$170 Million Dollar Hack On Italian Crypto Exchange BitGrail Ends Up In Lawsuit, Nano Faucet Cited
Hack On Italian Crypto Exchange BitGrail Ends Up In Lawsuit
Lawyers continue to be involved in the BitGrail hack that occurred almost a year ago and that resulted in the loss of more than 15 million NANO coins, close to $195 million dollars at that time.
The Block provided a summary of three new complaints, one that involves the lost cryptocurrencies and demanded a hard fork. The second says that the pre-sold mining hardware contracts were just securities and the third one is related to artificial intelligence on the blockchain.
The new lawsuit involves a cryptocurrency that is called NANO and that were stored on the Italian crypto exchange BitGrail. According to the report, Nano and BitGrailare the defendants.
As per the report, more than 15 million XRB (at that time NANO was called RaiBlocks) with a market value of around $170 million was lost. However, this number would be today less than a tenth part of this.
This lawsuit contains a section with allegations with a predictable collection of statements that were made by promoters and developers on social media. Plaintiffs use this evidence in order to say that XRB was not decentralized but in fact, the NANO defendants had control over the NANO supply.
As per this lawsuit, Nano Defendants created the XRB currency and pushed investors to trade it through the BitGrail exchange. However, when the XRB coins were lost, the defendants claimed that they had no responsibility for this loss. However, the plaintiff says that they could have hard forked and protect users.
Furthermore, Plaintiff says that XRB are unregistered securities following the securities act of 1933 and the Howey Test.
The new lawsuit was filed in the name of James Fabian in California federal court. There are also new defendants that include the Italian BitGrail entity and there are five new causes of action.
According to Stephen D. Palley, a crypto legal analyst, the plaintiff’s lawyers decided to find a new class rep and tighten allegations.
On Mr. Palley wrote:
“My guess is that the plaintiff’s lawyers read the motion to dismiss, decided that it contained some decent arguments and decided to find a new class rep and tighten allegations in their complaint. The motion to dismiss focused on threshold questions about the XRB being a security and whether or not personal jurisdiction could be asserted over a non-US entity.”
Apparently, the next step will be taken by the defendants trying to ‘dust off’ the last motion and try again in this court.