Messieh v. HDR Global Trading Limited

Document status

The provided text is titled “Defendant Ben Delo’s Memorandum of Law in Support of His Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint.” It is an advocacy filing submitted for Delo, not a judicial opinion or order. The text therefore presents Delo’s arguments and the allegations he attributes to the plaintiffs; it does not establish a court ruling.

Background

Brett Messieh and Drew Lee brought claims individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against HDR Global Trading Limited, several affiliated companies, and Arthur Hayes, Ben Delo, Greg Dwyer, and Samuel Reed. The memorandum says the second amended complaint asserts claims under the Commodity Exchange Act for deceptive devices, manipulative devices, and price manipulation. It also describes claims against corporate defendants for principal-agent liability and claims against the individual defendants for aiding and abetting.

The allegations described in the memorandum concern BitMEX’s alleged “Insider Trading Desk,” alleged trading against customers through anonymous accounts, and alleged server freezes that purportedly affected customer liquidations and prices. The memorandum says the complaint alleges that Delo helped design key trading systems and the automatic liquidation system, received reports about U.S. users trading on the platform, and was one of the people alleged to have controlled BitMEX. Delo disputes that these allegations show his involvement in the alleged fraud or manipulation.

Delo’s jurisdiction argument

Delo moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), which concerns lack of personal jurisdiction—the court’s authority over a particular defendant. He argues that the plaintiffs have not alleged facts establishing either sufficient connections between him and the United States or a connection between those contacts and the claims.

Delo argues that the complaint does not allege that he resides in, entered, or directed the relevant conduct toward the United States. He contends that designing BitMEX’s automatic liquidation system, co-founding a corporate defendant, knowing that U.S. users were trading on the platform, and receiving reports about those users do not establish the required connection. He also argues that allegations that he, Hayes, and Reed collectively controlled BitMEX improperly group the individual defendants together without specifying what Delo personally did.

The memorandum further argues that Delo’s statements in a separate criminal proceeding do not establish personal jurisdiction in this civil case. It says those proceedings involved alleged failures concerning an anti-money-laundering program, while this case concerns alleged fraud and manipulation under the Commodity Exchange Act. Delo argues that the criminal proceedings involved different conduct and do not supply the necessary connection to the civil claims.

Requested disposition

Delo’s memorandum asks the court to dismiss all claims against him for lack of personal jurisdiction and requests dismissal with prejudice. Those are Delo’s requested remedies, not a ruling shown in the provided text.

No judicial disposition is included. The text does not state that Judge Andrew Carter granted, denied, or otherwise decided the motion.