Power Struggle Erupts at Ondo Finance in 3 Delaware Filings
Three filings submitted to the Delaware Court of Chancery this week reveal a corporate control dispute at tokenized real-world asset issuer Ondo Finance, following the death of founder Nathan Allman earlier this year. Kathleen Allman, acting as personal representative of her son's estate, filed the lawsuit against current CEO Ian De Bode, alleging he improperly seized control of the company while probate proceedings left its controlling voting stake in limbo. The filings ask the court to determine who lawfully controls Ondo and to bar extraordinary corporate actions until the dispute is resolved.
Why the Ondo Finance Power Struggle Escalated
The estate alleges that before probate concluded, De Bode wrongly claimed he automatically became CEO under Ondo's bylaws, elected himself as the company's sole director through a voting agreement, and began taking corporate actions including hiring advisors, approving performance grants, and attempting to add another director. The complaint argues Ondo's bylaws required board action to fill the CEO vacancy, making those steps invalid. The public filings redact both the size of Allman's voting stake and the cause of his death, which Ondo has not disclosed.
How the Estate's Fight for Control at Ondo Finance Unfolded
According to the filings, Kathleen Allman initially sought a cooperative transition after gaining authority to vote the estate's shares, rather than immediately moving to remove De Bode. Only after those efforts stalled did the estate reconstitute Ondo's board and vote to remove him, prompting the current litigation.
What the Ondo Finance Governance Dispute Means Going Forward
Ondo built its business around tokenizing US Treasuries and other institutional financial products, with its OUSG product surpassing $827 million in value by late 2025.
Prolonged governance uncertainty at a major tokenization platform could unsettle institutional partners weighing exposure to Ondo's products.
The Delaware court's ruling on lawful control will likely shape how other crypto firms structure succession plans following a founder's unexpected death.
Legal observers note the case highlights gaps between traditional corporate bylaws and the realities of founder-led crypto companies, where concentrated voting control can complicate leadership transitions.