Crypto lawyer Harrison Dell discusses the unfolding events surrounding Ben Armstrong, the former face of “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.”
However, Hit Network issued a 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, founder of Cadena Legal, 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 stresses that Armstrong maintains ownership of the company, albeit with revoked directorial powers.
“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 holds the belief that, given the nature of the business, strong moral clauses likely exist within the contracts.
He hints at potential additional shareholder agreements related to the defendants’ 33% ownership. 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.”
On August 28, rumors started circling the crypto industry after well-known crypto personalities shared a statement from Around The Blockchain on social media that Armstrong had been removed from BitBoy:
“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. The court date was in relation to allegations of harassment against 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.
Disclaimer
In adherence to the Trust Project guidelines, BeInCrypto is committed to unbiased, transparent reporting. This news article aims to provide accurate, timely information. However, readers are advised to verify facts independently and consult with a professional before making any decisions based on this content. Please note that our Terms and Conditions, Privacy Policy, and Disclaimers have been updated.
