Dfinity贏得了互聯網計算機項目（ICP）代幣的駁回集體訴訟

週二，美國地方法院法官詹姆斯·多納托（James Donato）駁回了針對互聯網計算機（ICO）的加密公司Dfinity的集體訴訟。法官根據《美國證券交易所法》的三年靜止法規定，該案“有時”。

U.S. District Judge James Donato has dismissed a class action lawsuit against crypto company DFINITY and its executives, finding the case "time-barred." The lawsuit, which was first filed in August 2021, accused DFINITY of selling unregistered securities and making false statements about its Internet Computer Project (ICP) tokens.

美國地方法院法官詹姆斯·多納托（James Donato）駁回了針對加密貨幣公司Dfinity及其高管的集體訴訟，發現案件是“有時的”。該訴訟於2021年8月首次提起，指控Dfinity出售未註冊的證券，並對其Internet計算機項目（ICP）代幣發表虛假陳述。

However, Judge Donato, who is based in California, dropped the case against DFINITY on March 25, granting the company’s motion to dismiss. The judge found that the case was "time-barred" as it exceeded the three-year statute of repose in the Securities Exchange Act.

但是，總部位於加利福尼亞州的多納託法官於3月25日撤銷了針對Dfinity的案件，批准了該公司駁回動議。法官認為，該案超出了《證券交易法》中的三年擱置法規，因此“有時”。

The case began when California resident Daniel Ocampo filed the complaint "on behalf of all investors who purchased Internet Computer Project tokens on or after May 10, 2021."

此案始於加利福尼亞居民丹尼爾·奧卡莫（Daniel Ocampo）“代表所有在2021年5月10日或之後購買互聯網計算機項目代幣的投資者。”

The plaintiffs argued that DFINITY's ICP tokens were securities that were sold in an unregistered offering. They also claimed that DFINITY made false and misleading statements about its business and technology, which induced investors to purchase ICP tokens at artificially inflated prices.

原告辯稱，Dfinity的ICP令牌是以未註冊的發行出售的證券。他們還聲稱，Dfinity對其業務和技術發表了虛假和誤導性的陳述，該聲明促使投資者以人為誇大的價格購買ICP令牌。

DFINITY argued that its ICP tokens were not securities and that its public offering of the tokens began in February 2017 with the launch of its open-chain network. The company also argued that the plaintiffs' claims of fraud were not sufficiently pleaded.

Dfinity認為其ICP令牌不是證券，其公開供給令牌始於2017年2月，其開放鍊網絡啟動。該公司還認為，原告關於欺詐的主張沒有足夠的辯護。

Judge Donato agreed with DFINITY on both points. He found that the plaintiffs' claims of fraud were "not sufficiently pleaded to satisfy the heightened pleading standard for federal securities fraud claims."

Donato法官在這兩個方面都同意了Dfinity。他發現，原告關於欺詐的主張“不足以滿足聯邦證券欺詐索賠的提高訴狀標準”。

The judge also noted that the plaintiffs did not allege with sufficient reliability any sources for the assertions attributing statements to DFINITY employees or the level of intent to commit securities fraud.

法官還指出，原告沒有向充分的可靠性指控任何來源，以歸因於dfinity僱員的聲明或實施證券欺詐的意圖水平。

"Plaintiffs' allegations that founder Dominic Williams ‘necessarily had knowledge' of the issues with the token distribution are not specific enough to satisfy Section 12(a)(2) and 12(b) of the 1933 Act," Judge Donato wrote.

多納託法官寫道：“原告的指控是，創始人多米尼克·威廉姆斯（Dominic Williams）對與代幣分佈的問題有所了解，不足以滿足1933年法案的第12（a）（2）和第12（b）條。”

The case began when the founders of defunct crypto law firm Roche Freedman were accused of leveraging litigation to gather confidential information on crypto firms.

案件始於當時已停產的加密律師事務所Roche Freedman的創始人被指控利用訴訟來收集有關加密貨幣公司的機密信息。

After the founders of the firm went to court fighting over $60 million worth of tokens issued by Ava Labs, the complainants, now under the counsel of Selendy Gay PLLC, had alleged that DFINITY manipulated the digital asset market and inflated ICP token prices after its May 2021 trading debut.

該公司的創始人在法庭上與Ava Labs發行的價值超過6000萬美元的代幣作鬥爭後，申訴人（現在是Selendy Gay PLLC的律師）聲稱，Dfinity在2021年5月的交易店後操縱了數字資產市場，並誇大了ICP代幣價格。

The case ends Tuesday with Judge Donato granting plaintiffs a final chance to amend their complaint by April 8 or face dismissal under federal rules on civil procedure.

案件週二結束，多納託法官授予原告在4月8日之前修改其投訴，或根據《聯邦民事訴訟規則》駁回其投訴。

The post Judge dismisses Dfinity lawsuit over jurisdiction parameters appeared first on Chain Teller.output: On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge James Donato dismissed a class action lawsuit against crypto company DFINITY and its executives, finding the case “time-barred.”

郵政法官駁回了關於管轄權參數的訴訟，首先出現在連鎖店出現。輸出：週二，美國地方法院法官詹姆斯·多納托（James Donato）駁回了針對Crypto Company dfinity及其高管的集體訴訟，發現該案“限制了”。

The lawsuit, which was first filed in August 2021, accused DFINITY of selling unregistered securities and making false statements about its Internet Computer Project (ICP) tokens.

該訴訟於2021年8月首次提起，指控Dfinity出售未註冊的證券，並對其Internet計算機項目（ICP）代幣發表虛假陳述。

However, Judge Donato, who is based in California, dropped the case against DFINITY on March 25, granting the company’s motion to dismiss. The judge found that the case was “time-barred” as it exceeded the three-year statute of repose in the Securities Exchange Act.

但是，總部位於加利福尼亞州的多納託法官於3月25日撤銷了針對Dfinity的案件，批准了該公司駁回動議。法官認為，該案超出了《證券交易所法》中的三年休息法，該案被“限制”。

The case began when California resident Daniel Ocampo filed the complaint “on behalf of all investors who purchased Internet Computer Project tokens on or after May 10, 2021.”

該案始於加利福尼亞居民丹尼爾·奧卡莫（Daniel Ocampo）“代表所有在2021年5月10日或之後購買Internet計算機項目代幣的投資者。”

The plaintiffs argued that DFINITY’s ICP tokens were securities that were sold in an unregistered offering. They also claimed that DFINITY made false and misleading statements about its business and technology, which induced investors to purchase ICP tokens at artificially inflated prices.

原告辯稱，Dfinity的ICP令牌是以未註冊的發行出售的證券。他們還聲稱，Dfinity對其業務和技術發表了虛假和誤導性的陳述，該聲明促使投資者以人為誇大的價格購買ICP令牌。

DFINITY argued that its ICP tokens were not securities and that its public offering of the tokens began in February 2017 with the launch of its open-chain network. The company also argued that the plaintiffs’ claims of fraud were not sufficiently pleaded.

Dfinity認為其ICP令牌不是證券，其公開供給令牌始於2017年2月，其開放鍊網絡啟動。該公司還認為，原告關於欺詐的主張沒有足夠的辯護。

Judge Donato agreed with DFINITY on both points. He found that the plaintiffs’ claims of fraud were “not sufficiently pleaded to satisfy the heightened pleading standard for federal securities fraud claims.”

Donato法官在這兩個方面都同意了Dfinity。他發現，原告關於欺詐的主張“不足以滿足聯邦證券欺詐索賠的提高標準”。

The judge also noted that the plaintiffs did not allege with sufficient reliability any sources for the assertions attributing statements to DFINITY employees or the level of intent to commit securities fraud.

法官還指出，原告沒有向充分的可靠性指控任何來源，以歸因於dfinity僱員的聲明或實施證券欺詐的意圖水平。

“Plaintiffs' allegations that founder Dominic Williams ‘necessarily had knowledge' of the issues with the token distribution are not specific enough to satisfy Section 12(a)(2) and 12(b) of the 1933 Act,” Judge Donato wrote.

多納託法官寫道：“原告的指控是，創始人多米尼克·威廉姆斯（Dominic Williams）必須對代幣分佈的問題有所了解。

The case began when the founders of defunct crypto law firm Roche Freedman were accused of leveraging litigation to gather confidential information on crypto firms.

案件始於當時已停產的加密律師事務所Roche Freedman的創始人被指控利用訴訟來收集有關加密貨幣公司的機密信息。

After the founders of the firm went to court fighting over $60 million worth of tokens issued by Ava Labs, the complainants, now under the counsel of Selendy Gay

該公司的創始人去法庭作戰後，由申訴人Ava Labs發行的價值超過價值超過6000萬美元的代幣，如今