No Compelling Arbitration Two Years into the Litigation

In 2021, three plaintiffs decided to purchase $500,000 worth of the Bitcoin Latinum (Latinum) cryptocurrency, Token. They did so through two of the plaintiffs’ cousin, Kevin Jonna, and they wired their money, designating that money as “for Kevin Jonna.” They never received any Token, and they sued Kevin Jonna and Latinum.

Latinum’s Simple Agreement for Future Tokens (SAFT), its purchase agreement with investors, provides for binding arbitration. Plaintiffs never signed a SAFT. After two years of litigation, Latinum moved to compel arbitration. The District Court denied that motion, rejecting Latinum’s argument that the plaintiffs were bound through their cousin and ruling that Latinum had waived its right to compel arbitration by litigating for two years without invoking it.

It took the Sixth Circuit three pages to reject Latinum’s appeal in an unpublished opinion, Jonna v. GIBF GP, INC. The Sixth Circuit affirmed on the grounds given by the District Court.