Defendants in a trial citing illegal practices in Currenex seek to receive the testimony of Jad Sarmo and David Hastings.
On September 18, 2025, Currenex, Inc., State Street Global Markets International Limited, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, HC Technologies, LLC and State Street Bank and Trust Company have submitted a proposal with the South District Court for the issuance of Rogatory letters directed to the competent judicial authority in the United Kingdom.
The defendants carry the court to issue two letters to receive a testimony to the outside of Jad Sarmo, a former employee of the plaintiff Dsquare Trading Limited and David Hastings, former employee of the defendant Currenex.
The plaintiffs in this action claim to harm Currenex’s supposed failure to fully reveal Tiebrebreing settings in the anonymous “executable model of flow transactions” (“platform”) used before 2015.
Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that they probably understood the platform to act as a “central book of boundaries”, in which all bids were eligible to match all the bids (a system claiming to have brought with him that the platform broke the bonds with a rigorous first (FIFO) basis.
The defendants deny the claims of the plaintiffs and claim, among other things, that the plaintiffs actually understood that the platform was not a central order book limit, did not operate on a strict FIFO basis, and instead, for a period of time before 2015, they used their priority arrangements. Like liquidity benefits by traditional and instead Defendants.
The defendants are also claiming the defense of the status of boundaries because the plaintiffs knew or had to know the claims of the complaint for years before the submission of this case.
For these purposes, the defendants seek testimony from (i) Jad Sarmo, former head of Dsquare technology, and (ii) David Hastings, a former world leader of Currenex strategic relationships, each showing that the evidence shows that they will know that they will know.
Jad Sarmo served as Head of Technology at DSQUARE from June 2006 to February 2021. Mr Sarmo is believed to have been aware of the foreign exchange transactions made by Dsquare Trading Limited during the class. During the nearly 15 -year period he worked for DSQUARE, Mr Sarmo was also a defendant responsible for creating DSQUARE transaction software and supervising software, information technology and business developers for the development of DSQUARE transaction software.
The defendants expect David Hastings to be able to submit about two important issues: the use of Currenex priority arrangements in Tiebreaking before 2011 and when the plaintiffs learned about the use of Currenex priority arrangements.
First, from July 2006 to October 2009, Mr Hastings was the world leader of Currenex Strategic Relations. In this role, Mr. Hastings was responsible for the Currenex “Integrated Product Suite” marketing and marketing. He also represented Currenex in his global strategic relationships for market and sale.
Based on his role, Mr Hastings probably has first -hand knowledge of the historical use of priority arrangements in tiebreaking and how Currenex announced these arrangements with users and strategic partners during the years he worked in Currenex. Given Mr Hastings’ responsibilities for Currenex’s marketing, Mr Hastings is said to be able to offer first -hand testimony of what is being transmitted to real and future Currenex users about the functioning of the platform in the early years of the proposed period. There is also every reason to believe that he would know and could testify if, when and how Currenex can be used during his term of office.
Secondly, in January 2019, Mr. Hastings began a 12 -month period working for FX consultants, Velador Associates. Velador is the same counseling company that trains Matt Edwards, the founder and the only employee of the nominal plaintiff Irish and Edmar, for the possible “claims against Currenex” and the “Currenex claim” about the same time as Mr Hastings.
During his time at Velador, Mr. Hastings worked closely with Velador Colin Lloyd, co-author articles with him and, in marketing materials, asking potential customers to “invite David Hastings or Colin Lloyd”.
The defendants argue that if Mr Hastings shared what he knew about the platform business with Velador and Velador, he shared this knowledge with Mr Edwards then the claims of the plaintiffs are premature.
Because Messrs. Sarmo and Hastings are not parties of this dispute, reside in the United Kingdom and are different outside the jurisdiction of the court, the defendants seek to ensure their testimony of significant evidence through letters.