Court finds venue basis not shown
Company: Hut 8
The claim, verbatim
The court found the plaintiff had not identified where the alleged misstatements and omissions originated, and held that trading of Hut 8 stock on Nasdaq, without more, is insufficient to establish venue in the Southern District of New York.
Source (primary)
Ubhi v. Leverton — Entry #6: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Accordingly, the Court is inclined to transfer this case under 28 U.S.C (RECAP (purchased via PACER), court_filing)
View cached copy (2026-09-28)Live source ↗
Quote: “The trading of a company’s stock on the Nasdaq, without more, is insufficient to establish that venue is proper in the Southern District of New York. ... Plaintiff has not identified where the alleged misstatements and omissions at issue originated.”
How we checked this
This claim has not yet been checked assertion-by-assertion against its source. It carries a cited source and quote, but the deeper check has not run. When it does, the result appears here whatever it says.
Additional evidence
confirms Ubhi v. Leverton — Entry #6: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Accordingly, the Court is inclined to transfer this case under 28 U.S.C
Quote: “The trading of a company’s stock on the Nasdaq, without more, is insufficient to establish that venue is proper in the Southern District of New York. ... Plaintiff has not identified where the alleged misstatements and omissions at issue originated.”