No inside knowledge, but as the article states they received a rather large grant from FTXFF, plus other funding from FTX and/or Alameda going back several years. Much, up to potentially all, of that could have to be repaid depending on the facts and outcome of litigation. I think it likely the clawback risk is significant enough that the risk constitutes a serious incident under the UK charity rules. None of that relies on new information.

In other words, I don't think the fact of the report itself provides any useful information.

However, it is worth noting that RP and OP have released statements characterizing their FTX clawback exposure (or lack thereof for OP). Unless CEA can provide some clarity, I'd assume the worst-case scenario for CEA would be very, very bad.

One would need to see updated financials and a history of all FTX/Alameda contributions to assess whether insolvency could result from the worst-case scenario. Do they have enough unrestricted assets to cover the worst-case outcome?

Personally: I generally would not donate to an organization with potentially catastrophic FTX risk unless the organization had convinced me the risk didn't exist (or was sufficiently small to disregard), or that my donations were legally restricted in a way that protected them from creditors in the event of an insolvency.

Hi! Thanks for asking. (And sorry for the slow response — trying not to work too much over the weekend...)

As per the Commission’s guidance, we’re supposed to file such a report in cases where we expect a reputational or financial impact from events. This is one of those cases, and we expect there might be an ongoing conversation with the Charity Commission as a result.

Just to support Shakeel on this - filing a report with the Commission doesn't necessarily imply a risk of insolvency. To quote the Commission:

"What is a serious incident?

A serious incident is an adverse event, whether actual or alleged, which results in or risks significant:

• harm to your charity’s beneficiaries, staff, volunteers or others who come into contact with your charity through its work (who are collectively referred to throughout this guidance as people who come into contact with your charity through its work)
• loss of your charity’s money or assets
• damage to your charity’s property
• harm to your charity’s work or reputation

For the purposes of this guidance, “significant” means significant in the context of your charity, taking account of its staff, operations, finances and/or reputation."

In my experience (~15 years on charitable trustee Boards or running charities, most of it in the UK), the FTX scandal would clearly qualify as a serious incident, with or without a risk of CEA becoming insolvent. There are clearly risks that fraud may have taken place which could harm people in contact with CEA; that significant reputational damage may occur or has occurred already etc..

Obviously I'm not in a position to rule out serious financial damage, but there are clearly conceivable reasons to submit this report even if CEA is in rude financial health.