Updated October 10, 2026. Rewritten to report how the case ended: Swan dismissed its U.S. lawsuit in June 2026 after conceding in a UK case that it did not own the disputed assets. Earlier versions presented only Swan’s allegations.
In 2024, Bitcoin financial services company Swan Bitcoin sued former employees it accused of stealing its mining business. The case drew attention because it involved Tether, the largest stablecoin issuer, and a plan to build one of the biggest Bitcoin mining operations in the world. Here is what Swan alleged, what the other side said and how the U.S. case ended.
Background
In 2024, Swan was building a large mining business backed by Tether, with the stated goal of reaching very large-scale hashrate. In August 2024, several senior people involved in that business, including former chief investment officer Raphael Zagury, left Swan, and Tether ended its funding arrangement with Swan days later. The departing team went on to run Proton Management, which continued mining operations.
Swan’s allegations
Swan sued in federal court in California in 2024. It claimed the former employees had planned their exit together, taken confidential software and business plans, and persuaded Tether to move the mining business to Proton. Swan described the plan as a coordinated takeover of its most valuable business.
The defense
Proton and the former employees denied wrongdoing and called the lawsuit retaliatory. Their central argument was that the mining operations did not belong to Swan at all: they said the business was tied to a separate Tether-funded entity, 2040 Energy. The court denied Swan’s requests for a temporary restraining order and for expedited discovery.
How the U.S. case ended
In parallel litigation in the United Kingdom, Swan conceded that it did not own the mining assets, documents or trade secrets at the center of the California case. On June 1, 2026, Swan’s California lawsuit against Proton and its employees was dismissed. Proton’s lawyers said Swan was effectively barred from bringing the same claims elsewhere.
Swan’s founder, Cory Klippsten, called Proton’s description of events misleading, pointed to the court’s finding of “no indicia of bad faith” by Swan, and said Swan is still pursuing a separate arbitration against Zagury that it filed in March 2026.
What the episode shows
- Who owns what matters. When a business is funded by a partner, the paperwork deciding who owns the assets can matter more than who built them.
- Allegations are not findings. A complaint tells one side of a story. Early coverage of this case, including ours, leaned on Swan’s account.
- Big mining depends on big funders. Large-scale mining requires capital that few companies have, which gives funders like Tether outsized influence.
All parties named are presumed to have acted lawfully unless a court or arbitrator decides otherwise.
Sources
- Bitcoin.com: Swan Bitcoin drops federal lawsuit against Proton after UK concession (June 1, 2026)
- Business Wire via FinancialContent: Swan Bitcoin dismisses litigation against Proton and its employees (June 1, 2026)
- AMBCrypto: Swan Bitcoin lawsuit against Proton dismissed
This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal or financial advice. DynamicACG does not endorse any party to this dispute.