Court Gives Something For Both Sides In The Tezos Litigation
Regarding the ongoing litigation on Tezos, the Court on March 8 issued a ruling that asked both of these issues, allowing the case to step ahead under somewhat varied management and without restarting the clock.
The court had initially appointed Arman Anvari as the lead plaintiff in this consolidated class action. Anvari then moved to withdraw as the lead plaintiff and substitute Artiom Franze. Another plaintiff, Trigon, also asked to be appointed and asked for its lawyers to be substituted as class counsel.
Anvari’s lawyers had clarified their position saying:
“None of the parties object to his withdrawal. In the meantime, a number of other individuals have stepped forward to substitute in as lead plaintiff. We’re keenly focused on assisting the court in this process and continuing to move the claims against Tezos forward for the benefit of our class members.”
Among the respondents, who dismiss the class action’s allegation, are the U.S. blockchain entrepreneurs Arthur Breitman and Kathleen Breitman and their company, Dynamic Ledger Solutions, which initiated the Tezos project; and the Switzerland-based Tezos Foundation.
On June 10th, 2018, the court gave a mixed bag of the verdict. In favor of the defendants, the court rejected the plaintiff's broad demands for documents saying:
“[i]t is difficult to imagine documents created months after the Tezos ICO that are relevant to whether the Tezos tokens constituted ‘securities’ at the time of the July 2017 ICO.”
However, in favor of the plaintiffs, the court ordered the defendants to give them the communications between Defendants and the SEC or other governmental or regulatory agency. They said:
“[i] If Defendants characterized the Tezos tokens in those communications in a manner that conflicts with the manner they characterize them in this litigation, Plaintiffs are entitled to obtain those documents.”
The block crypto has been covering this story from the beginning. They say that the defendants being subjected to regulatory investigations is a speculative matter. Although it's hard to say if this judgment will be influential in the final outcome of the ongoing case.