The sudden death of Ondo Finance founder Nathan Allman has triggered an escalating governance dispute that now threatens to overshadow one of the fastest-growing companies in the tokenized real-world asset (RWA) sector. Court filings in Delaware reveal a bitter legal battle between Allman’s estate and current CEO Ian De Bode over who has the legal authority to control the company following the founder’s passing.
While Ondo continues operating and maintains support from key investors, the dispute introduces significant uncertainty at a time when the company has emerged as one of the leading issuers of tokenized financial products. The case also highlights the governance risks that can arise when founder-led crypto companies lack clearly tested succession mechanisms.
Power Struggle Erupts at Ondo Finance After Founder’s Death
Legal dispute centers on control after founder’s passing
According to filings submitted to the Delaware Court of Chancery, Nathan Allman died in May while serving simultaneously as Ondo Finance’s CEO, sole director, and controlling shareholder. Because his voting power became part of his estate, it could not immediately be exercised until probate proceedings concluded in Hawaii.
The estate argues that this temporary governance gap became the catalyst for the current conflict. Kathleen Allman, Nathan Allman’s mother, was formally appointed personal representative of the estate on June 26, giving her authority to exercise the voting rights attached to the founder’s shares.
The lawsuit alleges that before probate was completed, Ian De Bode improperly claimed he automatically became CEO under the company’s bylaws. The estate further contends that De Bode used a voting agreement to appoint himself as Ondo’s sole director before taking several major corporate actions, including approving equity compensation, hiring advisers, and attempting to expand the board.
According to the complaint, these actions were invalid because the company’s bylaws required board approval—not automatic succession—to fill the CEO position.
Estate says it initially sought cooperation
Rather than immediately seeking to replace the existing leadership, Kathleen Allman reportedly attempted to work alongside De Bode after gaining authority over the estate’s voting shares.
Court filings state that she appointed herself to the board, adopted an interim policy allowing ordinary business operations to continue, reaffirmed De Bode as president, and requested access to basic corporate information such as shareholder records.
The estate claims those efforts failed after De Bode and the company’s outside legal counsel allegedly refused to recognize her authority or provide the requested documentation.
According to the filings, Kathleen Allman subsequently expanded the board and convened a meeting on July 24, where directors voted to remove De Bode from all company positions. She was then appointed interim chair and interim CEO while the board begins searching for a permanent successor.
The estate argues that its objective is not to permanently control Ondo Finance but to stabilize corporate governance during the leadership transition and ensure normal business operations continue without disruption.
Ondo CEO rejects allegations
De Bode has firmly rejected the estate’s claims, describing the lawsuit as harmful to the company and its broader ecosystem.
In comments provided to CoinDesk, De Bode said the legal action was “regretful” and argued that the allegations lacked merit.
He also maintained that Ondo Finance continues to receive backing from its board, lead investors, and the Ondo Foundation, adding that the leadership team remains committed to executing Nathan Allman’s long-term vision for expanding on-chain financial markets.
Separately, Ondo’s board emphasized that the company remains focused on serving customers and supporting ongoing business operations while searching for a permanent successor to its late founder.
Court decision could shape company governance
The estate has requested an expedited ruling from the Delaware Court of Chancery, arguing that uncertainty over corporate authority could affect numerous business decisions.
According to the filings, unresolved questions surrounding company control could influence contracts, spending approvals, equity issuances, and other significant corporate actions if competing leadership groups continue asserting authority.
For now, however, the court has not ruled on the allegations, and the claims presented represent only the estate’s version of events.
The eventual outcome may establish not only who governs Ondo Finance but also how Delaware courts interpret succession disputes involving crypto companies whose founders simultaneously hold executive, board, and controlling shareholder roles.
A critical moment for a leading RWA platform
The legal dispute comes during a period of rapid growth for Ondo Finance.
Founded in 2021, the company has become one of the largest tokenized real-world asset platforms, offering products such as USDY and OUSG while expanding tokenized access to traditional financial instruments. Under Nathan Allman’s leadership, Ondo reportedly grew to manage approximately $3.5 billion in tokenized RWA products.
More recently, the company announced initiatives to tokenize U.S. securities, including products linked to Micron stock and BlackRock’s iShares Core S&P 500 ETF through partnerships with Broadridge and Oasis Pro. It has also worked with regulators, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, on compliance frameworks for tokenized securities.
Those developments have positioned Ondo as one of the industry’s most prominent bridges between traditional finance and blockchain infrastructure, making the current governance dispute especially significant for institutional participants monitoring the sector.
Market watches governance risks
Although Ondo Finance has stated that operations continue normally, the leadership dispute has attracted attention across the crypto market.
Some market observers have pointed to increased token transfers to exchanges and heightened selling activity following news of the lawsuit, suggesting investors are reassessing governance risk alongside the project’s long-term fundamentals. Reports also noted that ONDO experienced notable price volatility in the days after details of the legal battle became public.
ONDO Price Performance (Source: CoinMarketCap)
Whether the dispute remains an isolated corporate governance issue or evolves into a prolonged legal confrontation could prove important for investor confidence. For a company widely viewed as a leader in bringing traditional financial assets on-chain, restoring governance clarity may become just as important as continuing product innovation.
