Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Investors’ proposed class action alleging misrepresentation under the Securities Act

• Dispute regarding production of an unpublished podcast quoted in an affidavit

• Question of whether Rule 30.04 requires production of a transcript for portions referenced in the affidavit

• Disagreement over production of documents supporting a financial chart in an affidavit

• Court’s ruling that only the quoted portion of the podcast transcript must be produced

• No winner at this stage; the case is ongoing and the decision only resolves interim procedural issues

Facts of the case
The plaintiff, Richard M. Banach, brought a proposed class action against Galaxy Digital Holdings Ltd., Michael Novogratz, and Alex Ioffe. The action alleges misrepresentation by the defendants under the Securities Act. The parties are preparing for a combined motion for leave to proceed under the Securities Act and certification under the Class Proceedings Act. In advance of these motions, counsel exchanged motion records and raised production issues for discussion at a case conference.

Issues concerning production
The first issue related to an affidavit sworn by Michael Novogratz on February 13, 2025, in which he quoted from an audio recording of a conversation with Do Kwon, the founder of Terra. The recording was from an unpublished podcast that is not publicly accessible. Plaintiff’s counsel submitted that Rule 30.04 requires production of any document referred to in an affidavit, including a transcript of the podcast. The court ruled that if a transcript exists, the portion containing the quoted interview segment must be produced. No order was made for production of the entire transcript or audio, as no relevance was shown for the unquoted portions.

The second issue involved an affidavit from Alex Ioffe, sworn February 14, 2025, referencing a chart (Exhibit 7) that showed Galaxy’s Luna holdings in relation to total digital assets, total assets, and total equity. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that supporting documents for this chart should be produced, as the chart included information not available in public filings. The court ruled that this request did not fall within Rule 30.04 and was better addressed in cross-examination, as it concerned the credibility of the affiant rather than document production obligations.

Procedural outcome
The court advised counsel that any contested refusals after cross-examinations would likely be referred to an Associate Justice unless they raised substantive issues relevant to the upcoming motions. The court approved an agreed timetable for the next procedural steps, leading up to the hearing of the leave and certification motions on April 27-30, 2026. The defendants were ordered to produce the relevant portion of the podcast transcript as soon as practicable to maintain the timeline. There is no winner at this stage of the proceeding; this endorsement only resolves interim procedural matters and the case remains ongoing.