Bitcoin Cash antitrust lawsuit dismissed for prejudice…
Other well-known cryptocurrency companies, including Roger Burr, founder of the cryptocurrency exchange Bitcoin.com, and Jesse Powell, Kraken’s CEO, claimed market manipulation and won the dismissal of antitrust lawsuits filed against them.
The alleged complaint was filed in March 2020 by cryptocurrency company United America (UAC) against Burr, Powell, Bitmain Technologies, and Ji Han Woo, along with Bitcoin Cash developers Siamma Premier and Jason Cox.
The lawsuit turned out to be a prejudice based on insufficient evidence and was dismissed. This decision came after the district court dismissed the first complaint in February 2020.
In its initial complaint in December 2018, UAC accused Ber, Wu, and Bitmain of collusion to manipulate the results of the Bitcoin Cash network upgrade scheduled for November 15, 2018.
The court judge was dismissed because it had no personal jurisdiction and did not state the claim, and the court recommended that this would be the last chance to state its claim to the UAC before it could even modify the claim.
Judge Chris McCalliley, chief of the Southern Florida District Court, approved the defendant’s request to dismiss the revised complaint, pointing out that it failed to show evidence of the conspiracy.
“The court first considered whether the conspiracy requirements were met, but it wasn’t. As pointed out, the affidavit should state facts that plausibly imply a conspiracy, not conclusions.”
Judge McCaliley pointed out that the plaintiffs relied solely on circumstantial evidence and did not explicitly assert an agreement between defendants to manipulate the Bitcoin Cash market in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
(*Sherman Antitrust Act: One of the central laws of antitrust law enacted in the United States in 1890, the main provisions of this law are Article 1, which prohibits unfair trade restrictions, and Article 2, which prohibits unreasonable monopoly. )
As a result of scrutinizing the contents of the lawsuit, the court concluded that there was a lack of facts that could raise a reasonable expectation that the discovery would reveal evidence of an illegal settlement.