An amended memo of complaint which was filed in a lawsuit heard by Miami Court has been turned down by the Court through an order of dismissal passed on 31st March, 2021 under the civil procedural laws of the US. The amended complaint was filed for impleading founders of Bitcoin.com, Bitmain and Kraken as well as the developers of Bitcoin Cash on the allegations of manipulation of funds.
When Bitcoins and Bitcoin Cash had parted their ways in 2018, a blockchain company known as United American Corp. (UAC) instituted several lawsuits. The lawsuits were aimed towards impleading well-known personalities belonging to the crypto community and blockchain industry as well as several developers.
For more than two years, the lawsuits were pending adjudication before a US Court in which multiple hearings had taken place.
Counsels for UAC alleged that 9 persons who had been arrayed as defendants played roles in manipulating the crypto market. These persons, the counsels alleged that were artificially creating passage for Bitcoin Cash’s (BCH’s) massive adoption. However, the arguments of the UAC’s counsel did not convince the Court and resultantly Chris McAliley, Judge Miami Court, dismissed the lawsuit.
However, the dismissal did not mean, the end of the matter, in fact the plaintiffs had the option of amending the complaint.
Now UAC had filed the amended memo of complaint against the 9 accused. Yet once again, the Judge was not convinced and ordered for dismissal of the complaint on 31st March, 2021. The Court copy of the detailed order passed on 31st March was made available on 1st April, 2021.
It was noted in the order that allegations were raised against founders of Bitcoin.com, Bitmain and Kraken and developers of Bitcoin Cash. However the Court did not find any plausible evidence which suggested the involvement of the accused in the alleged manipulation of events. Resultantly, the Court dismissed the complaint under Federal Civil Procedure laws of the US. The Court also did not agree with complaints that any transgressions had taken place as suggested in the amended memo of complaint.
UAC had accused the defendants of rigging the bids which is known as fixing of prices artificially. However, this allegation was not pressed by the counsels of UAC and the matter was left for the Court to decide upon.
Another allegation raised by UAC’s counsels was a violation relating to “antitrust”. In this regard, the Court noted that the complaints failed to substantiate their case and therefore the allegation is ill-founded and baseless. The Judge concluded that the Court did not find any evidence highlighting defendants’ involved in any so-called antitrust violation.
In the end, the Court allowed defendants an opportunity of dismissing amended memo of complaint through joint motion under civil procedural law.
Now UAC has the option of filing an appeal against the order of the Miami Court.
