⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Ninth Circuit hears Theodorakis versus the DFINITY foundation. Theodorakis received I C P cryptocurrency tokens from his former employer, DFINITY USA. His lawsuit accuses the Swiss foundation and two individuals of misleading token holders while insiders sold, leaving him with losses when the price collapsed after the twenty-twenty-one launch. Those are allegations, not findings that fraud occurred. The American employer and the Swiss foundation are separate entities; their relationship is part of the dispute. Before reaching fraud, the court must address jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction means a court's authority over a particular defendant. The individuals dispute being subject to suit in California. Theodorakis points to California business, fundraising and employment connections. The defense will contend that he has not connected each individual defendant's own conduct in California to his claimed injury. This is different from asking whether a federal court has authority over the type of claim being brought. The district court dismissed the case. It had permitted an amended complaint to add jurisdictional allegations, but struck a new securities-fraud claim as outside that permission. The argument also concerns alter ego: treating nominally separate people or entities as one. That requires more than shared ownership or management. There must be such unity of interest and ownership that their separate personalities no longer exist, and respecting the separation must produce fraud or injustice. You will also hear about jurisdictional discovery: gathering facts about whether the court has authority over these defendants. Finally, the judges question the dismissal with prejudice. That normally bars bringing the same claim again. A dismissal without prejudice leaves open the possibility of refiling. The distinction matters when a court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction rather than deciding who is right about the underlying conduct.

Theodorakis v. DFINITY Stiftung, et al. (No. 25-2440) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 23, 2026.