Bitcoin.com founder Roger Ver and other notable cryptocurrencies, including Kraken CEO Jesse Powell, won a petition to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit against them for manipulating the market.
An amended complaint was filed by crypto company United American Corp in March 2020 against Vera, Powell, Bitmain Technologies and CEO Jihan Wu, as well as Bitcoin Cash developers Shamma Chancellor and Jason Cox.
The case was dismissed with prejudice for insufficient evidence. The decisive decision came after a district court dismissed the initial complaint without prejudice in February 2020.
In the first UAC complaint of December 2018, Ver, Wu and Bitmain were accused of collaborating to address the results of a Bitcoin Cash network upgrade scheduled for November 15, 2018, when Bitcoin departed from SV Bitcoin Cash.
The initial complaint was dismissed due to lack of personal jurisdiction and the refusal to file a lawsuit, as the court advised the KLA even before amending the lawsuit that this would be the last opportunity for suspension.
The amended lawsuit alleges that the parties hired mining “mercenaries” in order to increase Bitcoin.com’s hashing power by more than 4,000% and reduce votes cast by other organizations participating in the network. They are said to have planned to capture the market temporarily and effectively centralize it in violation of accepted standards and protocols.
US District Judge Chris McClelley agreed to the defendant’s request to dismiss the amended complaint, citing no evidence of conspiracy:
The court first decides whether the complaint meets the requirements of the first element, the conspiracy. this is not true. As mentioned earlier, the complaint should state the facts, not conclusions, which are likely to indicate a conspiracy. ”
Judge McAlley argued that the plaintiff relied on circumstantial evidence and was unable to directly demand an agreement between the defendants to manipulate the Bitcoin Cash market in violation of Sherman’s antitrust law.
“After careful consideration of the complaint, the court concluded that there are no facts in it that create reasonable grounds to believe that the study results will reveal evidence of an unlawful agreement.”