Improper insider sales by defendants
Company: Hut 8
The claim, verbatim
Certain defendants engaged in improper insider sales
Source (primary)
Thompson v. Leverton — Entry #11: ORDER: Accordingly, the Court is inclined to transfer this case to the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C (RECAP (purchased via PACER), court_filing)
View cached copy (2026-09-27)Live source ↗
Quote: “engaged in improper insider sales”
How we checked this
Checked on September 28, 2026. The cited source supports part of this claim, but not all of it.
The order describes improper insider sales only as something the plaintiff alleges. The court made no finding on whether such sales occurred.
Confirmed in the source:
- The derivative plaintiff alleges that certain of the Defendants engaged in improper insider sales while Hut 8 failed to maintain adequate internal controls.
We could not confirm this from the cited source:
- That any defendant actually engaged in improper insider sales; the court order only recounts this as the plaintiff's allegation.
That does not mean it is false — only that this source does not establish it, as of the date above. If we find a source that settles it, we will re-check and update this page.
What we did: Read our cached copy of RECAP (purchased via PACER) (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.618845/gov.uscourts.nysd.618845.11.0.pdf) in full (4,687 characters, retrieved September 27, 2026) and checked each assertion in the claim against it.
Additional evidence
confirms Thompson v. Leverton — Entry #11: ORDER: Accordingly, the Court is inclined to transfer this case to the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C
Quote: “engaged in improper insider sales”