[ad_1]
Fast setting
- Bitfinex and Tether have moved the cancellation of the order ex parte "because it was made on the basis of incomplete or incorrect facts and a bad legal standard"
- Bitfinex and Tether claim that they have published "there has been no fraud in progress, nor are" victims "in need of radical recourse to an injunction to protect them"
- They argue that NYAG must first lay the groundwork for its authority "even in the area of regulation," and oblige Tether and Bitfinex to "handle requests for stealth documents."
The parent company of Tether and Bitfinex has published its official response to the charges brought against it by the New York Attorney General's office two weeks ago.
iFinex has decided to cancel the court order, alleging that the companies had carried out a camouflage operation to conceal a purported loss of $ 850 million of customer and corporate funds bundled, claiming that the order had been "based on facts the wrong legal standard." To be clear, Bitfinex has treated the NYAOG claims in other statements, but the court order issued May 5 offers further information on the case.
To begin with, Bitfinex and Tether claim that "there was no fraud going on, nor any" victims "who would need radical recourse to an injunction to protect them."
In the document, iFinex states that the Attorney General of New York (NYAG) does not even explain why Tether (USDT) is considered a title or a merchandise governed by Martin law, which would properly establish the authority of the agency on the cabinet. According to iFinex, NYAG would need this authority base "to even regulate in this area" and would require that Tether and Bitfinex "tackle the requests for stealth documents".
In addition, iFinex claims that the injunction is "extremely disruptive" as it freezes over $ 2 billion of Tether's reserves and prohibits any investment of any kind whatsoever "in the indefinite future". IFinex claims that "huge regulatory overflow" because there was no fraud and "even less permanent or irreparable harm. "
The filing adds that Tether disclosed that its reserves could consist of loans to affiliates prior to the line of credit transaction and that the USDT holders were free and could redeem or sell their attachments at any time. moment (including now). Tether says it "has enough reserves to meet the demand". In addition, Bitfinex states that it does not have the duty to inform its customers of all the business that customers "would find important".
IFinex also points out that NYAG misuses the term "investor" when it refers to Bitfinex and Tether's clients, who are not investors, and "who are not allowed to disclose as they do." 39; were. " In addition, the company said that "au pairs to date, despite this procedure. "
Bitfinex and Tether claim that a preliminary injunction "would not protect anyone, but would cause a great disturbance to Bitfinex and Tether".
[ad_2]
Source link