On April 24, 2019, the Supreme Court issued an exparte order requiring the respondents to produce certain documents and prohibiting them from
- taking any further action to “make any claim . . . on the U.S. dollar reserves held byTether” [Holdings];
- making any payments to any individual associated with respondents “from the U.S. dollar reserves held by Tether” [Holdings];
- altering or destroying any documents related to the investigation
On April 30, 2019, the respondents filed a motion to modify or vacate the Supreme Court’s exparte order. On May 16, 2019, the Supreme Court partly granted their motion by modifying the temporary restraining order but rejected their motion to vacate.
On May 21, 2019, filed an instant motion styled as a motion to dismiss using CPLR 3211[a][2]) lack of subject matter jurisdiction and CPLR 3211[a][8] lack of personal jurisdiction as arguments. The Supreme Court denied the motion on August 19, 2019. The respondent appealed the decision.
Court of Appeals’ opinion
On July 9, 2020, the Court of Appeals denied the respondents motion to dismiss, citing the facts that under the Martin Act, the high court “has no further role in the Attorney General’s investigation” once it an order responding to a GBL 354 application has been issued. The only exception is to “rule on a motion by either party to vacate or modify the order, as respondents made here.”
