In Re: FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange Collapse Litigation, 1:23-md-03076

Plaintiffs in the FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange Collapse multidistrict litigation sought permission to serve several foreign defendants (Temasek, SoftBank, Sino Global, and related entities) via email to their counsel.
Plaintiffs argued that defendants are sophisticated, global businesses with notice and participation in the case, but have declined to accept or waive service, complicating formal service attempts.
The relevant defendants are based in countries that are signatories to the Hague Convention (Singapore, Japan, the UK, Hong Kong/China), and service via the Convention is ongoing but delayed and uncertain.
Defendants asserted that plaintiffs failed to use proper service channels or diligently pursue service under the Hague Convention, and that formal service requirements had not been satisfied.
The court considered whether alternative email service is permissible under Rule 4(f)(3), whether such service is prohibited by international agreements, and whether due process is satisfied under the circumstances.
Ultimately, the court granted plaintiffs' motion, authorizing email service on defendants' counsel, and denied as moot defendants' motions to dismiss for insufficient service.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether alternate service via email is allowed	International agreements do not prohibit; email is likely to provide notice	Plaintiffs failed to attempt service correctly or diligently; email not proper	Email service is allowed under Rule 4(f)(3)
Compliance with Hague Convention	Hague Convention does not specifically prohibit email service	Plaintiffs should use Hague procedures; email not attempted after formal efforts	Hague Convention does not bar email service
Due process—adequacy of notice	Defendants are aware of, and participating in, the case; email will reach them	No valid service; email not reasonably calculated for notice	Due process satisfied by email to counsel
Motions to Dismiss for Insufficient Service	Moot if court approves email service	Should be granted for failure of proper service	Denied as moot since alternate service is authorized

Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (establishes due process notice requirements for service of process)
Prewitt Enters., Inc. v. OPEC, 353 F.3d 916 (11th Cir. 2003) (court discretion in authorizing alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3))
Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming court's power to authorize email as alternative service where proper)