Court Dismissed Lawsuit Against Murchinson Ltd.
Massachusetts operators should note that courts require direct, state-specific links to establish jurisdiction in corporate litigation.
Updated on Oct. 5, 2026 in Public Companies
Live Poll
Should courts permit lawsuits against out-of-state companies regardless of where the specific harm occurred?
A court dismissed a tortious interference lawsuit against Canadian hedge fund Murchinson Ltd. on September 30, 2026. The case centered on allegations that the firm stalled a merger between Desktop Metal and Nano Dimension.
Why it matters
The ruling clarifies jurisdictional boundaries for out-of-state entities, reinforcing that general business contacts alone may not support claims of tortious interference in Massachusetts courts. It highlights the importance of connecting specific, local business actions to legal claims.
The court dismissed the action under case number 26-12572-RGS, determining that the Massachusetts long-arm statute sections 3(a) and 3(c) did not apply. This decision followed a review of activities related to the bankruptcy of Desktop Metal.
The players
Murchinson Ltd.
A Canadian hedge fund involved in international investment activities.
Desktop Metal
A manufacturer of additive manufacturing technology that filed for bankruptcy following merger delays.
Nano Dimension
An electronics and 3D printing company that participated in a delayed merger agreement.
Stephen Sorensen
The plaintiff who filed claims regarding tortious interference and consumer protection violations.
The details
The court evaluated the case, Sorensen v. Murchinson Ltd., by analyzing whether the defendant's actions met the criteria for personal jurisdiction in Massachusetts. A key piece of evidence was an email sent by Murchinson in March 2024 to a company CEO; however, the court ruled this predated the merger agreement and failed to establish a direct causal link to the alleged injury. Consequently, the court found insufficient connection between the defendant's local business transactions and the plaintiff's specific claims.
Timeline
March 2024: Murchinson sent a threatening email to a company CEO.
May 2024: Desktop Metal entered into a merger agreement.
September 30, 2026: The court issued the dismissal of the lawsuit.
Market Landscape
This decision relies on the application of the Massachusetts long-arm statute to define the limits of local court authority over international corporate defendants. The ruling affirms a pattern where courts require a documented nexus between specific business activities and the alleged damages.
Business owners should ensure all communications and agreements are documented with clear jurisdictional intent, as courts remain strict on what constitutes a local nexus. Consult with legal counsel to evaluate how your current business activities might establish or limit jurisdiction in different states.
The takeaway
The court's dismissal reinforces that business contacts must be specifically tied to the alleged harm to satisfy the Massachusetts long-arm statute. Operators should track the evolving interpretation of jurisdictional thresholds for foreign entities when evaluating potential legal exposure in merger or acquisition activities.
Further reading
For more on legal developments impacting corporate governance, see the Public Companies section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.
Live Poll
Should courts permit lawsuits against out-of-state companies regardless of where the specific harm occurred?
