FTX vs. Three Arrows Capital: Legal Battle Over $1.53 Billion Claim Intensifies

The cryptocurrency industry has been no stranger to dramatic collapses and legal disputes, but the ongoing battle between FTX and Three Arrows Capital (3AC) stands out as one of the most contentious. At the center of this legal confrontation is a $1.53 billion claim filed by 3AC against FTX—a claim that FTX vehemently opposes. This case not only highlights the complexities of bankruptcy proceedings but also underscores the risks inherent in high-stakes crypto trading.

Three Arrows Capital, once a leading hedge fund in the cryptocurrency space, suffered a catastrophic collapse in 2022. The firm’s downfall was part of a broader domino effect triggered by the Terra/LUNA ecosystem failure, which sent shockwaves through the industry. 3AC’s high-risk trading strategy, including leveraged bets on rising crypto prices, left it vulnerable to market volatility. When the Terra/LUNA collapse occurred, 3AC was unable to meet margin calls, leading to its eventual insolvency.

The Terra/LUNA collapse was a pivotal event that exposed vulnerabilities across the crypto ecosystem. Major firms like Voyager, Celsius, and BlockFi also faced significant financial distress as a result. For 3AC, the failure of Terra/LUNA was the tipping point that set off a chain reaction, culminating in its bankruptcy.

FTX, another major player in the cryptocurrency industry, filed for bankruptcy in late 2022 following allegations of financial mismanagement. Amid its bankruptcy proceedings, 3AC initially filed a $120 million claim against FTX, which was later expanded to $1.53 billion based on alleged new evidence. The claim centers on the liquidation of 3AC’s assets by FTX, which 3AC’s liquidators argue contributed to the hedge fund’s collapse.

FTX’s legal team has pushed back against 3AC’s claims, arguing that the losses were self-inflicted due to 3AC’s risky trading strategy. According to FTX, the liquidation of $82 million worth of 3AC’s assets in June 2022 was contractually permitted and necessary to satisfy margin requirements. FTX contends that this action actually benefited 3AC by preserving fiat value during a period of market decline.

FTX has also accused 3AC of inflating its claim and relying on flawed assumptions and misrepresented facts. The legal team has provided expert opinions and forensic reconstructions to support its position, emphasizing that the liquidation was justified and did not contribute to 3AC’s collapse. Instead, FTX argues that 3AC’s failure was the result of its own high-risk bets on rising crypto prices, which backfired during the market downturn.

The legal dispute between FTX and 3AC revolves around several key issues, including margin breaches and the liquidation of assets. 3AC’s liquidators allege that FTX’s actions were a contributing factor to the hedge fund’s collapse, while FTX counters that its liquidation was both necessary and beneficial.

To bolster its case, FTX has enlisted expert witnesses and conducted forensic reconstructions of the events leading to the liquidation. These analyses aim to demonstrate that the liquidation was carried out in accordance with contractual agreements and was not the cause of 3AC’s financial troubles. Instead, FTX argues that the hedge fund’s collapse was the inevitable result of its own trading strategy.

The legal battle between FTX and 3AC has significant implications for creditors and the broader cryptocurrency ecosystem. Both firms are embroiled in bankruptcy proceedings, and the outcome of this dispute could set important precedents for how creditor claims are handled in the crypto industry.

The Terra/LUNA collapse and its ripple effects serve as a stark reminder of the risks associated with high-leverage trading and the interconnected nature of the crypto ecosystem. As more firms face financial distress, the industry must grapple with questions about risk management, transparency, and accountability.

The ongoing legal battle between FTX and Three Arrows Capital is more than just a dispute over a $1.53 billion claim—it is a case that could reshape the way bankruptcy proceedings are conducted in the cryptocurrency industry. As hearings are scheduled for July 11 and August 12, 2025, all eyes will be on the courtroom to see how this high-stakes clash unfolds. Regardless of the outcome, the case serves as a cautionary tale about the risks and complexities of operating in the volatile world of cryptocurrency.