Galaxy Digital and BitGo are back in a Delaware courtroom over one of crypto’s biggest collapsed acquisitions, with BitGo pursuing at least $100 million tied to a reverse break fee from their failed $1.2 billion merger.
The deal was announced during the 2021 bull market, when Galaxy wanted to fold BitGo’s custody, wallet and institutional security business into a larger digital-asset financial platform. By August 2022, the transaction was dead. Galaxy said it had the right to terminate after BitGo failed to deliver audited 2021 financial statements by the July 31 deadline in a form that complied with the merger agreement, and said no termination fee was payable.
BitGo has fought that position since the deal collapsed. The custodian argues Galaxy wrongfully walked away from the transaction and now owes the reverse break fee, or damages tied to the failed acquisition.
The case gained new life after the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of BitGo’s lawsuit in May 2024. The court found the merger agreement’s definition of the required audited financial statements was ambiguous enough to require further proceedings rather than ending the dispute at the pleading stage.
Regulatory-Probe Claim Adds New Pressure
The latest courtroom fight is not only about accounting deadlines. BitGo now argues that Galaxy failed to use reasonable efforts to close the deal and hid details of U.S. regulatory probes that could have affected the merger’s approval path. Galaxy has denied that framing, with Mike Novogratz disputing in court that the probes affected the approval process or involved Galaxy directly.
That allegation is sensitive because the original transaction also depended on Galaxy’s broader public-listing plan and regulatory approval path. If BitGo convinces the court that Galaxy’s conduct, rather than BitGo’s financial statements, caused the deal to fail, the $100 million reverse break fee becomes a much harder issue for Galaxy to avoid.
Galaxy’s defense remains anchored in the 2022 termination notice. The company said BitGo missed a contractual deadline for audited financial statements that met the agreement’s requirements. BitGo says it delivered what was required and that Galaxy used the issue as an exit route after crypto markets deteriorated.
Custody Deals Still Matter Across Crypto
The dispute lands as institutional custody has become more valuable, not less. Recent market moves show banks, ETF issuers and asset managers pulling custody deeper into regulated infrastructure. Standard Chartered’s reported plan to bring Zodia Custody closer to its core banking business reflects that shift, while 21Shares expanding BitGo custody and staking support shows why regulated custody providers remain central to institutional crypto products.
Galaxy and BitGo also still appear across market plumbing even after the failed merger. Recent onchain flow coverage showed Galaxy Digital OTC and BitGo addresses drawing attention in a large AAVE transfer, underscoring how both names continue to sit inside custody, settlement and institutional execution routes.
The Delaware case now turns on contract language, deal conduct and what the court accepts about each side’s role in the collapse. A BitGo win would reinforce the force of reverse break fees in crypto M&A, especially when buyers try to exit during market stress. A Galaxy win would strengthen the argument that audited-statement obligations and SEC-linked listing requirements can create a valid exit path when a deal depends on regulatory clearance.
The decision will matter beyond one abandoned transaction. Crypto firms are again pursuing custody, banking and infrastructure deals under heavier supervision than in 2021. The Galaxy-BitGo fight gives future buyers and sellers a clear warning: in large crypto M&A, financial-statement wording, regulatory disclosures and termination-fee mechanics can become the whole deal after the market turns.
Be the first to comment