The ongoing legal tussle between Alameda Research and Grayscale Investments has taken another twist. Alameda Research, founded by Sam Bankman-Fried and a debtor affiliate of cryptocurrency exchange FTX, recently amended its complaint against the crypto titan, Grayscale.
Last Friday, Alameda, despite previously expressing intentions to add co-plaintiffs, remained as the sole plaintiff in the updated filing. The amendment was a result of the firm’s inability to secure the desired number of co-plaintiffs for its case against Grayscale.
It should be noted that the crypto firm’s central contention lies in Grayscale’s fee structure and redemption ban pertaining to its Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) and Ethereum Trust (ETHE). They argue that these policies have significantly devalued Alameda’s shareholdings by as much as 90%. However, Grayscale has consistently rebuffed these claims, with a spokesperson stating that the lawsuit holds no merit.
The 10% shareholder threshold and Alameda’s struggle
Grayscale has put forth a formidable defense strategy, emphasizing that any fee-related claims would be valid only if co-plaintiffs holding a combined 10% of outstanding shares in each trust support the lawsuit. Alameda’s efforts to achieve this threshold hit a snag when an unidentified shareholder decided against joining the litigation. This situation prompted Alameda to submit a motion to the Delaware Chancery Court on Aug. 2.
Though Alameda had hinted that approximately 45 entities, including individuals and institutional investors, showcased their willingness to be co-plaintiffs, they requested an extension to gather them. This move was essential for Alameda, considering the tight deadline of September 15, set by the court, to counter Grayscale’s motion to dismiss the suit.
However, as of the most recent filing, Alameda remains the solitary plaintiff, leading many to speculate on the effectiveness of its legal strategy. Among those expressing interest in joining Alameda’s cause were esteemed names like Fir Tree Partners, Aristides Capital, and ProChain Capital. Despite this, the company has yet to surmount Grayscale’s stipulated 10% threshold.
An intelligence litigation analyst, Negisa Balluku, summarized the situation, noting that while fee-related allegations are still present, Alameda’s focus seems to have shifted solely to the redemption aspect. However, she also pointed out that the door is not entirely closed for the introduction of additional plaintiffs and sponsor fee claims.
Implications and future developments
The updated lawsuit alleges that Grayscale’s adamant refusal to allow redemptions has adversely impacted shareholders. This limitation means shareholders can only exit by selling on the secondary market, where they often receive less than the true value of their proportionate interest in trust assets. The numbers support this claim, with GBTC shares trading at a discount of approximately 19% to its net asset value (NAV) recently.
But the landscape could change soon. Grayscale’s recent victory over the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) may render Alameda’s redemption requests irrelevant. The court’s decision, which criticized the SEC’s inconsistent stance on Grayscale’s GBTC conversion to an ETF and other bitcoin futures ETFs, hints at the possibility of Grayscale launching its bitcoin ETF. Such a move could address the underlying concerns voiced by Alameda and other shareholders about the premium and discount trading of the fund’s shares.
Conclusion
While Alameda is still in pursuit of hefty compensation for the purported damages, Grayscale’s possible ETF conversion, coupled with its strong defense, presents a complex challenge. Crypto firm’s legal battle with Grayscale underscores the complexities of crypto investment structures and their implications for shareholders. As the landscape evolves, especially with potential ETF conversions, the outcome could shape the future dynamics of cryptocurrency trusts and their redemption policies.
