Connect with us

Published

on

FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried leaves US Federal Court in New York City on March 30, 2023.

Kyle Mazza | Anadolu Agency | Getty Images

FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried resumed his testimony on Monday, and used his time on the stand to blame his former close friends and colleagues for the downfall of his crypto empire.

As his criminal fraud trial enters what’s expected to be its last week, Bankman-Fried is trying to undermine the prosecution’s key witnesses, who placed the FTX founder at the center of the crypto exchange’s misuse of customer funds and its ultimate demise.

Bankman-Fried, 31, faces a potential life sentence if convicted of fraud charges stemming from the collapse in November of FTX and sister hedge fund Alameda Research. He has pleaded not guilty.

On Monday, Mark Cohen, Bankman-Fried’s lead defense attorney, allowed his client to take aim at Caroline Ellison, who ran Alameda and is also Bankman-Fried’s ex-girlfriend. The primary theme was Bankman-Fried’s concern, expressed in conversations between June and September 2022, about whether Alameda was properly hedged given the crash in crypto prices. He said he was notably concerned about the decline in Alameda’s net asset value from $40 billion the prior year to $10 billion.

The market had already dropped 70% and if it fell another 50%, he was afraid the firm would be insolvent, Bankman-Fried told the jury.

“She started crying,” Bankman-Fried said, regarding Ellison’s reaction when he told her that. “She agreed.”

Ellison, who took a plea deal and is cooperating with the government, also said Alameda shouldn’t have made some venture investments, Bankman-Fried testified. He said she offered to step down and said he told her that this wasn’t about blame or past failures, but that Alameda should urgently be putting on hedges. He said he hadn’t intended for her to resign.

In September, he checked in again with Ellison about the hedging activity, Bankman-Fried testified. She said Alameda had hedged. He asked about the scale of the trades and said his instinct was that they could have been twice the size. After Ellison sent him spreadsheets about the trades, she agreed there was more room to hedge and she did so, Bankman-Fried said.

Caroline Ellison, former chief executive officer of Alameda Research LLC, arrives to court in New York, US, on Thursday, Oct. 12, 2023.

Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Bankman-Fried’s testimony on Monday follows his initial appearance on the stand at the end of last week. He told jurors then that he didn’t commit fraud, and that he thought the crypto exchange’s outside expenditures, like paying for the naming rights at a sports arena and its venture investments, came out of company profits.

The majority of the four-week trial so far has been highlighted by prosecutors walking former leaders of Bankman-Fried’s businesses through specific actions taken by their boss that resulted in clients losing billions of dollars last year. Several of the witnesses have pleaded guilty to multiple charges and are cooperating with the government.

Bad hedging, troubled personal loans

As questioning continued on Monday, Bankman-Fried said his analysis suggested that net asset value at Alameda was still $10 billion.

The defense then walked Bankman-Fried through activities from Nov. 1 to Nov. 11, covering the period of FTX’s rapid collapse and its immediate aftermath.

Bankman-Fried said Gary Wang, a co-founder who previously testified on behalf of the prosecution, told him that the backlog of withdrawal demands had to do with a backlog of bitcoin withdrawals and that he was making a fix in the code.

FTX’s engineering director Nishad Singh, who was also called as a government witness, had a problematic personal financial situation, Bankman-Fried testified. He said Singh was suicidal and had a therapist on call 24/7 to watch over him. Bankman-Fried said he was trying to comfort him about his loans and expenses and to prevent him from hurting himself.

Bankman-Fried then blamed Can Sun, who was FTX’s general counsel. He said they had a talk before Bankman-Fried’s follow-up call with investment fund Apollo. The spreadsheet provided to Apollo did have the $8 billion liability included, Bankman-Fried said. He told the court that he spoke with Sun and told Apollo about his best understanding of the framework around the fiat account.

In describing the swift downfall of FTX, Bankman-Fried said that customer withdrawals had quickly increased from $50 million a day to $1 billion a day. He said it was like a run on the bank and he was very concerned since the only way to withdraw all customer funds was to liquidate every open margin trade.

Bankman-Fried defended his tweets that were designed to cool customer concerns.

FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried is questioned by defense lawyer Mark Cohen as he testifies in his fraud trial over the collapse of the bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange, at federal court in New York City, U.S., October 30, 2023 in this courtroom sketch. 

Jane Rosenberg | Reuters

Regarding the “assets are fine” tweet he wrote during the panic, he said he thought Alameda’s net asset value was roughly $10 billion and that FTX didn’t have a hole in its balance sheet.

“My view was the exchange was OK and there was no holes in the assets,” he told the court.

On Nov. 8, he realized that Alameda was going to need to be shut down. He had calls with potential investors to try and secure “significant” outside capital due to the run on FTX.

After the defense wrapped up its questioning of Bankman-Fried, the focus turned back to the prosecution. Renato Mariotti, a former prosecutor in the U.S. Justice Department’s Securities & Commodities Fraud Section and now a trial partner in Chicago with Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, said he expects the cross-examination to be “devastating given SBF’s frequent prior statements about the issues in the case.”

“What we’ve heard so far has been the direct examination — the defense telling its story,” Mariotti told CNBC. “There were no big twists or shockers. The defense doesn’t appear to have an ace up its sleeve.”

Following the morning break, Assistant U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon started cross-examination of the defendant.

Bankman-Fried gave a number of very brief answers to questions, frequently saying “yep” or “I don’t recall.” In answering the question as to whether Bankman-Fried had marketed FTX’s global exchange as safe compared to other exchanges, he said “I’m not sure.”

In some instances, his answers were directly followed with a government exhibit, such as a tweet, interview transcript, congressional testimony or email, intended to dispute his answer.

For example, Sassoon asked Bankman-Fried if he assured people that Alameda played by the same rules as others on the FTX exchange. Bankman-Fried said he wasn’t sure. The government followed by showing a tweet from him directly addressing the topic along with an email in which he wrote that Alameda’s account is like everyone else’s.

Another notable disclosure was around Alameda being allowed to have a negative account balance. Bankman-Fried was asked if any other users were able to pledge outside investments as collateral. He said Crypto Lotus was allowed to do it to the tune of $100 million, but that information wasn’t disclosed publicly.

Sassoon asked Bankman Fried, “Would you agree you know how to tell a good story?”

He replied, “I don’t know. It depends on what metrics you use.”

Sasoon then got into the stories he told investors to raise more than $1 billion, including telling them about how FTX used automated liquidation protocols that set it apart.

Sasoon also brought up Bankman-Fried’s past profane comments about regulators. She referenced the direct messages that were published by Vox in mid-November. In one case, the reporter mentioned to Bankman-Fried that he’s said in the past he wanted to make good regulations, and asked if that was just public relations. His text response was, “Yeah, Just PR,” followed by “F— regulators.”

Bankman-Fried was asked to read that last part out loud to the court. And he admitted to referring to a subset of crypto twitter as “dumb motherf——.”

If you are having suicidal thoughts or are in distress, contact the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988 for support and assistance from a trained counselor.

— CNBC’s Dawn Giel contributed to this report

WATCH: Sam Bankman-Fried testifying in his criminal case

Sam Bankman-Fried set to testify at fraud trial in what experts deem a major gamble for the case

Continue Reading

Environment

Why merger mania is coming to the fore in the mining industry

Published

on

By

Why merger mania is coming to the fore in the mining industry

The Rio Tinto Group logo atop Central Park tower, which houses the company’s offices, in Perth, Australia, on Friday, Jan. 17, 2025.

Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

The mining sector appears poised for a frantic year of dealmaking, following market speculation over a potential tie-up between industry giants Rio Tinto and Glencore.

It comes after Bloomberg News reported Thursday that British-Australian multinational Rio Tinto and Switzerland-based Glencore were in early-stage merger talks, although it was not clear whether the discussions were still live.

Separately, Reuters reported Friday that Glencore approached Rio Tinto late last year about the possibility of combining their businesses, citing a source familiar with the matter. The talks, which were said to be brief, were thought to be no longer active, the news agency reported.

Rio Tinto and Glencore both declined to comment when contacted by CNBC.

A prospective merger between Rio Tinto, the world’s second-largest miner, and Glencore, one of world’s largest coal companies, would rank as the mining industry’s largest-ever deal.

Combined, the two firms would have a market value of approximately $150 billion, leapfrogging longstanding industry leader BHP, which is worth about $127 billion.

Analysts were broadly skeptical about the merits of a Rio Tinto-Glencore merger, pointing to limited synergies, Rio Tinto’s complex dual structure and strategic divergences over coal and corporate culture as factors that pose a challenge for concluding a deal.

“I think everyone’s a bit surprised,” Maxime Kogge, equity analyst at Oddo BHF, told CNBC via telephone.

“Honestly, they have limited overlapping assets. It’s only copper where there is really some synergies and opportunity to add assets to make a bigger group,” Kogge said.

Global mining giants have been mulling the benefits of mega-mergers to shore up their position in the energy transition, particularly with demand for metals such as copper expected to skyrocket over the coming years.

A highly conductive metal, copper is projected to face shortages due to its use in powering electric vehicles, wind turbines, solar panels and energy storage systems, among other applications.

Oddo BHF’s Kogge said it is currently “really tricky” for large mining firms to bring new projects online, citing Rio Tinto’s long-delayed and controversial Resolution copper mine in the U.S. as one example.

“It’s a very promising copper project, it could be one of the largest in the world, but it is fraught with issues and somehow acquiring another company is a way to really accelerate the expansion into copper,” Kogge said.

“For me, a deal is not so attractive,” he added. “It goes against what all these groups have previously tried to do.”

What's behind the looming copper shortage

Last year, BHP made a $49 billion bid for smaller rival Anglo American, a proposal which ultimately failed due to issues with the deal’s structure.

Some analysts, including those at JPMorgan, expect another unsolicited offer for Anglo American to materialize in 2025.

M&A parlor games

The company logo adorns the side of the BHP gobal headquarters in Melbourne on February 21, 2023. – The Australian multinational, a leading producer of metallurgical coal, iron ore, nickel, copper and potash, said net profit slumped 32 percent year-on-year to 6.46 billion US dollars in the six months to December 31. (Photo by William WEST / AFP) (Photo by WILLIAM WEST/AFP via Getty Images)

William West | Afp | Getty Images

Analysts led by Ben Davis at RBC Capital Markets said it remains unclear whether talks between Rio Tinto and Glencore could result in a simple merger or require the breakup of certain parts of each company instead.

Regardless, they said the M&A parlor games that arose following merger talks between BHP and Anglo American will undoubtedly “start up again in earnest.”

“Despite Glencore once approaching Rio Tinto’s key shareholder Chinalco in July 2014 for a potential merger, it still comes as a surprise,” analysts at RBC Capital Markets said in a research note published Thursday.

BHP’s move to acquire Anglo American may have catalyzed talks between Rio Tinto and Glencore, the analysts said, with the former potentially looking to gain more copper exposure and the latter seeking an exit strategy for its large shareholders.

“We would not expect a straight merger to happen as we believe Rio shareholders would see it as favouring Glencore, but [it’s] possible there is a deal structure out there that could keep both sets of shareholders and management happy,” they added.

Copper, coal and culture

Analysts led by Wen Li at CreditSights said speculation over a Rio Tinto-Glencore merger raises questions about strategic alignment and corporate culture.

“Strategically, Rio Tinto might be interested in Glencore’s copper assets, aligning with its focus on sustainable, future-facing metals. Additionally, Glencore’s marketing business could offer synergies and expand Rio Tinto’s reach,” analysts at CreditSights said in a research note published Friday.

“However, Rio Tinto’s lack of interest in coal assets, due to recent divestments, suggests any merger would need careful structuring to avoid unwanted asset overlaps,” they added.

A mining truck carries a full load of coal at Glencore Plc operated Tweefontein coal mine on October 16, 2024 in Tweefontein, Mpumalanga Province, South Africa.

Per-anders Pettersson | Getty Images News | Getty Images

From a cultural perspective, analysts at CreditSights said Rio Tinto was known for its conservative approach and focus on stability, whereas Glencore had garnered a reputation for “constantly pushing the envelope in its operations.”

“This cultural divide might pose challenges in integration and decision-making if a merger were to proceed,” analysts at CreditSights said.

“If this materializes, it could have broader implications for mega deals in the metals [and] mining space, potentially putting BHP/Anglo American back in play,” they added.

— CNBC’s Ganesh Rao contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Environment

Go West, young brand – GreenPower Motor Company sells 11 more BEAST buses

Published

on

By

Go West, young brand – GreenPower Motor Company sells 11 more BEAST buses

GreenPower Motor Company says it’s received three orders for 11 of its BEAST electric Type D school buses for western state school districts in Arizona, California, and Oregon.

GreenPower hasn’t made the sort of headline-grabbing promises or big-money commitments that companies like Nikola and Lion Electric have, but while those companies are floundering GPM seems to be plugging away, taking orders where it can and actually delivering buses to schools. Late last year, the company scored 11 more orders for its flagship BEAST electric school bus.

As far as these latest orders go, the breakdown is:

  • seven to Los Banos Unified School District in Los Banos, California
  • two for the Hood River County School District in Hood River, Oregon
  • two for the Casa Grande Elementary School District in Casa Grande, Arizona

Those two BEAST electric school buses for Arizona will join another 90-passenger BEAST that was delivered to Phoenix Elementary School District #1, which operates 15 schools in the center of Phoenix, late last year.

“As school districts continue to make the change from NOx emitting diesel school buses to a cleaner, healthier means of transporting students, school district transportation departments are pursuing the gold standard of the industry – the GreenPower all-electric, purpose-built (BEAST) school buses,” said Paul Start, GreenPower’s Vice President of Sales, School Bus Group. “(The) GreenPower school bus order pipeline and production schedule are both at record levels with sales projections for (2025) set to eclipse the 2024 calendar year.”

GreenPower moved into an 80,000-square-foot production facility in South Charleston, West Virigina in August 2022, and delivered its first buses to that state the following year.

Electrek’s Take

GreenPower electric school buses
BEAST and NanoBEAST; via GreenPower Motor Company.

Since the first horseless carriage companies started operating 100 years ago (give or take), at least 1,900 different companies have been formed in the US, producing over 3,000 brands of American automobiles. By the mid 1980s, that had distilled down to “the big 3.”

All of which is to say: don’t let the recent round of bankruptcies fool you – startups in the car and truck industry is business as usual, but some of these companies will stick around. If you’re wondering which ones, look to the ones that are making units, not promises.

SOURCE | IMAGES: GreenPower Motors.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Harbinger electric truck brand gets real with $100M Series B funding raise

Published

on

By

Harbinger electric truck brand gets real with 0M Series B funding raise

While some recent high-profile bankruptcies have cast doubt on the EV startup space recently, medium-duty electric truck maker Harbinger got a shot of credibility this week with a massive $100 million Series B funding round co-led by Capricorn’s Technology Impact Fund.

It’s been a rough couple of weeks for fledgling EV brands like Lion Electric and Canoo, but box van builder Harbinger is bucking the trend, fueling its latest funding round with an order book of 4,690 vehicles that’s valued at nearly $500 million. Some of the company’s more notable customers including Bimbo Bakeries (which owns brands like Sara Lee, Thomas’, and Entenmann’s) and THOR Industries (Airstream, Jayco, Thor), which is also one of the investors in the Series B.

Other prominent investors include Tiger Global, the Coca-Cola System Sustainability Fund, and ArcTern Ventures.

As for what makes Harbinger such an attractive investment prospect, Dipender Saluja, Managing Partner of Capricorn Investment Group’s Technology Impact Fund explains that, “Harbinger has demonstrated a remarkable ability to reach significant milestones far quicker than other EV companies … the market has been impressed by their ability to develop large portions of the vehicle in-house to drive down unit costs, while remaining capital efficient.”

The company plans to use the funds to ramp up to higher-volume production capacity and deliver on existing orders, as well as build-out of the company’s sales, customer support, and service operations.

“Harbinger is entering a rapid growth phase where we are focused on scaling production of our customer-ready platform,” said John Harris, co-founder and CEO. “These funds catalyze significant revenue generation. We’ve developed a vehicle for a segment that is ripe for electrification, and there is a strong product/market fit that will help fuel our upward trajectory through 2025 and beyond.”

The company has raised $200 million since its inception in 2021.

SOURCE | IMAGES: Harbinger.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending