Voyager Digital says it received a number of buyout offers better than the high-profile bid from Sam Bankman-Fried’s AlamedaFTX, despite what the Bahamas-based exchange told the press.
The lender said in a Second Day Hearing Presentation on Thursday that it has been in contact with 88 potential suitors and that it’s in “active discussions” with 20 prospective buyers.
Last month, SBF and FTX offered to buy up all of Voyager’s assets and loans (bar those relating to now-bankrupt Three Arrows Capital).
However, the takeover attempt was swiftly rejected and the offer was branded “a low ball bid” that could “create chaos” in the firm’s ongoing bankruptcy proceedings.
FTX also made a number of what Voyager has labelled “misleading or outright false” claims related to the potential takeover, including that it would “write off” its own $75 million loan to increase customer recoveries.
These claims were made in a press release issued by FTX wherein it detailed plans to offer early liquidity to Voyager customers.
The troubled lender was quick to shoot down these assertions and to quell speculation that, due to the two organizations’ previous relationship, FTX would have the “inside track” on any potential deal, saying: “Voyager’s process will not be obstructed by anyone, including Alameda/FTX.”
Voyager customers to get $270 million windfall
Meanwhile, Voyager has also been cleared by a court in New York to hand $270 million back to customers.
As reported by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Judge Michael Wiles of the US Bankruptcy Court in New York, agreed with the firm’s contention that customers be given access to funds held at Metropolitan Commercial Bank.
The bank held $270 million on behalf of Voyager when it filed for bankruptcy.
Voyager had previously asked the bank for permission to honor requests from customers to withdraw the funds, but it said the future of the roughly $1.3 billion should be decided through the bankruptcy proceeding.
This latest ruling comes just weeks after the same judge reluctantly allowed Voyager to settle a $76,000 balance on its company credit cards.
The company claimed the cards are essential to its business operations, specifically providing payments to vendors that only take credit card transactions. It also said it needed the cards to pay state licensing and tax obligations.
However, Judge Wiles was unsure why the company needed cards at all and questioned why it hadn’t considered accounts from providers not concerned with outstanding balances.
“I’m concerned that we’re still at a point in the case where I’m only supposed to do things to prevent immediate and irreparable harm,” he said (our emphasis).
“Without you having even made an effort to secure new cards, all I have are vague and generalized descriptions of why you need credit cards generally, not why you need these particular cards or need to pay these amounts.”