TLDR
- Sam Bankman-Fried claims FTX had a $16.5B surplus at the time of its 2022 bankruptcy filing.
- SBF’s Rule 33 motion argues customer assets were recoverable, not lost to insolvency.
- The estate plans to pay over 118% of customer claims based on 2022 market values.
- Legal experts say fraud charges are based on conduct not on post-bankruptcy recovery.
Sam Bankman-Fried has filed a motion requesting a new trial, arguing that FTX was not insolvent when it filed for bankruptcy in November 2022. The motion claims the exchange had a $16.5 billion net asset value at the time, challenging the previous courtroom narrative of fraud and misappropriation.
🚨 EXCLUSIVE: SBF SEEKS NEW TRIAL, CLAIMS DOJ SILENCED DEFENSE WITNESSES AND MISLED JURY ON FTX SOLVENCY
Sam Bankman-Fried has filed a Rule 33 motion for a new trial alleging that the jury never heard critical evidence, including sworn declarations claiming FTX was solvent… https://t.co/5fQ3ai4OH2 pic.twitter.com/ggCkYwcIkW
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) February 10, 2026
The Rule 33 motion filed on February 10 states that new evidence and omitted testimonies could have changed the outcome of the trial. It also claims that the prosecution misrepresented FTX’s financial status, asserting that the company had more assets than liabilities at the time of collapse.
FTX Solvency Figures and Bankruptcy Valuation
According to court documents, SBF argues that FTX’s asset base was undervalued during trial. He cites data showing a net surplus of $16.5 billion in assets as of November 11, 2022. This includes stakes in firms such as Anthropic, which gained value after the bankruptcy date.
However, under U.S. bankruptcy law, customer claims are calculated based on the value of assets on the petition date, not based on later appreciation. Many users deposited assets like Bitcoin when prices were higher, but their claims are now valued at the lower 2022 levels. A user who deposited one Bitcoin does not receive one Bitcoin in return but its 2022 dollar equivalent.
Reuters has reported that the FTX estate plans to pay at least 118% of the dollar value of claims. But this percentage is based on petition-date pricing, not current market rates. Critics argue that the repayment in dollars does not fully restore what customers expected—especially for those who believed they were holding crypto, not its dollar equivalent.
Three Dimensions of Solvency in Question
Bankman-Fried’s defense focuses on accounting solvency, showing that the exchange’s assets exceeded its liabilities on paper. But legal analysts point out that solvency in crypto also depends on liquidity and governance.
Liquidity solvency considers if the firm had enough on-chain assets to meet withdrawals. In FTX’s case, over $5 billion in withdrawal requests overwhelmed available funds in just two days. The estate’s illiquid holdings, while valuable, could not meet those demands in real time.
Governance solvency examines how the exchange handled client funds and conflicts of interest. The trial evidence showed that Alameda Research had broad access to FTX customer funds, and internal controls were minimal. These governance issues remain central to the fraud case.
Fraud Law Focuses on Conduct Not Final Recovery
SBF’s legal team argues that because users may be repaid, the trial’s fraud narrative is weakened. But legal experts note that repayment does not remove criminal liability. Fraud is judged by what was promised to users and how funds were handled, not whether users are eventually made whole.
The government’s case showed customer deposits were used as collateral for Alameda’s trading activities, and customers were told their funds were segregated. Misrepresentation and failure to follow risk controls form the basis of the charges.
Even if later recoveries cover customer claims, this does not change what the company told users or how funds were managed. As one part of the court filing noted, “The estate’s current balance sheet does not rewrite the past conduct under scrutiny.”
