Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Mek Global Limited et al

Filing 36

ORDER denying 34 Letter Motion to Stay. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' joint motion to stay this case is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' deadline to respond to the Complaint, as well as all other deadlines and s cheduled conferences, are ADJOURNED sine die. By Monday, March 31, 2025, the parties must file either a joint status report on the progress of settlement negotiations or a stipulation of dismissal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the open motion at Dkt. 34. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 3/5/2025) (tg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------- X
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
:
COMMISSION,
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
:
MEK GLOBAL LIMITED, PHOENIXFIN
:
PTE. LTD., FLASHDOT LIMITED, and
:
PEKEN GLOBAL LIMITED (collectively
:
:
d/b/a “KUCOIN”),
:
Defendants. :
-------------------------------------------------------------- X

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 3/5/2025

24-CV-2255 (VEC)
ORDER

VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge:
WHEREAS on March 26, 2024, Plaintiff COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
COMMISSION (“CFTC”) filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) against MEK GLOBAL
LIMITED, PHOENIXFIN PTE. LTD., FLASHDOT LIMITED, and PEKEN GLOBAL
LIMITED (collectively, “Defendants”) in the above-captioned action alleging violations of the
Commodity Exchange Act and regulations promulgated thereunder, see Dkt. 1;
WHEREAS by Joint Stipulation and Order dated May 6, 2024, August 2, 2024, October
3, 2024, December 4, 2024, and February 3, 2025, Defendants’ deadline to respond to the
Complaint was extended to March 6, 2025, to allow the parties sufficient time to discuss the
advancement of the litigation, see Dkts. 21, 27, 29, 31, 33;
WHEREAS the parties were directed to submit a joint proposed case management plan
and a joint letter by March 6, 2025, see Dkt. 33;
WHEREAS an Initial Pretrial Conference is scheduled to take place on March 21, 2025,
see id.;
WHEREAS Defendants and the CFTC’s Division of Enforcement previously reached

an agreement in principle, pending approval of the CFTC’s Commissioners, to resolve this
action, and on January 24, 2025, the CFTC notified Defendants that it had not yet obtained
full Commission approval to proceed with finalizing the resolution, see id.;
WHEREAS in the prior Joint Stipulation and Order adjourning the above-referenced
deadlines, the Court indicated it was unlikely to further extend those deadlines absent a
showing of good cause, see id.;
WHEREAS on March 4, 2025, the parties filed a joint motion to stay this case for
fourteen days, see Dkts. 34–35;
WHEREAS Executive Order No. 14178 titled “Strengthening American Leadership in
Digital Financial Technology”, compelled the CFTC to engage in further negotiations and
make revisions of the agreement-in-principle previously reached between the Division of
Enforcement and Defendants, and the Division of Enforcement and Defendants have now
agreed to the general terms of a revised settlement, see Dkt. 35;
WHEREAS “[t]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in
every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and
effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants,” Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc.,
676 F.3d 83, 96 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936));
WHEREAS in determining whether to stay proceedings, courts consider “(1) the
private interests of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with the civil ligation as
balanced against the prejudice to the plaintiffs if delayed; (2) the private interests of and
burden on the defendants; (3) the interests of the courts; (4) the interests of persons not parties
to the civil litigation; and (5) the public interest,” Casa Express Corp. as Tr. of Casa Express
Tr. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 492 F. Supp. 3d 222, 227 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (citation
omitted);
2

WHEREAS the Court finds that staying this action for fourteen days is not in the
Court’s interest, as implementing such a brief stay and requiring the Court to continuously
assess whether to lift that stay will not further the efficient disposition of the cases on its
docket; and
WHEREAS the Court also finds that the parties’ joint motion to stay this action
demonstrates good cause to extend the above-referenced deadlines;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ joint motion to stay this case is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ deadline to respond to the Complaint,
as well as all other deadlines and scheduled conferences, are ADJOURNED sine die. By
Monday, March 31, 2025, the parties must file either a joint status report on the progress of
settlement negotiations or a stipulation of dismissal.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate
the open motion at Dkt. 34.
SO ORDERED.
________________________
VALERIE CAPRONI
United States District Judge

Date: March 5, 2025
New York, New York

3