Are you able to say whether the other relevant defendants—CFAR and Rose Garden LLC—also made offers, or whether accepting LI’s offer would have required the estate to surrender its claims against them?
I’m obviously not going to get into the legal side, but your comment hints at various ethical or equitable arguments for why ~17.5 cents on the dollar was a fair offer for the estate’s claim. To the extent it would be a global settlement, LI’s own ability to pay the potential judgment seems of little relevance without additional relevant facts.
Given litigation, I will obviously understand and not draw adverse inferences if you decide not to answer.
I don’t think I can comment on this because it risks breaking legal privilege, though I am not confident (also, sidenote, I really really hate the fact that discussing legal strategy in the US risks breaking privilege, it makes navigating this whole situation so much worse).
As a relevant clarification: Lightcone Infrastructure is a fiscally sponsored project of CFAR. In-general FTX has directed all of its communications at CFAR, and made no distinction between CFAR and the fiscally sponsored projects within it.
Makes sense—I wouldn’t have even asked about possible details if you hadn’t mentioned the settlement offer.
The complaint sues a Lightcone Infrastructure, Inc., “a Delaware non-profit corporation with its principal place of
business at 270 Telegraph Avenue, Berkeley, California, 94705.” Am I correct in thinking that, as of 10/13/22, Lightcone now possesses a separate corporate existence (which many fiscally sponsored projects do not)?
Lightcone Infrastructure Inc. has so far never done anything. It’s a nonprofit that I incorporated with the intent of being a home for future projects of mine, but doing anything with it was delayed because of the whole FTX thing. The most real thing it has done is me depositing $50 in its bank account.
Are you able to say whether the other relevant defendants—CFAR and Rose Garden LLC—also made offers, or whether accepting LI’s offer would have required the estate to surrender its claims against them?
I’m obviously not going to get into the legal side, but your comment hints at various ethical or equitable arguments for why ~17.5 cents on the dollar was a fair offer for the estate’s claim. To the extent it would be a global settlement, LI’s own ability to pay the potential judgment seems of little relevance without additional relevant facts.
Given litigation, I will obviously understand and not draw adverse inferences if you decide not to answer.
I don’t think I can comment on this because it risks breaking legal privilege, though I am not confident (also, sidenote, I really really hate the fact that discussing legal strategy in the US risks breaking privilege, it makes navigating this whole situation so much worse).
As a relevant clarification: Lightcone Infrastructure is a fiscally sponsored project of CFAR. In-general FTX has directed all of its communications at CFAR, and made no distinction between CFAR and the fiscally sponsored projects within it.
Makes sense—I wouldn’t have even asked about possible details if you hadn’t mentioned the settlement offer.
The complaint sues a Lightcone Infrastructure, Inc., “a Delaware non-profit corporation with its principal place of business at 270 Telegraph Avenue, Berkeley, California, 94705.” Am I correct in thinking that, as of 10/13/22, Lightcone now possesses a separate corporate existence (which many fiscally sponsored projects do not)?
Lightcone Infrastructure Inc. has so far never done anything. It’s a nonprofit that I incorporated with the intent of being a home for future projects of mine, but doing anything with it was delayed because of the whole FTX thing. The most real thing it has done is me depositing $50 in its bank account.