A high-stakes lawsuit targeting the billion-dollar financial technology company Array has ultimately been dismissed, bringing an end to a protracted and closely watched legal battle. The suit had been initiated by Jason Owen, one of the firm’s early employees and its former chief strategy officer, who claimed that the startup and its chief executive, Martin Toha, had failed to honor a promised compensation arrangement. Owen asserted that he was entitled to an equity stake valued at as much as $70 million, arguing that this commitment had been made during Array’s formative stages. The court’s ruling, however, rejected these claims in their entirety, marking a decisive victory for the company and its leadership.
The dispute originated in 2022 when Owen formally brought legal action against both Array and Toha, alleging that he had been unjustly dismissed after voicing concerns about business practices he believed to be unethical. Array, for its part, categorically denied both that any equity agreement existed and that Owen’s termination had been retaliatory. After roughly three years of legal maneuvering, depositions, and pretrial hearings, the matter advanced to trial before a New York State business court. The proceedings featured testimony not only from Owen and Toha but also from several individuals familiar with the company’s early operations and internal culture. Yet, according to Justice Joel Cohen, who presided over the case, none of the witnesses presented a coherent or sufficiently detailed account capable of substantiating Owen’s central allegations.
In his closing remarks on October 17—statements preserved in the official trial transcript—Justice Cohen emphasized that professionals with the experience and sophistication of both Mr. Toha and Mr. Owen would reasonably understand that ownership stakes worth tens of millions of dollars are not typically conferred through informal exchanges or verbal assurances. Rather, such arrangements, the judge noted, customarily require written documentation, board approval, and formal corporate procedures to ensure legal enforceability.
Array, the company at the heart of the case, operates in the burgeoning fintech sector, developing technology that enables banks and credit unions to provide services such as credit score tracking, identity protection, and digital financial management tools. By allowing financial institutions to offer these services to their customers, Array aims to enhance user trust and strengthen brand loyalty. According to details included in Owen’s lawsuit and data from Pitchbook, the company had been valued at nearly $1.5 billion and had successfully raised new investment capital as recently as 2023, though the most recent valuation figure was not publicly disclosed.
Owen’s filings further alleged that his dismissal coincided with his efforts to question the integrity of some of Array’s earliest client relationships. He claimed these initial customers included insiders and individuals affiliated with Toha who later resold credit data to third parties—specifically to credit-repair organizations that, in the eyes of some regulators and major credit bureaus, operated in a manner considered questionable or even exploitative. The complaint also referenced Toha’s earlier entrepreneurial venture, Profinity, which several years prior had entered into a settlement with the New York attorney general’s office in 2015 following accusations of misleading or defrauding consumers. Despite the significance of these background details, Justice Cohen’s decision did not address or evaluate the veracity of such allegations. Instead, the court’s analysis remained narrowly focused on determining whether any enforceable promise regarding equity had ever been made—and, in the absence of documentation or corroborating testimony, found that it had not.
Following the ruling, Array’s representatives expressed satisfaction with the outcome, asserting that the judgment substantiated the company’s long-standing position. “The court’s decision validates what we have consistently maintained from the outset,” a spokesperson wrote in an email statement, explaining that no contractual or legal agreement had ever existed between Owen and the firm. The spokesperson further characterized Owen’s accusations of unethical conduct as an attempt to pressure the company into a financial settlement for obligations it did not owe. Meanwhile, Owen and his legal counsel declined to comment on the decision or to respond to requests for further clarification, leaving the case concluded but the broader questions about internal dynamics and corporate governance at the rapidly growing fintech company largely unexplored.
Sourse: https://www.businessinsider.com/jason-owen-array-lawsuit-martin-toha-2025-10
