doubts about the stable coin backing still present and court of the southern district of New York issued an injunction on Tetherwho are requires proof of supporting assets to your stablecoin according to Mehron Rokhy in Dailyhodl.
The Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the Southern District of New York requires that Tether provide financial records on digital assets and funds backing USDT.
The plaintiffswho claim that Tether was issued completely unbacked as a means to inflate the price of Bitcoinconvinced the judge that the information they are requesting is necessary for the case.
“Plaintiffs clearly explain why they need this information: to assess USDT’s backing with US dollars and to allow a forensic accountant to assess USDT’s reserve.”
And although the Court understands the defendants’ position to be that the plaintiffs’ theory is changing with respect to ‘other assets’ and other funds, at this stage of the litigation and without commitment from the parties, the Court takes as true the position of the plaintiffs, statement that this information is necessary for assess your claims regarding USDT support.
The documents searched for in the RFP transactions (request for proposals) appear to go to one of the plaintiffs’ core claims: that the defendants engaged in crypto product transactions using unbacked USDT, and that those transactions “They were strategically programmed to inflate the market.”
Tether argued in court that the request should be denied because they are “incredibly too broad” and “unduly burdensome”. The firm also issued a separate statement saying the requests were part of a “meritless” case against you.
“The order that was issued yesterday in the case entitled In Re Tether and Bitfinex Crypto Asset Litigationis a routine discovery order and in no way substantiates plaintiffs’ meritless claims.
“We had already agreed to submit sufficient documents to establish the reserves supporting USDT, and this dispute was simply about the scope of the documents to be submitted. As always, we look forward to dispensing with the plaintiffs’ unfounded claim in due course.”