Bitmain, Roger Ver, Kraken Case: Judge Shows No Mercy to United Corp

US Judge McAliley has denied United Corp’s request for an extension to serve accusations to Bitmain and its CEO, Jihan Wu, citing the plaintiff has more than enough time to send the necessary documents across. 

Bitmain and Others Get a Lucky Break
The US court appears to getting fed up with the plaintiff in the high profile lawsuit against Bitmain, Roger Ver, Kraken, and others. United Corp., recently requested an additional 90 day extension period to serve translated documents to Hong Kong-incorporated crypto giant, Bitmain, having already had over a year to do so.
The accusations state that the Beijing-based exchange and others were involved in a scheme to hijack the network of Bitcoin Cash, and its native cryptocurrency. This also included attempts to gain control over the BCH market. However, the Magistrate Judge, Chris McAliley, denied the request, confirming the October deadline.
The judge stated that United Corp had already had a very generous period to send over the files to Bitmain, and that the period is now over. The fact that the plaintiff failed to use the given period indicates that they made no real effort to serve the defendants. The company was originally given 90 days to do it, and then an extension of an extra 6 months.
The judge continued,
Plaintiff knew from the outset that it would be serving foreign defendants in foreign countries, yet waited between six and eight months into the case to translate the complaint and summonses, without justification.
Further, the judge also recommended that the two foreign defendants — Bitcoin Cash developer, Amaury Sechet from France, and Saint Bitts LLC, from Saint Kitts and Nevis — are dismissed due to the lack of service.
United Corp. accuses Roger Ver, Bitcoin.com, and others of BCH manipulation
United Corp. claimed that all of the entities targeted by the suit were involved in a scheme to hijack and centralize the BCH market, including renowned Bitcoin Cash proponent, Roger Ver. In addition, the suit claims that this was in violation of accepted protocols and standards, which were in place since the market’s inception.
The complaint consists of eight parts in total, and includes the violations of the Clayton Act, negligence, the violation of the Sherman Act, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and finally, conversion.
Finally, United Corp. claimed that it had invested a major sum of $4 million in the construction and development of mining facilities that use its cooling infrastructure, known as BlockchainDome. However, according to the complaint, the BlockchainDome also suffered a lot of damage after it was excluded from the network, as well as due to the coin’s loss of value, and increased uncertainty caused by the supposed manipulation of the coin’s market, and attempts to centralize it.
What do you think about the new development regarding the United Corp. case? Join the discussion and leave your thoughts on the matter in the comments below.

Image via Shutterstock The post appeared first on Bitcoinist.com.