blog
HASH Asset Mgmt Ltd. v. DMA Labs, Inc., C.A. No. 2025-0374-BWD (Del. Ch. Feb. 9, 2026)
By: Tyler O'Connell and Sarah Ennis
The plaintiff, an investment fund, brought this action alleging claims for fraud, breach of contract, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and piercing the corporate veil after paying $16 million into stablecoin to purchase crypto tokens known as “oneTokens” issued by one of the defendants, ICHI Foundation, and eventually losing nearly all of its investment. The Court contrasted typical fiduciary relationships with the parties’ arms’-length commercial relationship here, and noted the substantial absence of individualized allegations supporting that any individual acted in a fiduciary capacity. As the Court found that the complaint failed to allege any special relationship to support a fiduciary duty claim, this count was dismissed. Likewise, the complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to support a veil-piercing claim, so this count was similarly dismissed. Because the only claims supporting the Court’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction were insufficiently pled, the Court dismissed the action with leave to transfer the surviving claims to the Superior Court.
