Proton asks court to dismiss Swan Bitcoin lawsuit, saying it has fatal flaws

Proton Management Dismisses Swan Bitcoin Lawsuit as "Fatally Flawed"
Proton Management, where former Swan employees work, said, "The lawsuit filed by Swan Bitcoin regarding its mining business is without merit," and "2040 Energy
2040 Energy is a separate and independent legal entity." Prior to this, on September 25, Swan Bitcoin claimed that its mining operations had been seized through a coercive scheme.
The lawsuit claims that Proton Management, a Bitcoin miner, attempted to steal Bitcoin from the company. Proton Management denies the allegations and has asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed.
In a request for dismissal of the lawsuit filed on September 30, Proton argued that "Swan does not have a mining business in the first place" and that "Swan's arguments are fatally flawed."
Proton said its bitcoin mining business, 2040 Energy, is a separate legal entity fully funded by the stablecoin issuer Tether.
"Swan's filing appears to be nothing more than an ambush lawsuit aimed at disparaging former employees and contractors in order to gain an advantage in its dispute with Tether," the suit alleges.
Proton also denied the allegations that it used Swan's confidential information, saying, "We are not sure whether the information pointed out in Swan's complaint actually belongs to Swan or to 2040 Energy."
"It is highly doubtful whether Swan is a member of the board of directors or not," he added. Proton revealed that Swan was established at a time when its financial situation was so precarious that it was expected to undergo major restructuring in July 2024.
According to previous reports, Swan had announced plans to end its mining management business with Tether at this point. Proton said Swan will be operational by 2040.
While acknowledging it holds a minority stake in Energy, it argued that it has the potential to preserve and even increase Swan's value.
Proton also argued that Swan's ex parte lawsuit application should be dismissed because the California court lacked personal jurisdiction.
They argued that Proton is incorporated in the British Virgin Islands.