Filed: June 22, 2026
AAA Case No.: 01-26-0003-1278
Before the American Arbitration Association
Youras Ziankovich, Claimant
v.
Wise US, Inc., Respondent
Respondent’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses & Counterclaim
Respondent Wise US, Inc. (“Wise” or “Respondent”), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby submits its Answer, Affirmative Defenses & Counterclaim to the Demand for Arbitration (“Demand”) filed by Claimant Youras Ziankovich (“Claimant”). :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}
General Denial
Wise denies all allegations asserted by Claimant in the Demand.
Wise further denies that it is liable to Claimant under any cause of action or theory asserted by Claimant or that Claimant is entitled to any award, judgment, damages, compensatory damages, statutory damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, or any relief whatsoever.
Unless specifically admitted, each allegation is denied and Wise demands strict proof thereof. :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}
Response to Statement of Claims
Parties
Paragraph 1: Wise states that it lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about the truth of the allegation and therefore denies it.
Paragraph 2: Admitted.
Paragraph 3: Admitted.
Jurisdiction and Arbitration Basis
Paragraph 4: Wise states that the paragraph contains no factual allegations requiring a response. To the extent a response is required, Wise admits that the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas entered an order compelling arbitration.
Paragraph 5: Wise denies any assertion that Claimant’s claims are not subject to a binding arbitration agreement with Wise.
Reservation of Rights
Paragraphs 6-8: Wise denies any assertion that Claimant’s claims are not subject to a binding arbitration agreement with Wise.
Factual Background
Paragraphs 9-18: Wise denies all allegations.
Count I – Breach of Contract
Wise incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1-18.
Wise admits that it is in a contractual relationship with Claimant but denies any conduct entitling Claimant to damages or relief.
Wise denies Paragraphs 21 and 22.
Count II – Discriminatory Denial of Services
Wise incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1-22 and denies Paragraphs 24 and 25.
Count III – Defamation
Wise incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1-25 and denies Paragraphs 27 and 28.
Count IV – Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
Wise incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1-28 and denies Paragraphs 30 and 31.
Count V – Unjust Enrichment
Wise incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1-31 and denies Paragraphs 33 and 34.
Count VI – Arbitrary and Capricious Conduct
Wise incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1-34 and denies Paragraphs 36 and 37.
Damages
Wise denies that it engaged in any conduct entitling Claimant to damages and denies that Claimant is entitled to recover the damages described in Paragraphs 38-40.
Relief Requested
Wise denies that Claimant is entitled to any of the relief requested in Paragraph 41.
Wise requests that the Arbitrator enter judgment in its favor, dismiss the Demand, and award Wise its costs, attorneys’ fees, and any other appropriate relief.
Affirmative Defenses
First Defense
Wise pleads any and all applicable statutes of limitations to the extent Claimant’s claims are based on conduct occurring beyond the applicable limitations period.
Second Defense
Claimant’s claims are barred by his own breach of contract.
Third Defense
At all times and under all circumstances relevant to the Demand, Wise acted in good faith and without malice.
Fourth Defense
Wise pleads lack of causal relation between its conduct and the damages alleged.
Fifth Defense
Claimant’s claims are barred or limited because he failed to mitigate damages and failed to act with reasonable diligence.
Sixth Defense
Wise denies that it engaged in any conduct that would support punitive damages.
Seventh Defense
Claimant’s claims are barred by waiver, estoppel, collateral estoppel, judicial estoppel, laches, release, consent, ratification, acquiescence, novation, unclean hands, and related equitable doctrines.
Eighth Defense
Wise’s actions were justified and reasonable.
Ninth Defense
To the extent sought, Claimant cannot recover damages for emotional distress, mental anguish, or similar injuries because such recovery would violate constitutional due process protections.
Tenth Defense
Any violation of law or damage suffered by Claimant, which Wise denies, was caused by Claimant’s own actions or omissions and therefore does not create liability for Wise.
Reservation of Defenses
Wise reserves the right to assert additional defenses as discovery progresses.
Counterclaim
Wise asserts a counterclaim against Claimant based on the filing and continued pursuit of allegedly frivolous claims. :contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}
Background
On August 29, 2025, Ziankovich registered for an account with Wise.
On February 9, 2026, Ziankovich filed a lawsuit against Wise in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas relating to Wise’s handling of certain transactions.
Wise states that the federal complaint asserted many of the same claims now presented in arbitration.
On March 3, 2026, Wise moved to compel arbitration and, alternatively, to dismiss the complaint.
On April 14, 2026, the federal court granted Wise’s motion and compelled arbitration.
On May 6, 2026, Claimant submitted the present Demand, which Wise contends contains the same meritless legal theories together with additional allegedly implausible claims.
Count I – Attorneys’ Fees
Wise alleges that the Demand is frivolous because it contains factual allegations lacking evidentiary support and legal theories unsupported by existing law.
Wise further contends that, had the matter remained in court, Texas law would govern because Claimant resides in Texas and entered into the contract there.
Wise relies on Rule 44 of the AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules, which authorizes an arbitrator to grant any remedy available in court, including attorneys’ fees and costs.
Wise also relies on Chapter 10 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, including Sections 10.001 and 10.002, arguing that sanctions and attorneys’ fees are available for frivolous claims.
Wise additionally cites Rule 44(c) of the AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules, which permits allocation of fees and costs where a claim is filed for purposes of harassment or is patently frivolous.
In the alternative, Wise requests sanctions under Rule 57(a) of the AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules effective May 1, 2025.
Wise therefore seeks recovery of its attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses, and arbitration-related fees incurred in defending the Demand.
Relief Requested by Wise
- Award Wise its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees;
- Grant such additional relief as the Arbitrator deems just and proper.
Signature
Respectfully submitted June 22, 2026.
Reid S. Manley
BURR & FORMAN, LLP
420 North 20th Street, Suite 3400
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
rmanley@burr.com