Court Dismissed Lawsuit Against Murchinson Ltd.
A Massachusetts judge ruled that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Canadian hedge fund.
Updated on Oct. 5, 2026 in Public Companies
Live Poll
Should courts permit lawsuits against out-of-state companies regardless of where the specific harm occurred?
A court dismissed the lawsuit filed by Stephen Sorensen against Canadian hedge fund Murchinson Ltd. on September 30, 2026. The judge ruled that the court lacked personal jurisdiction to hear claims regarding alleged tortious interference.
Why it matters
The ruling centered on the court's inability to link the defendant's activities to the specific claims of bad-faith efforts that reportedly delayed a merger involving Desktop Metal.
The civil action case number 26-12572-RGS was dismissed under Lawyers Weekly reference 02-522-26. The court determined that Massachusetts long-arm statute sections 3(a) and 3(c) were inapplicable to the defendant.
The players
Murchinson Ltd.
This entity is a Canadian hedge fund that was the defendant in the recent Massachusetts civil action.
Stephen Sorensen
He is the plaintiff who filed claims for tortious interference and violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.
Desktop Metal
This company is a manufacturer that filed for bankruptcy following delays in a merger with Nano Dimension.
Nano Dimension
This is a technology company that had been involved in a delayed merger agreement with Desktop Metal.
The details
Plaintiff Stephen Sorensen had alleged that Murchinson Ltd. acted in bad faith to delay a merger between Desktop Metal and Nano Dimension, ultimately contributing to Desktop Metal's bankruptcy. The court concluded that a March 2024 email sent to a Massachusetts CEO did not establish the necessary connection to the alleged injuries.
Timeline
Murchinson sent a threatening email to a company CEO in March 2024.
Desktop Metal entered into a merger agreement in May 2024.
The court issued the dismissal of the lawsuit on September 30, 2026.
Market Landscape
This court ruling underscores the strict jurisdictional limitations courts apply when plaintiffs invoke the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act against foreign entities. The decision sets a precedent for how litigation involving cross-border hedge fund activity is handled in state courts.
This ruling impacts stakeholders by clarifying the jurisdictional boundaries for pursuing claims against foreign investment firms. Investors should note that the court requires a direct causal link between out-of-state business transactions and alleged damages to survive a motion to dismiss.
The takeaway
This case illustrates the high burden of proof required to establish personal jurisdiction over foreign hedge funds in state courts. Litigants must ensure that specific business activities within a state are directly tied to their claims to avoid early dismissal.
Further reading
For more information on legal proceedings involving corporations, visit the Public Companies section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.
Live Poll
Should courts permit lawsuits against out-of-state companies regardless of where the specific harm occurred?
