FTX MDL service motion sets Oct. 7 response deadline

A Sept. 23 motion in the FTX multidistrict litigation asks for more time to serve process, with responses due Oct. 7.

Responses are due October 7.

The case moved there from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where it originated May 13 under Case No. 1:26-cv-01651-RJL. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the transfer August 6; it took effect August 7. Plaintiffs say the administrative gap that followed is what drove the late filing: they didn’t receive an MDL bar number until August 11 and had not yet obtained login credentials for the Southern District of Florida’s electronic docket. When they filed the extension motion on August 11, they filed it in the wrong docket — the Judicial Panel’s, not the receiving court’s. The September 23 filing is asking the court to accept the late submission and extend the service deadline under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) and 4(m).

That’s the plaintiffs’ account. Defendants’ counsel, Wesley Sze, took no position on the requested relief during a July 1 conference and an unsuccessful attempt to confer on August 10, according to the motion.

The parties named in connection with the service extension include Loods B.V., J. Bell, Justin Berk, Kent Byers, K. David, P. Devin, Drake HK, Yang How, S. James, Edward Johns, S. Jong, Junhao, Nickle Lee, Lucky D, Morebet Limited, Jong R.D., S. Roberts, Khoo Wing, and L. Zhao. Anthony Wayne Hood II, through INFINITE ESTATE PLANNING LLC, is listed as counsel of record for plaintiffs in the Byers action.

Fenwick & West agreed to pay $54 million to settle a federal class-action lawsuit filed by former FTX customers in the Southern District of Florida, but U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore hasn’t given final approval yet, according to Newscord’s report.

The settlement stems from allegations that Fenwick helped design strategies allowing FTX to commingle customer funds with Alameda Research’s money. Plaintiffs described the firm as having “facilitated FTX’s fraud” and playing “a key and crucial role in the most important aspects of why and how the FTX fraud was accomplished.” Fenwick disputes that characterization. The firm said it “was not aware of the fraud at FTX, stands by the integrity of its legal work, and disputes wrongdoing of any kind.” No admission of wrongdoing is part of the deal.

Once Judge Moore grants initial approval, Fenwick has 120 days to deposit the $54 million into escrow. That timetable hasn’t started yet.

Adding the two disclosed professional-firm resolutions together — $54 million from Fenwick & West and approximately $11.75 million from Prager Metis — produces a rough figure of $65.75 million. That arithmetic reflects separate settlements, not a confirmed distribution amount. The FTX Recovery Trust already distributed $2.2 billion to damaged parties in March, with another tranche that was scheduled for May 29; the filing materials provided here do not establish whether that tranche occurred. The Fenwick payment sits alongside that existing process, dependent on approval and the escrow schedule before a dollar moves.

Fenwick’s FTX exposure doesn’t end with the settlement, either. The firm is separately named in a lawsuit filed in May 2026 in a Washington, D.C., federal court by roughly 20 individual FTX victims.

One additional docket item: PACER logged address and email change requests for attorney Timothy Andrew Kolaya. That activity doesn’t signal a ruling on the extension motion, settlement approval, or liability.

October 7 is the next concrete date — responses to the Byers service motion due. Final approval of the Fenwick settlement and the start of the 120-day escrow window remain open.