The anti-trust complaint filed byUnited American Corp versus Kraken, Bitmain and several other well-knownpersonalities in the cryptocurrency world has been alleged for “scheme bya tight-knit group of individuals and organizations in order to manipulate thecryptocurrency market concerning Bitcoin Cash.”
United American Corp, thePlaintiff alleged that “Defendants effectively hijacked Bitcoin Cashnetwork, centralized the market, and violated all of the accepted standards,protocols and course of conduct associated with Bitcoin since itsinception.”
The defendants have lawyered thesuit against them, and they have requested dismissal of the suit. The Plaintiffs have responded to thesubmissions of the defendants, and the court has ultimately ruled about thecharges framed by both the sides.
The court opined that the way thesides have framed their charges will have implications for disputes that arecurrently behind the screens and which are yet to surface.
The plaintiffs allege a globalcapitalization meltdown of more than $4 billion, thereby causing several USBitcoin holders, which included the plaintiffs themselves to suffer irreparableharm and damages.
Bitmain has argued that theallegation of “antitrust claim” fails as the lawsuit does not inferor prove any kind of agreement between the plaintiff and defendants.
Bitmain as well placed theirargument contending that the complaint did not please restraint or trade orharm to competition, which they state is important when alleging antitrustclaim. None of the alleged injuriesaccording to the defendants have harmed the plaintiffs.
The defendants in the case statedthat none of the allegations have a conclusory assertion concerning theexecution of the “Bitcoin Cash ABC upgrade” leading to decline in theprice of Bitcoin Cash, other than for macroeconomic forces.
The Kraken and Jesse Powell haveas well initiated a motion to dismiss the suit, where they contended that themarket collapse was due to macroeconomic forces and not due to any kind ofconspiracy.
The plaintiff; however, allegedfacts which they state show that “Defendants have made explicit statementsdeclaring that they coordinated, conspired and agreed with each other.”
The “misrepresentation”according to the plaintiffs was that “Defendants misrepresented toPlaintiff and the market that they would abide by the [Satoshi] Whitepaper andaccepted standards and protocols.”
The plaintiffs claim that theyrelied on the misrepresentation and bought millions of dollars of equipment tomine “Bitcoin Cash.”
It might be concluded that thedamage claims are doubtful; however, at the current stage, the dismissalmotions to claim are difficult at this point in time.