Bitfinex, Tether spent $ 500,000, hired 60 lawyers to order documents

Lawyers from Bitfinex, Tether and parent company iFinex Inc. said respondents have already spent over $ 500,000 responding to document requests for their ongoing litigation.

The solicitors’ letter, delivered to Judge Joel M. Cohen on July 30 and shared on Twitter that same day by Alistair Milne, CIO of the Altana Digital Currency Fund, highlights the apparent cost and complexity of document compliance compliance for the state Investigation.

As previously reported, the proceedings against the defendants began on the 24th to cover the deficiency.

Lawyers say trial is an expensive quagmire

In this most recent episode of the legal battle, defendants’ attorneys have dealt with the court’s earlier decision to suspend part of an extensive document order that requires the production of materials about Tether’s alleged loan to Bitfinex.

The attorneys found that the court had previously suspended the document warrant pending the settlement of the defendants’ motion to dismiss, among other things, to prevent the defendants from having to spend a small fortune on the production of documents that turned out to be could prove unnecessary.

The attorneys confirm that the court’s earlier concern about the excessive cost of document production was well founded as the sums spent allegedly exceeded $ 500,000. The letter reads:

“The process of responding to the spin-off from residence included one of the largest and most complex document collection and review efforts the undersigned attorneys have ever participated in, and involved over 60 attorneys.”

One stay, no delay

The attorneys concluded their letter to Justice Cohen by arguing that the minimal inconvenience the OAG suffered from the suspension of the document order is far outweighed by the irreparable damage defendants suffer from complying with the regulation, at a price who “would make the real relief disputed”. the defendants would appeal. ”

They also point out that the suspension is in no way intended to be postponement, as defendants are pursuing their motion to dismiss and, if necessary, appeal their likely rejection. They also express confidence that they will ultimately complete a successful dispute on the case.

At the trial earlier this week, Judge Cohen granted a 90-day extension of the case to allow NY OAG to continue its investigation.

Comments are closed.