Almost three months after winning a major legal victory, Tether Limited was the target of a new lawsuit in the United States. According to the new lawsuit, the company is accused of carrying out “immoral, unethical, oppressive and unscrupulous practices”
THE new action was filed in the Southern District Court of New York. The authors, Matthew Anderson and Shawn Dolika, also challenge the claim about stablecoins USDT backing. For them, cryptocurrency does not have a 1 to 1 dollar parity, contrary to Tether’s claims.
This is the second time that the USDT’s backing has been challenged in court. Last time, Tether pledged to release quarterly reports regarding its reserves.
The most recent of them found that stablecoin is backed up, but most of it is made up of commercial paper reserves and certificates of deposit. Only 10% comes from cash and bank deposits.
Tether defends itself and calls the new action “absurd”
Tether Limited quickly published a note questioning the action. And Tether used harsh words to criticize the process.
In the words of the company, the process is “disgraceful and has no legal basis”.
“This is a shameful attempt to get money. This process is an example of a botched deeds textbook. In fact, he will never be worthy of receiving a single satoshi in payment,” the company said.
A satoshi is the smallest account in the BTC unit and is equal to 0.00000001 BTC. In other words, Tether has stated that the plaintiffs will not receive a penny.
At the same time, the company went on the counter-attack, saying it would “aggressively litigate and dismiss”. After the lawsuit is filed, Tether said it will sue Anderson and Dolika and seek damages for the allegations.
In October, Tether was convicted by the US Commodities and Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) of “misleading statements and material omissions in relation to the US Dollar Token, USDT”. As a result, the company had to pay a $42.5 million fine.
In this sense, Tether also alleges that the charges brought by Anderson and Dolika have already been brought to the merits by the courts, which ruled in favor of the company. Therefore, the new action has no merits that can be judged.