Crypto lawyer Harrison Dell discusses the unfolding events surrounding Ben Armstrong, also known as “BitBoy,” suing BJ Investment Holdings for his removal from the BitBoy brand in an interview with BeInCrypto.
Dell firmly declares that the situation is a “gray area.”
BitBoy’s Legal Battle Hinges on Scrutiny of Moral Clauses
Ben Armstrong, the former face of BitBoy, took legal action against BJ Investment Holdings, the parent company of Hit Network, due to his removal from the BitBoy brand. The situation has given rise to considerable online speculation.
Hit Network claimed it dropped Armstrong because of substance abuse and manipulative behavior.
This situation escalated even more when Armstrong pleaded on X (formerly Twitter), urging his followers to provide him with funds to support his legal battle. He alleged that the media company had drained all his money, leaving him unable to mount a defense:
“I’m humbly asking anyone who has ever benefitted from my content or anything I’ve done to help donate to my legal fund to get BitBoy Crypto back.”
Hit Network issued a separate statement in response to the allegations, asserting that the claims are unfounded:
“The recent statements made by Armstrong towards myself, the company and many others are false and/or outright lies!”
Crypto lawyer Harrison Dell suggests that the company may possess the authority to terminate Armstrong on grounds of moral issues. However, he believes any termination based on “this kind of behavior” remains a gray area.
He emphasizes that Armstrong still retains ownership of the company, but his directorial powers have been revoked.
“The complaint shows that BitBoy still owns 67% of BJIH. He has lost control as a director/controller only. The defense will likely rely on a morals or behavior clause in an agreement, as BitBoy’s alleged behavior appears to be the cause of the legal issues here.”
Dell Suggests Moral Clauses Likely Included in Contract
Dell believes there is a very strong likelihood given the nature of the business, that there were strong moral clauses in the contracts.
He adds there may also be additional shareholder agreements between the parties around the 33% owned by the defendants. He explains these may include additional rights to terminate directors who breach clauses. This includes morals clauses, behavior clauses, or anything custom designed for BitBoy.
“It’s very likely there were strong moral clauses here as BitBoy needs to maintain a positive personal brand or the business will suffer. Clearly, it has in recent months.”
Read more: Crypto Influencer Marketing: The Ultimate Guide to Getting Started
On August 28, rumors started circling the crypto industry after well-known crypto personalities shared a statement on social media that Armstrong had been removed from the brand. The statement was issued by Around The Blockchain and stated that Armstrong would immediately be removed from the brand:
“Effective immediately, Ben Armstrong will no longer be working with Hit Network/BJ Holdings and all subsidiary brands including but not limited to BitBoy Crypto and Around The Blockchain.”
Armstrong has found himself embroiled in controversies in recent times.
On April 20, Armstrong failed to appear for his court hearing. He was supposed to attend court due to allegations of harassing attorney Adam Moskowitz. Moskowitz represents a group of investors suing several influencers for promoting the now-defunct crypto exchange FTX. Armstrong is one of the defendants in the case.
The post Crypto Lawyer Labels BitBoy Legal Controversy as a ‘Gray Area’ appeared first on BeInCrypto.