Dubai court sets Sept. 7 deadline for Brittain to disclose $456M funding

A Dubai court gave Matthew William Brittain until Sept. 7 to disclose the source of funds used for legal and advisory bills in a dispute over $456 million linked to TrueUSD reserves. Brittain must swear and serve an affidavit by 4 p.m. Gulf Standard Time on Sept. 7. The affidavit must cover payments to Quinn Emanuel, Horizons, Gall, Campbells and FTI Consulting. It must list payment amounts, payment dates and bank accounts. It must identify the original sources and ultimate beneficial owners. It must explain how the accounts were funded and provide supporting documents. The order separately requires an explanation of $1,083,912.49 paid by Aria Bio Industries FZE on Oct. 31, 2025 toward Aria Commodities' legal costs. The same funding details apply to that payment and to further legal advice or representation costs incurred since a May 13 remedy application. Techteryx may apply for sanctions if Brittain does not comply. The court must consider a further application before imposing any penalty. Techteryx obtained a proprietary injunction and worldwide freeze against Aria Commodities DMCC. The freeze covers $456 million transferred from Legacy Trust and First Digital Trust and traceable proceeds. The funds were identified as part of the reserves backing TrueUSD, or TUSD. The injunction supports litigation in Hong Kong but does not decide who owns the funds. The court moved the committal hearing to Oct. 26 for an estimated four days. The hearing has been adjourned three times. It is scheduled to take place in person at the DIFC Courts. Techteryx's lead counsel may attend remotely. Justice Michael Black said another adjournment would require the most extreme circumstances supported by strong evidence. The disclosure deadline is separate from the October committal hearing. The Hong Kong case is also separate from the Dubai proceeding. Techteryx alleges that the transfers formed part of a fraud and that Aria holds the money or its proceeds on constructive trust. Those allegations remain disputed. The DIFC court said key merits and ownership questions remain unresolved at the interim stage.