2:25-cv-575-APG-BNW MOTION HEARING - ROUGH DRAFT - DO NOT CITE!!!
39 considers. And if complying, you know, because complying with the Board's demands here would impose substantial harm on third-parties, that is certainly appropriate for the Court to consider in evaluating injunctive relief. THE COURT: Okay. You assert in your papers that Kalshi could lose its CFT designation as part of your irreparable harm, the core principles argument, but Kalshi has to show a likelihood of irreparable harm, not a mere possibility. So what evidence do you have that the CFTC is likely to pull your registration or designation as a result of the Nevada Gaming Authority's prohibiting you from taking Nevada-based wagers? MR. HAVEMANN: Well, the... Of course, anytime a party comes to the Court seeking a TRO, it's because they are predicting future consequences, so in that sense, the harm has not occurred. We can't say for 100 percent certainty -- THE COURT: I get it. What's the likelihood that it's going to happen? MR. HAVEMANN: But the likelihood is, if you look at the -- you know, the plain text of the core principles, the two that we focused on, but there are others, are you have to offer impartial access to your platform and you have to do -- take best efforts to avoid market disruptions. And if Kalshi were to voluntarily comply with the State's demand while this case were litigated, they're -- you know, it is very difficult
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Judy K. Moore, RMR, CRR
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs