Magistrate Clerk's office in the amount of $500,000 and $200,000, respectively," Everdell wrote.

Earlier this month, several news organizations, including Insider, asked Kaplan to unseal the identities of the two anonymous bail sponsors, arguing it was in the public interest.

"Given Mr. Bankman-Fried's relationships and access to some of the most wealthy, powerful, and politically connected individuals, including elected officials, access to the identity of the bond sureties will bolster trust in the judicial process here," the news organizations wrote in the filing.

Everdell argued in a separate filing on Thursday night that disclosing their names would present a security risk to them.

He recounted an incident where a group of people drove up to the Bankman-Fried family's Palo Alto home and spoke to his security guards.

"Recently, the Bankman-Frieds had a security incident at their home when a black car drove into the metal barricade set up outside their home," Everdell wrote. "Three men got out of the car. When the security guard on duty confronted them, the men said something to the effect of: 'You won't be able to keep us out.' The men got back in the car and quickly drove away before the security guard was able to see the license plate."

Kaplan said in a court filing Friday that the names "shall remain under seal" as he continues to weigh the arguments.

A representative for Bankman-Fried declined to comment on the identity of the bail sponsors.


Former FTX U.S. CEO Sam Bankman-Fried rejects liquidators’ claim of recovered assets


Lachlan Keller
Thu, January 19, 2023


Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder and former chief executive of FTX U.S., has rejected claims by the company’s current leadership made in a presentation on Tuesday that the team has only recovered US$181 million worth of funds from the exchange.

See related article: FTX says US$415 mln in crypto hacked since bankruptcy filing
Fast facts

Current FTX chief executive, John J. Ray III, said half of those funds were lost to unauthorized transfers following FTX.com filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Nov. 11.

“These claims by [restructuring firm Sullivan & Cromwell] are wrong, and contradicted by data later on in the same document,” Bankman-Fried wrote in a Substack post on Wednesday. “FTX U.S. was and is solvent, likely with hundreds of millions of dollars in excess of customer balances.”

FTX U.S., established in 2020 to cater to U.S.-based customers, is a separate entity from the Bahamas-based crypto exchange FTX.com.


Bankman-Fried is currently under house arrest for his involvement in the collapse of FTX.com and faces charges of securities fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy, money laundering, and violating campaign finance rules. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

He launched a Substack on Jan. 13, an online, personal newsletter that users can subscribe to.

In this recent post on Substack, Bankman-Fried gives lengthy explanations for how he believes FTX U.S. is still solvent. However, as Ray has been distancing himself and the company from its former head, it is possible Bankman-Fried does not have access to the most up-to-date information.

FTX leadership told creditors on Tuesday that US$415 million had been lost to hackers since the Nov. 11 bankruptcy filing, of which US$90 million had been siphoned from FTX US.

Roughly US$5.5 billion worth of liquid assets have been marked for recovery by FTX consisting of US$1.7 billion in cash, US$3.5 billion in cryptocurrencies – including FTX Token (FTT) – and US$300 million worth of liquid securities.

See related article: US lawyers, Bahamas liquidators trade barbs over who rules FTX bankruptcy jurisdiction

Judge approves FTX choice of law firm as bankruptcy counsel



The FTX Arena logo is seen where the Miami Heat basketball team plays on Nov. 12, 2022, in Miami. The judge presiding over the bankruptcy of cryptocurrency exchange FTX has approved the company’s choice of a law firm representing it in the bankruptcy on Friday, Jan. 20, 2023, despite concerns about potential conflicts of interest.

RANDALL CHASE
Fri, January 20, 2023 

DOVER, Del. (AP) — The judge presiding over the bankruptcy of cryptocurrency exchange FTX has approved the company’s choice of a law firm representing it in the bankruptcy, despite concerns about potential conflicts of interest.

Judge John Dorsey on Friday granted a motion by FTX for the Sullivan & Cromwell law firm to serve as debtor’s counsel.

The ruling came after a Sullivan & Cromwell partner filed additional disclosures this week about the firm’s work for FTX entities and FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried before the November bankruptcy filings. Those disclosures were made in response to concerns raised by the U.S. Trustee, which serves as a government watchdog in Chapter 11 reorganizations.

According to declarations filed by attorney Andrew Dietderich, the firm was paid millions of dollars for work on behalf of FTX starting in July 2021. That does not include bankruptcy-related retainers totaling $12 million. Of that amount, $3 million was paid to Sullivan & Cromwell for previous work.

Bankman-Fried has pleaded not guilty to charges that he illegally diverted massive amounts of customer money from FTX to Alameda Research, his cryptocurrency hedge fund trading firm.

Dietderich said in a hearing last week that Bankman-Fried instructed FTX co-founder and chief technology officer Gary Wang to create a secret “back door” that allowed Alameda to borrow from customers on the FTX exchange without their permission.

Wang and Carolyn Ellison, the former CEO of Alameda Research, have pleaded guilty to charges including wire fraud, securities fraud and commodities fraud and are cooperating with federal prosecutors.

Meanwhile, Dorsey signed an order Friday authorizing FTX to redact the names of all customers, and the addresses and e-mail addresses of non-individual customers, from court filings for at least the next 90 days.

FTX also is authorized to permanently keep secret the addresses and email addresses of individual creditors and equity holders. Dorsey also allowed FTX to maintain a veil of secrecy for at least the next 90 days over the names of individual creditors or equity holders who are citizens of the United Kingdom or European Union nations and covered under a consumer protection program known as the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR.

Lawyers for FTX have argued that its customer list is both a valuable asset and confidential commercial information. They contend that secrecy is needed to protect FTX accounts from potential theft and to ensure that potential competitors do not “poach” FTX customers.

FTX Bankruptcy Judge Calls Fmr FTX US Exec's Allegations Against Law Firm 'Hearsay, Innuendo, Speculation, Rumors'



Stacy Elliott
Fri, January 20, 2023 

In a court hearing on Friday morning, the bankruptcy judge overseeing FTX’s case approved the hiring of the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, and called allegations from a former FTX US compliance officer made in objection to the law firm “hearsay, innuendo, speculation, rumors, and certainly not something I would allow to be introduced into evidence."

"There's no evidence of actual conflict here," said judge John Dorsey.

On Thursday night, Daniel Friedberg, who oversaw compliance at FTX US and regulatory matters at FTX.com, had filed a 17-page declaration supporting two individual creditors' objections to the hiring of Sullivan & Cromwell. In his declaration, Friedberg mentioned that FTX US general counsel, Ryne Miller, used to work for Sullivan & Cromwell.

“Mr. Miller informed me that it is very important for him personally to channel a lot of business to S&C as he wanted to return there as a partner after his stint with the Debtors,” Friedberg wrote in the court filing. He added later that Miller told him S&C partners Andrew Dietderich and Mitchell Eitel were his mentors and that “he would do anything to help those partners.”


Early on during the hearing, Friedberg struggled to get Judge Dorsey’s attention over the Zoom call that was being used to allow interested parties to watch and listen to the FTX bankruptcy proceedings.

“I did not recognize [Friedberg] intentionally because as I said he has not filed a motion, he has not joined any motion,” Dorsey said to Marshal Hoda, an attorney representing the creditors who objected to FTX hiring S&C. “He is simply trying to be a witness, I suppose. But witnesses are not allowed unless they're here in person.”

The two creditors, Warren Winter and Richard Brummond, filed an emergency motion to stop Friday’s hearing from taking place. Up until recently, Andrew Vera, U.S. Trustee, also opposed the hiring of S&C because the law firm wasn’t more timely with its disclosures about ties to Miller.

On Thursday, S&C partner Dietderich amended his declaration in support of the firm being hired by FTX, to reflect that he told the U.S. Trustee overseeing the bankruptcy case on January 10, 2023—not November 10, 2022, as he originally said—that the law firm “would not be involved in any investigations with respect to Ryne Miller to the extent one is required.”

During the hearing, FTX attorney James Bromley argued that Friedberg, along with FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, are concerned about the information that’s being shared with law enforcement.

“So if you're Mr. Bankman-Fried or Mr. Friedberg, there's a concern about what's going on and what could happen to them,” he said. “They can't throw stones at the U.S. Attorney's Office, but they can throw stones at debtors’ counsel that's providing information to the prosecutors and the regulators. And that's exactly what's happened.”

Earlier during the hearing, Bromley expressed frustration at Bankman-Fried’s continued use of Twitter and a Substack newsletter to cast doubt on information provided by the FTX restructuring team.

“One of the things that the debtors have been facing, generally in these cases, is assault by Twitter,” Bromley said. “It’s very difficult, Your Honor, to cross examine a tweet, particularly tweets that are being issued by individuals who are under criminal indictment and whose travel is restricted, so to speak.”
BLACKJACK
What the 21 McCarthy holdouts got in committee assignments

Scott Wong and Kyle Stewart and Haley Talbot
Thu, January 19, 2023 

WASHINGTON — The 21 House Republicans who initially blocked Rep. Kevin McCarthy from winning the speakership had demanded big changes to House rules, but they also wanted more influence on the congressional committees that will set the GOP agenda over the next two years.

While not every holdout got exactly what he or she had asked for, some won plum committee assignments from McCarthy, R-Calif., and his allies after they helped him secure the speaker's gavel, a process that took 15 rounds of voting.

Here's what we know as of Thursday morning:


Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona, a former head of the Freedom Caucus and one of the five so-called Never Kevins, will keep his spots on the powerful Judiciary and Oversight committees. He changed his vote to "present" on the final ballot for speaker, helping push McCarthy over the finish line.


Rep. Dan Bishop of North Carolina, one of 13 holdouts who flipped to back McCarthy on the 12th ballot, will continue to serve on both the Judiciary and Homeland Security committees.


Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado,
a vocal McCarthy critic who voted "present" on the 14th and 15th ballots, was awarded a seat on the Oversight and Accountability Committee, which plans to launch numerous investigations into the Biden administration. She will continue to serve on the Natural Resources panel, on which she served in the previous Congress.


Freshman Rep. Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma,
who flipped to McCarthy on the 12th ballot, won a seat on the Homeland Security Committee.


Rep. Mike Cloud of Texas,
who also flipped to McCarthy on the 12th ballot, won a new seat on the powerful Appropriations Committee, which controls federal spending.


Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia,
another lawmaker who flipped to McCarthy on the 12th ballot, will serve for the first time on Appropriations.


Freshman Rep. Eli Crane of Arizona,
who voted "present" on the 15th ballot, will serve on the Homeland Security Committee.


Rep. Byron Donalds of Florida,
who was nominated to run against McCarthy for speaker and flipped to him on the 12th ballot, was named by McCarthy as the "speaker's designee" on the influential Steering Committee, which decides which lawmakers get committee gavels and seats. Donalds also won a coveted spot on the Financial Services Committee, a top panel known on Capitol Hill as an "A" committee.


Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, perhaps the most vocal McCarthy foe during the speaker fight, who flipped to "present" in the 14th round, will continue to serve on the Judiciary panel.


Rep. Bob Good of Virginia,
one of the Never Kevins who flipped to "present" in the last round of voting, has not gotten his committee assignments yet.


Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona,
who flipped to McCarthy on the 12th ballot, was reinstated by Republicans on two committees —Oversight and Natural Resources panels — after Democrats removed him two years ago for posting threats to lawmakers on social media.


Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland
, who flipped to McCarthy on the 13th ballot, will continue to serve on the Appropriations panel. Harris, a physician, will be the chairman of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration subcommittee.


Freshman Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, who flipped to McCarthy on the 12th ballot, won a seats on the Oversight and Natural Resources panels.


Rep. Mary Miller of Illinois,
who flipped to McCarthy on the 12th ballot, will remain on the Agriculture Committee.


Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina,
one of the Never Kevins who flipped to McCarthy on the 12th ballot, will remain on the Financial Services panel, which he joined in June.


Freshman Rep. Andy Ogles
of Tennessee, who flipped to McCarthy on the 12th ballot, also won a seat on Financial Services.


Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, the chairman of the far-right House Freedom Caucus who brokered a deal between conservatives and McCarthy, will remain on the Foreign Affairs Committee. A subject of Jan. 6 investigations, Perry won a new seat on the Oversight committee.


Rep. Matt Rosendale of Montana,
a Never Kevin who flipped to "present" on the final ballot, will continue to serve on Natural Resources.


Rep. Chip Roy of Texas,
who along with Perry helped negotiate a deal with McCarthy, will keep his seat on the Judiciary panel.


Freshman Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas,
who flipped to McCarthy on the 12th ballot, will serve on the Foreign Affairs panel.


Rep. Victoria Spartz of Indiana
, who flipped from "present" to vote for McCarthy on the 12th ballot, will continue to serve on the Judiciary panel.

In addition to committee assignments, McCarthy had made other concessions to his right flank. He vowed that Freedom Caucus members would get three seats on the speaker-controlled Rules Committee, which decides exactly how bills are considered on the House floor.

In the package of rules changes McCarthy and the Freedom Caucus negotiated for the 118th Congress was a provision allowing a single lawmaker to force a floor vote to oust McCarthy as speaker.

Some Freedom Caucus members who stuck with McCarthy from the very start also did well for themselves. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., a McCarthy ally whom Democrats stripped of her committee assignments two years ago, won seats on the Oversight and Homeland Security committees.

Meanwhile, Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio, a Freedom Caucus member who nominated McCarthy on the fifth ballot, was named chairman of the Financial Services subcommittee on Housing and Insurance.
The 'roller coaster' state of abortion access 50 years after Roe v. Wade was decided


Kate Murphy
·Producer
Fri, January 20, 2023 

From left: Pro-abortion-rights protesters in New York City, 1970s; abortion-rights activists in Times Square following the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, June 2022. (H. Armstrong Roberts/Classicstock/Getty Images, Lev Radin/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images)


Sunday marks the 50th anniversary of the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling by the Supreme Court that legalized abortion nationwide. But it’s also the first anniversary after the ruling was overturned last June, when the high court determined in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that abortion access wasn’t protected under constitutional law. Since then, the issue has been left up to the states to decide.

As of Jan. 20, there are 14 states where abortion is unavailable, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights.

“There are about 75 million women of reproductive age, from 15 to 49, in the country. And in these 14 states where abortion is unavailable, that affects nearly 18 million women of reproductive age,” Elizabeth Nash, a policy expert at the Guttmacher Institute, told Yahoo News.


A patchwork of abortion restrictions and bans are shaping the post-Roe landscape in the U.S. since it was overturned.

“Over the past seven months, it has been a roller coaster around states banning abortion,” Nash said. “Some states [have had] their abortion bans blocked by courts; other states have been able to enforce their bans.”

While restrictions on abortion have been implemented, progress has also been made to gain abortion access. Nash spoke to Yahoo News about where the state of abortion access currently stands and what to look out for in 2023. (Some answers have been edited for length and clarity.)

Yahoo News: Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, how has abortion access changed?

Elizabeth Nash: We’ve really seen a deterioration in access across a large part of the country, particularly the South, the Plains and the Midwest, where as of Jan. 20 we have 14 states where abortion is unavailable. And then along the coasts and in states like Illinois, we’ve really seen policymakers step up to expand access. So we're really seeing the political fault lines coming to what is happening with abortion.

What are some examples of abortion bans and restrictions that have been put in place?

A number of abortion bans are in the South, and that means that these states are next to each other, meaning someone has to travel much further than one state over — they may be traveling across three or four states.

When we're talking about these states where there are abortion bans in place, many of them do have some exceedingly limited exceptions. And these exceptions do not provide meaningful access in any way, because it’s very difficult to meet the criteria. These exceptions are narrowly tailored, and the penalties are so steep that providers simply cannot provide care even if you meet the criteria. Someone has to become, for example, extremely ill in order to obtain an abortion.

For providers, the penalties are very steep. They involve jail time and fines and potentially loss of license. If they were to provide an abortion under the exceptions, they're really putting their livelihoods at risk.

On the flip side, what are some examples of abortion protections that have been enacted?

As abortion rights fall at the federal level, we saw states start to step up, and 77 abortion protections were enacted in 2022. That’s the highest number ever.

The types of protections that are put into place are policies and programs like funding abortion to help people get care and expanding the types of clinicians that can provide abortions.

Some states have also put in place legal protections for providers and patients so that care remains available. These legal protections are things like preventing an abortion-ban state from prosecuting a provider in an access state; not requiring the access state to help with an investigation of a provider; preventing extradition and preventing summons and subpoenas from being issued.

What legal action has been taken at the state level to expand abortion access, and what should we expect in 2023?

In South Carolina, the state Supreme Court just struck down the six-week abortion ban, saying that privacy rights in the state constitution include abortion. This is a very important case because it means that the six-week ban is not going into effect and that abortion will remain available in South Carolina. The state has a very conservative Legislature that is coming into session, and we’re anticipating they will try to adopt more restrictions on abortion.

We may see similar outcomes with other abortion bans under other state constitutions. We have cases pending in states like Utah and Wyoming, for example, so there's a lot more to come on abortion bans and the courts and legislatures as we go into legislative sessions after the fall of Roe.

What’s ahead for medication abortion access?

Because abortion pills can be mailed and you can access them through an online platform, abortion opponents are paying attention. We're expecting that we will see more restrictions debated and enacted at the state level on medication abortion, despite the fact that the Food and Drug Administration has rolled back some of their restrictions on abortion pills. They are now also in the process of setting up pharmacy access for abortion pills, and that is fueling more restrictions at the state level on medication abortion.

What should we expect in 2023 regarding further restrictions on abortion?

We’re going to see a lot of experimentation when it comes to legislation being introduced on abortion. We will see which trends stick and which ones don’t. We're anticipating that more states are going to seek to ban abortion. We’re anticipating that states that have banned abortion will try to tighten the screws on abortion access further. And then we’re expecting the progressive states to continue to step up and expand access.
THE LEAKER HAS THE INITIALS; G.T.
Supreme Court personnel admitted telling their spouses about the draft Dobbs opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, investigation finds

Bryan Metzger,Oma Seddiq
Thu, January 19, 2023

United States Supreme Court justices pose for their official photo on October 7, 2022.Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images

The Supreme Court issued a report on its investigation into the leak of the draft Dobbs opinion.

Some personnel admitted to telling their spouses about the opinion, which overturned Roe v. Wade.

But investigators say they still haven't determined who leaked the opinion.


Some employees at the Supreme Court discussed the draft abortion opinion overturning Roe v. Wade with their spouses or partner, according to a report released by the nation's highest court on Thursday.

The revelation came in a report that concluded the Supreme Court has failed to identify who leaked the draft opinion during its months-long investigation. The probe started the same month that Politico published a copy of the draft opinion on May 2.

Investigators said they were unable to identify the source of the leak, despite conducting 126 interviews of 97 court personnel.

But in the course of those interviews — which required employees to sign an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, stating that they did not leak the draft opinion or otherwise provide information about it to individuals not employed by the Supreme Court — several personnel admitted to telling their spouses or partner about the draft opinion or the vote count.

That constituted a violation of the court's confidentiality rules, the report stated.

"The temptation to discuss interesting pending or decided cases among friends, spouses, or other family members, for example, must be scrupulously resisted," reads the court's Law Clerk Code of Conduct.

The report also noted that some employees had more generally shared confidential details of their work to investigators, and thought it was permissible to do so. It was not clear if those employees were set to face disciplinary measures.

At the conclusion of the report, investigators made a series of findings and recommendations, including reducing the number of people with access to draft opinions, clarifying confidentiality policies, and improving personnel training.

The draft opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, sparked nationwide protests as a majority of the justices appeared ready to overturn the constitutional right to abortion. The justices ultimately did so in the court's June 24 ruling.

The leak also triggered a frenzy of speculation about who might have done it. At the time, while congressional Democrats focused on the substance of the draft opinion, Republicans focused their attention on the unprecedented leak, with some GOP senators claiming without evidence that someone on the political left was responsible in an attempt to sway the outcome.

Chief Justice John Roberts directed the court marshal to launch an investigation into the leak on May 3, calling the incident a "betrayal of the confidences of the Court intended to undermine the integrity of our operations."

The court in a statement on Thursday also condemned the leak, labeling it as "one of the worst breaches of trust in its history."

Investigators plan to continue pursuing any leads to identify the leak's perpetrator, the report read.


Supreme Court has failed to find leaker of abortion opinion
Light illuminates part of the Supreme Court building at dusk on Capitol Hill in Washington, Nov. 16, 2022. The Supreme Court said Thursday, Jan. 19, 2023, that it has not determined who leaked a draft of the court's opinion overturning abortion rights, but that the investigation continues.

MARK SHERMAN and JESSICA GRESKO
Thu, January 19, 2023 

WASHINGTON (AP) — TheSupreme Courtsaid Thursday aneight-month investigationthat included more than 120 interviews and revealed shortcomings in how sensitive documents are secured has failed to findwho leaked a draftof the court's opinion overturning abortion rights.

Ninety-seven employees, including the justices' law clerks, swore under oath that they did not disclosea draft of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion that overturned Roe v. Wade, the court said.

It was unclear whether the justices themselves were questioned about the leak, which was the first time an entire opinion made its way to the public before the court was ready to announce it.

Politico published its explosive leak detailing the Alito draft in early May. Chief Justice JohnRoberts ordered an investigation the next dayinto what he termed an “egregious breach of trust.”

On Thursday, the court said its investigative team “has to date been unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence.”

The investigation has not come to an end, the court said. A few inquiries and the analysis of come electronic data remain.

The court said it could not rule out that the opinion was inadvertently disclosed, “for example, by being left in a public space either inside or outside the building.”

While not identifying the leaker, the investigation turned up problems in the court's internal practices, some of which were exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic and the shift to working from home.

Too many people have access to sensitive information, the court's policies on information security are outdated and, in some cases, employees acknowledged revealing confidential information to their spouses. It was not clear from the report whether investigators talked to the justices' spouses.

Some employees had to acknowledge in their written statements that they “admitted to telling their spouses about the draft opinion or vote count,” the report said.

Investigators looked closely at connections between court employees and reporters, and they found nothing to substantiate rampant speculation on social media about the identity of the leaker.

The investigation concluded that it “is unlikely that the Court’s information technology (IT) systems were improperly accessed by a person outside the Court,” following an examination of the court’s computers, networks, printers, and available call and text logs.

The “risk of both deliberate and accidental disclosures of Court-sensitive information” grew with the coronavirus pandemic and shift to working from home, the report said. More people working from home, ”as well as gaps in the Court’s security policies, created an environment where it was too easy to remove sensitive information from the building and the Court’s IT networks,” the report said.

Roberts also asked former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a onetime federal judge, to assess the investigation. Chertoff, in a statement issued through the court, described it as thorough.

Politico published the draft decision on May 2. Less than 24 hours later, Roberts confirmed the draft’s authenticity and said he had directed the court’s marshal, former Army Col. Gail Curley, to lead the investigation.

Since then, there had been silence from the court — until Thursday.

The court had declined to say anything about the status of the investigation or whether an outside law firm or the FBI has been called in or whether it had taken steps to try to prevent a repeat. Speaking in Colorado in September, Justice Neil Gorsuch said he hoped a report was coming “soon” but he did not say whether it would be made public.

Gorsuch joined Roberts in condemning the breach of trust the leak engendered. Justice Clarence Thomas spoke in even starker terms about the leak’s effect on the justices.

“When you lose that trust, especially in the institution that I’m in, it changes the institution fundamentally. You begin to look over your shoulder. It’s like kind of an infidelity that you can explain it, but you can’t undo it,” Thomas said while speaking at a conference in Dallas less than two weeks after the leak became public.

The leak itself sparked protests and round-the-clock security at justices’ homes. Alito said it made the conservative justices who were thought to be in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade “targets for assassination” that “gave people a rational reason to think they could prevent that from happening by killing one of us.”

In early June, a man carrying a gun, a knife and zip ties was arrested near Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s house in Maryland after threatening to kill the justice. The man told police he was upset by the leaked draft.

Responding to protests outside the court, officials ringed the building with hard-to-climb fencing, the same barrier that was in place for months following the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

When the final decision was released on June 24, it was remarkably similar to the draft that was leaked. Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett voted to overturn Roe.

Speculation has swirled since the draft’s release about who might be the source. Only the justices, a small number of staff and the justices’ law clerks, young lawyers who spend a year at the court helping the justices with their work, would have had access to the document.

Conservatives pointed fingers at the liberal side of the court, speculating that the leaker was someone upset about the outcome. Liberals suggested it could be someone on the conservative side of the court who wanted to ensure a wavering justice didn’t switch sides.

It would have taken just one conservative justice to side with Roberts to alter the decision. Instead of overturning Roe entirely, Roberts favored weakening abortion rights.

The Supreme Court's investigation raises questions about the justices' determination to find the abortion draft leaker

Oma Seddiq
Fri, January 20, 2023 

The Supreme Court could not determine who leaked a draft abortion ruling last May.


Yet the 20-page report has raised concerns about the rigor of the court's investigation.


"I'm still disappointed that they didn't find out," one legal expert said.

The Supreme Court on Friday revealed that the justices cooperated in its investigation into a leaked draft ruling of a major abortion case, but weren't asked to speak under oath, following widespread speculation about the scope of the probe.

"During the course of the investigation, I spoke with each of the Justices, several on multiple occasions," Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley, who conducted the investigation, said in a statement.

"The Justices actively cooperated in this iterative process, asking questions and answering mine. I followed up on all credible leads, none of which implicated the Justices or their spouses," she added. "On this basis, I did not believe that it was necessary to ask the Justices to sign sworn affidavits."

The 20-page report released by the nation's highest court on Thursday spurred skepticism, given its ambiguity about whether the justices were scrutinized. Investigators perused cell phones and laptops, forensically examined printers, and interviewed 97 of the court's employees, including law clerks, who may have had access to the draft opinion. Yet those individuals went unnamed in the report — and there was no mention that the justices were among them.

Friday's statement appeared to answer that question. Still, the eight-month-long investigation ultimately came up empty, and the leaker's identity remains unknown, raising concerns about the court's determination to finding the leaker. The report also comes amid public discussion that it could have been one of the justices themselves, especially since the court has also come under fire over another alleged breach of a 2014 decision, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores. A former anti-abortion leader has claimed he had advance knowledge of the ruling, but the author of the opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, has denied the allegations.

"It gives me more assurance than I had yesterday," Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, told Insider. "I'm still disappointed that they didn't find out. Everybody is. So they should keep digging."

The report's inconclusive findings also showed the constraints of a court investigating itself, as opposed to a third party launching an independent probe, court observers said.

"The court did as much as they could given their resources, but the decision to keep this internal prevented them from doing a full blown, thorough investigation," Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law, told Insider.

Had the court been serious about the investigation, "they would've brought the FBI in," Blackman said.

"I think they were committed, but not enough to involve the FBI to actually, really get to the bottom of it," he added.

An executive-branch investigation may have led to the justices speaking under oath, a line the Supreme Court marshal did not cross, according to her statement. But the delicate and fraught nature of the matter could explain why, according to Tobias.

"They're going to be more forthcoming if they're not under oath," he said of the justices. "It would be an insult to them, I think, they would think. To some extent, they're her boss, right?"

The unprecedented leak last May penetrated the often blocked-off world of the Supreme Court, prompting some of the justices to publicly condemn it at the time. The court did so again in an unsigned statement on Thursday, labeling the breach "a grave assault on the judicial process."

The draft opinion, which showed the court was ready to overturn nearly 50 years of constitutionally protected abortion rights, provoked national outrage at an institution that had already been declining in public trust. The leak further eroded that trust, and shattered it within the institution.

And while the report, along with Friday's clarification, offered at least some transparency into the investigation, it failed to restore trust, according to observers.

"There will continue to be suspicions that have bad effects on all interpersonal relations among justices and between justices and clerks and staff," said Richard Pierce, a professor at George Washington University Law School.

Congressional lawmakers have vented about the court's unsuccessful investigation to find the culprit. House Republicans, now in the majority, previously called for their own probe into the leak. Some GOP senators have sounded the alarm about the possibility of future leaks.

"This is inexcusable," Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri tweeted on Thursday. "And it means brazen attempts like this one to change the Court's decisions - from within - will become more common. Someone ought to resign for this."

But it's uncertain whether new evidence will come to light anytime soon. The Supreme Court's marshal did not note any new leads in her report. While they may be at a dead-end now, some legal experts think that might not be the case forever.

"People like to talk, and so somebody may leak the name of the leaker," Tobias said. "That could happen."

U.S. Supreme Court justices were questioned, cleared in leak probe


By Nate Raymond and John Kruzel

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court's chief security officer on Friday said she spoke with each of the justices in her inquiry into who leaked a draft of its ruling overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that had legalized abortion nationwide, adding that the probe found no information implicating them or their spouses.

Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley made the statement a day after the court released a 20-page report based on the eight-month investigation she led that failed to identify who leaked the draft to the news organization Politico.

The report said investigators interviewed 97 court employees but was silent on whether the nine justices who sat on the court at the time of the leak were interviewed, prompting calls from Democratic lawmakers and others for clarity.


"During the course of the investigation, I spoke with each of the justices, several on multiple occasions," Curley said in the statement, released by the court. "The justices actively cooperated in this iterative process, asking questions and answering mine."

"I followed up on all credible leads, none of which implicated the justices or their spouses," Curley added.

Curley said on that basis she decided it was not necessary to ask the justices to sign sworn affidavits affirming they did not leak the draft, something court employees were required to do.

The court's membership differed last May from today, with now-retired Justice Stephen Breyer still on the bench and current Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, his successor appointed by President Joe Biden, not yet sworn in.

Conservative activists have sought to raise suspicions that one of the liberal justices or a staffer for them was responsible for the leak, just as liberal activists have sought to blame conservative justices or their staffers.

Gabe Roth, executive director of the court reform group Fix the Court, said the fact that the report initially omitted the fact that the justices were interviewed "smells fishy."

"That they were not asked to sign affidavits smells fishier," Roth added.

The leak represented an unprecedented violation of the court's tradition of confidentiality in the behind-the-scenes process of making rulings after hearing oral arguments in cases.

Mark Zaid, a Washington-based lawyer known for representing government whistleblowers, criticized the decision not to require sworn affidavits from the justices or their spouses, saying the court's credibility is on the line with the leak.

"Because the marshal could not even identify the leaker based on a low-level preponderance-of-evidence standard, it raises the question - at least from an appearance standpoint - as to whether a justice played a role in the leak, and that scenario remains unaddressed," Zaid said.

Chief Justice John Roberts directed Curley to investigate after Politico last May published a draft of the opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The ruling was formally issued in June.

Alito found himself in the middle of another leak controversy in November after the New York Times reported a former anti-abortion leader's assertion that he was told in advance about how the court would rule in a major 2014 case involving insurance coverage for women's birth control.

Rob Schenck, an evangelical Christian minister, told the Times and later a congressional panel that weeks before the ruling was issued he was informed about its contents shortly after two conservative allies of his dined at the home of Alito and his wife.

Alito has said that any allegation that he or his wife leaked the 2014 decision was "completely false."

(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Will Dunham)

Leak probe highlights U.S. Supreme Court's problems protecting information



Fri, January 20, 2023 
By Nate Raymond and John Kruzel

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The investigation into the leak of a draft of last year's Supreme Court ruling overturning the national right to abortion laid bare a persistent problem at the top U.S. judicial body and the broader federal judiciary - creaky tech systems and lax security protocols for handling sensitive documents.

The inquiry, detailed in a 20-page report released on Thursday, failed to uncover who leaked the draft authored by Justice Samuel Alito to the news outlet Politico last May, a month before the ruling was formally issued - in part due to information technology record-keeping deficiencies.

The investigation, ordered by Chief Justice John Roberts and headed by the court's chief security official Gail Curley, found that "technical limitations" made it "impossible" to rule out whether any employees emailed the draft to anyone else and said the court lacked the ability to identify those who printed it out.

Investigators could not search and analyze many event logs maintained by the court's operating system because, the report said, "at the time the system lacked substantial logging and search functions."

The report said 34 court employees - out of the 97 interviewed - acknowledged printing out the draft. The investigators found few confirmed print jobs because several printers at the court had little ability to log print jobs and many were not part of its centralized network.

Cybersecurity expert Mark Lanterman, who has conducted training at the Supreme Court, said it appeared the court could stand to bolster controls to guard against leaks but noted that even highly secure networks can remain vulnerable to bad actors.

"People - we're the weakest link," said Lanterman, chief technology officer at the firm Computer Forensic Services. "They could invest millions of dollars in the federal judiciary's cybersecurity, but all it takes is one person with a motive to leak."

Carrie Severino, a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas who now heads the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, said Roberts bears much of the responsibility for creating an environment where "security measures were so inadequate."

"It's never going be possible to perfectly protect against leaking," Severino added. "The justices have to circulate drafts before they're public. But you can see from this report how many gigantic loopholes there were."

The report said the Supreme Court's information security environment was "built fundamentally on trust with limited safeguards to regulate and constrain access to very sensitive information." Severino and some other former clerks said that characterization rang true to their experiences.

"The fact is that the court has always relied upon the integrity of its members and staff," George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley said. "In a city that is a rolling sea of leaks, the court was always an island of integrity. This shattered that tradition. Absent an arrest, it will remain vulnerable."

The report found no evidence hackers were behind the leak of the ruling, which overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that had legalized abortion nationwide. But it called the court's information security policies "outdated" and recommended that it overhaul its platform for handling case-related documents and remedy "inadequate safeguards" for tracking who prints and copies documents.

The Supreme Court's IT systems operate separately from the rest of the federal judiciary. U.S. judiciary officials have said the systems used by federal appellate and district courts also are outdated and need modernization.

Three "hostile foreign actors" breached the judiciary's lower-court document-filing system in 2020, Democratic Representative Jerrold Nadler, who at the time headed the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, told a hearing last year.

The cyberattack prompt the judiciary to change how it handles sensitive documents at the lower-court level.

Congress in December approved $106 million in funding for cybersecurity and information technology modernization projects within the judiciary after officials warned of the need to guard against hackers breaching aging, vulnerable computer systems.

U.S. District Judge Roslynn Mauskopf, director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, last May told a House committee the courts were a repository "for some of our nation's most sensitive law enforcement and national security information."

"Our systems house draft opinions," Mauskopf said. "That's another category of very sensitive, pre-decisional information that we house within our systems, which is yet another reason why we need to take steps to modernize our systems."

(Reporting by John Kruzel in Washington and Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Will Dunham)