Key Highlights

  • A Florida federal judge tossed the case in December 2025, ruling investors had not established sufficient jurisdictional ties to Florida; the Eleventh Circuit appeal also challenges his refusal to transfer the case to Texas.

  • Cuban and the Mavericks were the last remaining defendants after Rob Gronkowski, Victor Oladipo, and Landon Cassill settled for a combined $2.4 million in 2024.

  • The original 2022 lawsuit alleged Cuban and the team solicited investments in unregistered securities on Voyager's platform before the brokerage collapsed and froze customer funds.

Investors who lost money when Voyager Digital collapsed in 2022 brought their case against Mark Cuban and the Dallas Mavericks to the Eleventh Circuit, filing a notice of appeal on June 23 that challenges a December 2025 ruling throwing out their claims. The appeal also contests the judge's earlier refusal to move the case to Texas.

U.S. District Judge Altman dismissed the lawsuit at the end of last year after finding that investors had not shown their allegations against Cuban bore a sufficient connection to Florida to support jurisdiction there. The court dismissed all claims of securities violations and consumer fraud in their entirety.

The lawsuit, originally filed in 2022, accused Cuban and the Mavericks of promoting Voyager's platform and encouraging users to buy into what plaintiffs argued were unregistered securities. When Voyager folded that summer, customers found billions in assets frozen. Other celebrity defendants, including retired NFL star Rob Gronkowski, NBA player Victor Oladipo, and NASCAR driver Landon Cassill, had already settled for a combined $2.4 million in 2024, leaving Cuban and the team as the sole holdouts.

The Eleventh Circuit appeal keeps the litigation alive. If the circuit court sides with investors, the case could be reinstated in Florida or transferred to Texas, where the Mavericks are based. Cuban's legal team had successfully argued at the district level that his Florida residences were not sufficient grounds for the court to exercise jurisdiction.