On Friday, 3 April, eleven group lawsuits were brought against the main players in the cryptography industry. Among them: KuCoin, Binance, Tron Foundation, BitMeX or BiBox. These simultaneous prosecutions at the United States District Court were named “Bloody Friday” of the industry, in reference to the wave of attacks orchestrated by the IRA on Friday, July 21, 1972.
These collective trials involve both individuals and companies operating in the field of cryptography. Their complaints relate to various violations of U.S. securities laws. In this context, the plaintiffs seek compensation for the damage suffered as a result of these violations. But by studying lawsuits more precisely, their chances of success seem limited:
Plan de l'article
Waiver of class action
First, on the Defendants’ websites, it is noted that the terms and conditions accepted by the applicants include a waiver of class actions. This means that contractually, the parties undertake not to initiate a class action. As a result, the ongoing prosecutions could therefore be lapsed.
Protection by LLC
Most individuals do not manage their affairs in their own name. Generally, they are a limited liability company. The goal is to protect the personal property of owners.
Related topic : What profitability for the stock exchange in the long term ?
Because of this, personally attacking the holder of a company fails in 90% of cases. Simply because the party to the contract is not the person physical (the owner), but the legal person (the company itself).
In general, appointing a person during a trial is primarily a technique of intimidation. In this case, specifically attacking people like Vinny Lingham, Dan Larimer, Changpeng Zhao and Brendan Blumer will surely have little effect.
The performance of the law firm
Second, most law firms do not have sufficient control of cryptocurrency to shine during trials in this area.
One can recall the proceedings brought by Roche Cyrulnik Freedman. This New York law firm became known in the world of cryptography by representing the attackers in the lawsuit against Craig Wright (who claimed to be the true creator of Bitcoin).
But even though the firm won the trial, it nevertheless showed its lack of knowledge of currency virtual, whether it’s old or new crypto. So in the case of Bloody Friday, similar shortcomings can be expected.
In addition, there is a little-known clause in the U.S. Securities Act. It invokes a limitation period of two years in the context of complaints filed by individuals.
Specifically, the limitation period begins to run on the date of the first sale. However, many cryptographic companies involved in the lawsuit made their first sales much more than two years ago. This means that the plaintiffs’ prosecutions were probably brought too late to succeed.
Finally, most of the defendants are neither citizens nor residents of the United States. In addition, their websites and conditions exclude business with citizens and residents Americans.
In this case, the applicants certainly made false statements about their citizenship or place of residence, accepting the terms and conditions and contracts of the companies concerned. Therefore, they cannot rely on their statements during the trial.
In conclusion, the Applicants’ chances of success appear to be relatively low. But that obviously does not mean that the trials will succeed quickly or at a lower cost!