This amended order clarifies the procedural landscape for the ongoing USD 456 million asset dispute, balancing the continuation of stringent proprietary and worldwide freezing injunctions against the requirement for the Claimant to provide substantial security for costs.
What is the nature of the dispute between Techteryx and Aria Commodities regarding the USD 456 million claim?
The litigation concerns a high-stakes proprietary claim brought by Techteryx Ltd against Aria Commodities DMCC, alongside three major UAE-based financial institutions: Mashreq Bank PSC, Emirates NBD Bank PJSC, and Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank PJSC. At the heart of the dispute is a proprietary injunction and a worldwide freezing injunction (WFO) covering assets valued at USD 456,000,000. Techteryx alleges that these funds, or their traceable proceeds, were improperly transferred to Aria Commodities, necessitating judicial intervention to prevent the dissipation of assets.
The court has maintained strict oversight over these assets since February 2025. The current proceedings involve complex evidentiary disputes, including the production of unredacted bank statements and electronic documents in native format to trace the flow of funds originating from First Digital Trust Limited and Legacy Trust Limited. As noted in the court's recent procedural directions:
The Claimant shall provide security for the First Defendant’s costs of the Proceedings until 12 May 2025 in the sum of USD 650,000 by payment into the Court within 14 days of service of this Order.
Further details on the background of this massive asset freeze can be found in the deep editorial analysis: Techteryx v Aria Commodities [2025] DIFC DEC 001: The USD 456 Million Stablecoin Freeze.
Which judge presided over the 12 May 2025 return date hearing in the Digital Economy Court?
The hearing was presided over by H.E. Justice Michael Black KC, sitting in the DIFC Court of First Instance, specifically within the Digital Economy Court division. The proceedings on 12 May 2025 followed a series of interlocutory applications, including the First Defendant’s attempt to discharge the existing injunctions. The court’s involvement is documented as follows:
Justice Michael Black dated 9 May 2025 (the “9 May Order”) AND UPON hearing Counsel of the Claimant and the Counsel of the Defendant at the Return Date hearing held on 12 May 2025 before H.E.
What were the primary legal arguments advanced by the parties regarding the continuation of the injunctions and security for costs?
The parties engaged in a vigorous contest over the survival of the freezing orders. The First Defendant, Aria Commodities, sought to discharge the injunctions, filing Application No. DEC-001-2025/10 on 28 April 2025. Their strategy focused on challenging the evidentiary basis for the continued restraint of their assets and asserting that the Claimant should be held to account for the costs incurred during the litigation.
Conversely, Techteryx relied on extensive evidence, including the Fourth Affirmation of Li Jinmei, a Kroll report, and an Ogier (Cayman) LLP memorandum, to justify the ongoing necessity of the Proprietary Order and the WFO. The Claimant argued that the tracing of funds required continued judicial protection. The court ultimately balanced these positions by ordering specific disclosure from the First Defendant while simultaneously imposing a significant security for costs requirement on the Claimant to protect the First Defendant’s position should the claims prove meritless.
What was the specific legal question regarding the continuation of the injunctions that the court had to resolve?
The court was tasked with determining whether the proprietary and worldwide freezing injunctions, originally granted on 28 February 2025, met the threshold for continuation until a final hearing. This required the court to weigh the risk of asset dissipation against the prejudice caused to the First Defendant by the ongoing restraint of USD 456,000,000.
Additionally, the court had to address the procedural fairness of the disclosure process. The legal question centered on whether the First Defendant could be compelled to produce unredacted bank statements and native-format electronic documents to facilitate the Claimant’s tracing exercise, while simultaneously determining if the Claimant had provided sufficient financial security to cover the First Defendant’s costs up to the May 2025 return date.
How did Justice Michael Black KC apply the test for the continuation of the injunctions?
Justice Michael Black KC applied a rigorous standard to ensure that the injunctions remained proportionate and necessary. The court reviewed the evidence submitted by both sides, including the Third Affidavit of Matthew Brittain and the subsequent reply evidence from the Claimant. The court’s reasoning focused on maintaining the status quo while ensuring that the First Defendant’s rights were protected through the security for costs mechanism.
The court determined that the injunctions should remain in force, effectively extending the life of the previous orders. The reasoning process involved a careful balancing of the Claimant’s proprietary interest in the USD 456 million against the First Defendant’s operational needs. The court’s decision to continue the injunctions is summarized by the following:
Justice Michael Black KC dated 28 February 2025 (as varied) shall continue until the Final Return Date Hearing, or further order of the Court.
Which specific DIFC statutes and RDC rules were applied in the 19 May 2025 Order?
The court exercised its powers under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), particularly those governing disclosure, security for costs, and the granting of interim injunctions. The order specifically invoked the court's authority to manage complex litigation within the Digital Economy Court, referencing the previous orders of 28 February 2025, 18 March 2025, and 2 May 2025.
The court applied RDC Part 25 (Interim Remedies) to maintain the WFO and proprietary injunction. Furthermore, the order for security for costs was issued under the court’s inherent jurisdiction and RDC provisions regarding the protection of defendants in high-value claims. The court also relied on the procedural framework established by the Judicial Authority Law to ensure that the disclosure of bank statements and electronic metadata was conducted in accordance with the court’s case management powers.
How did the court utilize previously cited authorities in the context of this specific return date hearing?
While the order focuses on procedural directions, the court’s reliance on the "18 March Order" and the "2 May Order" demonstrates a consistent application of the principles governing the continuation of freezing injunctions. The court utilized these prior decisions to establish a clear timeline for the exchange of evidence, including the Third Affidavit of Matthew Brittain and the Fourth Affirmation of Li Jinmei.
By referencing these previous orders, Justice Michael Black KC ensured that the litigation remained on a predictable path toward the Final Return Date Hearing. The court used these authorities to reject the First Defendant’s Discharge Application (Application No. DEC-001-2025/9) while simultaneously granting the Claimant’s request for specific disclosure, thereby maintaining the evidentiary momentum required for a case of this magnitude.
What was the final disposition of the court regarding the First Defendant’s applications and the Claimant’s obligations?
The court issued a multi-faceted order. First, it compelled the First Defendant to provide unredacted bank statements and native-format electronic documents within seven days. Second, it ordered the Claimant to pay USD 650,000 into the court as security for the First Defendant’s costs. Failure to provide this security grants the First Defendant the right to apply for the striking out of the claims and an inquiry into damages under the cross-undertaking.
Finally, the court dismissed the First Defendant’s Application No. DEC-001-2025/9. The court also set a strict timetable for the parties to prepare for the upcoming Final Return Date Hearing, as detailed in the following directive:
The Parties shall file and exchange skeleton arguments (up to 35 pages in length) by no later than 4pm GST on 14 July 2025.
What are the wider implications of this order for practitioners in the Digital Economy Court?
This case highlights the high evidentiary burden placed on claimants seeking to maintain massive asset freezes. Practitioners must anticipate that the Digital Economy Court will demand rigorous disclosure of tracing evidence while simultaneously imposing significant financial burdens on claimants through security for costs orders. The court’s willingness to continue the injunctions while forcing the Claimant to "put its money where its mouth is" signals a balanced approach to protecting both proprietary interests and the rights of defendants in complex digital asset disputes.
Litigants should note that the court is increasingly focused on the technical aspects of disclosure, such as the preservation of metadata in native formats. For further context on how this case fits into the broader landscape of DIFC injunctive practice, see the sibling orders: TECHTERYX v ARIA COMMODITIES [2025] DIFC DEC 001 — Refining the Digital Economy Court’s Injunctive Reach (18 March 2025), 24 March 2025, 21 May 2025, and the 17 October 2025 orders.
Where can I read the full judgment in Techteryx Ltd v Aria Commodities DMCC [2025] DIFC DEC 001?
The full text of the Amended Order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/digital-economy-court/dec-0012025-techteryx-ltd-v-1-aria-commodities-dmcc-2-mashreq-bank-psc-3-emirates-nbd-bank-pjsc-4-abu-dhabi-islamic-bank-pjsc-1 or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/digital-economy-court/DIFC_DEC-001-2025_20250519.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| Techteryx Ltd v Aria Commodities DMCC | [2025] DIFC DEC 001 | Primary proceedings |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) Part 25
- DIFC Court Law
- Judicial Authority Law