Proton Management argues that Swan Bitcoin never owned the mining business in question, as it was part of 2040 Energy, a separate entity funded by Tether in which Swan holds only a minority stake.
Proton claims it is enhancing the value of 2040 Energy, and not harming Swan.
Proton Management argued in a court filing that Swan Bitcoin does not own any mining business of its own. Proton responded to Swan Bitcoin’s allegations that Proton and six ex-employees of Swan conspired to “steal” its mining business.
“Swan does not have a mining business of its own,” counsel for Proton wrote in a filing Monday. “Rather, as Swan admits in its complaint and publicly, what Swan has called its mining business is really just the separate entity called 2040 Energy, which is fully funded by Tether.”
Tether is not a named defendant in the suit, and spokesperson for the company has denied any and all implications of wrongdoing in prior comments to CoinDesk.
“2040 Energy is not controlled by Swan, although Swan maintains a minority stake in the business. Through the work and ingenuity of the Individual Defendants, 2040 Energy successfully developed mining operations,” the response continues.
Proton says that due to Swan’s precarious financial situation, it conducted a large round of layoffs in July 2024.
In early August, several key employees voluntarily resigned from Swan due to their belief that the company was being mismanaged, the court filing says, and were subsequently hired by Proton to continue working on 2040 Energy, in which Swan holds a minority financial stake.
“Far from damaging Swan, Proton is enhancing the value of its minority stake in 2040 Energy,” Proton wrote in its filing.
Proton also denied using any of Swan’s alleged proprietary information or trade secrets, and argued if the information the information in question even belongs to Swan, as it may actually belong to 2040 Energy.
“Swan has suffered no damage by Proton’s activities,” Proton wrote.
Proton is also seeking dismal of the case, claiming that it hasn’t been properly served. It argues that courts in California have no jurisdiction over it as its a British Virgin Islands-based company with no commercial ties to the state.