BitBoy’s Legal Battle Hinges on Scrutiny of Moral Clauses
In a recent interview, crypto lawyer Harrison Dell discussed the ongoing legal battle between Ben Armstrong, formerly known as BitBoy, and BJ Investment Holdings. Armstrong took legal action against the parent company of HIT Network after being removed from the BitBoy brand. The situation has sparked speculation online.
HIT Network claimed that Armstrong was dropped due to substance abuse and manipulative behavior. In response, Armstrong pleaded on social media for funds to support his legal battle, alleging that the media company had drained his finances.
However, HIT Network denied these allegations and called them false. Dell believes that the company may have the authority to terminate Armstrong based on moral issues but acknowledges that this remains a gray area.
Dell Suggests Moral Clauses Likely Included in Contract
Dell suggests that strong moral clauses likely exist within Armstrong’s contract due to the nature of his business. He also hints at additional shareholder agreements that may grant rights to terminate directors who breach certain clauses related to morals or behavior.
On August 28, rumors circulated after Armstrong’s removal from BitBoy was announced by Around The Blockchain. Armstrong has faced controversies in recent times, including allegations of harassment in a court case involving attorney Adam Moskowitz.
Hot Take: Gray Areas in Crypto Legal Battles
The legal battle between Ben Armstrong and BJ Investment Holdings highlights the challenges of navigating moral clauses in contracts within the crypto industry. While companies may have grounds to terminate individuals based on behavior, there is still uncertainty surrounding such actions. This case serves as a reminder that maintaining a positive personal brand is crucial for businesses in the crypto space. Moving forward, it will be interesting to see how courts interpret moral clauses and their impact on individuals within the industry.
By
By
By
By
By