The cryptocurrency exchange, Bitfinex, owned and operated by iFinex Inc., headquartered in Hong Kong, requested the court to drop all charges of the $1.4T Case over Bitcoin Bubble.
As per a corporate statement, Bitfinex was charged with allegations of market manipulation, and was hammered down with a class-action lawsuit and was coined “frivolous,” Tether was also accused of the same crimes, and like Bitfinex, it also filed a motion to dismiss the class-action lawsuit.
The class-action lawsuit was issued as retribution for the damages caused by the companies, which accumulated to over a trillion U.S. dollars.
The original lawsuit was filed by Benjamin Leibowitz, David Leibowitz, Jason Leibowitz, Pinchas Goldshtein, and Aaron Leibowitz, Vel Freedman and Kyle Roche – the lawyers who persuaded a federal case against Bitfinex, Tether, Craig Wright, Digfinex, and payment processor Crypto Capital, current executives; and former chief strategy officer Philip Potter.
Charges were made, based on the allegations made by the New York Attorney General’s office, and a report published by the professors at the University of Texas, Austin.
In April, the New York Attorney General’s office claimed that Tether was not being backed up U.S. dollars in the 1:1 ratio, while the findings of the University of Texas claimed that a single account was used by the accused-companies to inflate half the price of bitcoin’s 2017 surge.
They were also accused of running a sophisticated scheme by which they fraudulently raised the price in the cryptocurrency market by printing uncovered USDT tokens. Their actions had been dubbed as “the biggest bubble in human history.”
Tether and Bitfinex, both have denied the allegations and justified themselves with reasons.
The defendants claimed that apart from flaws in the methodology of the unpublished academic paper (paper by John Griffin and Amin Shams), meritless claims had been altered to “walk back support for a core allegation of the plaintiffs’ complaint,” and added that the entire proceeding should be dismissed on the ground of lacks for a factual or legal potency of information gathered on the activities of the plaintiffs. They claimed that the case lacked sufficient evidence to proceed beyond the early stage of the lawsuit.