>

No, he means avoid. It's a legal term of art meaning to make unenforceable.
FTX is asking the funds be returned by Feb. 28. The move comes after FTX issued a request in December for fund recipients to voluntarily return the payments.

Ha. >

"Who?" - some politician >

"Oh... I already donated it, bruh. " >

With regard to payments that are not returned voluntarily, FTX said its debtors "reserve the right to commence actions before the Bankruptcy Court to require the return of such payments, with interest accruing from the date any action is commenced
Any lawyers care to weight in on the above?  Also with the total being about $50 million in over 100 separate donations, I don't see how legal costs wouldn't eat away any amount they did recover through the courts. >

Hi I am a lawyer focusing on chapter 11. It is absolutely true that a bankruptcy court can avoid these donations to politicians as long as it had evidence of the transaction. Bankruptcy courts are incredibly powerful and can avoid transactions made within 2 years of a filing when the company was otherwise insolvent. They’re considered fraudulent conveyances. >

Do you mean void?