Lawyers in Voyager Case Engaged in ‘Reckless Conduct,’ Mark Cuban Says

Mark Cuban seeks “reasonable” attorneys’ fees and costs

article-image

Mark Cuban | Joe Seer/Shutterstock modified by Blockworks

share

Lawyers representing a class-action lawsuit alleging that Mark Cuban promoted Voyager – and likened it to a Ponzi scheme – were “objectively reckless,” according to Cuban.

In a filing asking the court to pursue sanctions against the counsel of the plaintiffs in the suit, Cuban and his attorneys have asked the court to pursue Section 1927 sanctions against the counsel. 

Section 1927 sanctions can be imposed when attorney conduct “viewed objectively, manifests either intentional or reckless disregard of the attorney’s duties to the court.”

According to the document, attorneys did not correct deficiencies or “false assertions” in the lawsuit against Cuban, which included one plaintiff – Pierce Robinson – allegedly creating a Voyager account five months prior to the Mavericks and Voyager announcing their sponsorship agreement. 

Another plaintiff, Rachel Gold, did not open a Voyager account in her name, and the counsel “submitted multiple false statements in filings with the Court and continued their frivolous pursuit of Ms. Fold’s claims long after they knew she was never a Voyager account holder.” 

In return, Cuban’s counsel argues “only purchasers may bring unregistered securities claims.”

Prior to the filing of the sanctions motion, Cuban’s team had served unfiled Rule 11 motions against “misstatements and the futility of [Florida plaintiffs’] claims.”

According to Cornell Law School, Rule 11 provides “for the striking of pleadings and the imposition of disciplinary sanctions to check abuses in the signing of pleadings.”

If the judge grants the 1927 motion, then Cuban could be awarded “reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.”

Cuban’s lawyers argued that, “at a minimum,” they’re entitled to the costs “incurred after the fatal flaws of the Florida Plaintiffs’ claims became objectively apparent.”
Cuban previously claimed that the plaintiffs engaged in “transparent forum shopping and gamesmanship.”


Get the news in your inbox. Explore Blockworks newsletters:

Tags

Decoding crypto and the markets. Daily, with Byron Gilliam.

Upcoming Events

Javits Center North | 445 11th Ave

Tues - Thurs, March 24 - 26, 2026

Blockworks’ Digital Asset Summit (DAS) will feature conversations between the builders, allocators, and legislators who will shape the trajectory of the digital asset ecosystem in the US and abroad.

recent research

Research Report Templates (27).png

Research

Solana's spot trading landscape will remain bifurcated: prop AMMs will own the short-tail of highly liquid pairs, while passive AMMs continue drifting toward the long-tail. Both can win via vertical integration, but in opposite directions: passive AMMs are moving closer to users through token issuance platforms (e.g., Pump-PumpSwap, MetaDAO-Futarchy AMM), while prop AMMs are moving down the stack into transaction landing services and infrastructure (e.g., HumidiFi-Nozomi). The venues most at risk are legacy AMMs with limited end-user control and no durable, launch-driven source of order flow.

article-image

Some systems improve by failing — and crypto has no choice

article-image

Yield Basis introduces an IL-free AMM design that already dominates BTC DEX liquidity

article-image

Maybe tokenholders don’t need the rights that corporate shareholders have come to expect

article-image

As Hyperliquid and Lighter battle for perps DEX dominance, Boros could capture the structural upside

article-image

Investors are often right about the future, but wrong about the returns

article-image

A look back at 2025, reflections on our industry, and what it means for Blockworks in 2026