Dfinity赢得了互联网计算机项目（ICP）代币的驳回集体诉讼

周二，美国地方法院法官詹姆斯·多纳托（James Donato）驳回了针对互联网计算机（ICO）的加密公司Dfinity的集体诉讼。法官根据《美国证券交易所法》的三年静止法规定，该案“有时”。

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.

美国地方法院法官詹姆斯·多纳托（James Donato）驳回了针对加密货币公司Dfinity及其高管的集体诉讼，发现案件是“有时的”。该诉讼于2021年8月首次提起，指控Dfinity出售未注册的证券，并对其Internet计算机项目（ICP）代币发表虚假陈述。

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，总部位于加利福尼亚州的多纳托法官于3月25日撤销了针对Dfinity的案件，批准了该公司驳回动议。法官认为，该案超出了《证券交易法》中的三年搁置法规，因此“有时”。

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."

此案始于加利福尼亚居民丹尼尔·奥卡莫（Daniel Ocampo）“代表所有在2021年5月10日或之后购买互联网计算机项目代币的投资者。”

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.

原告辩称，Dfinity的ICP令牌是以未注册的发行出售的证券。他们还声称，Dfinity对其业务和技术发表了虚假和误导性的陈述，该声明促使投资者以人为夸大的价格购买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认为其ICP令牌不是证券，其公开供给令牌始于2017年2月，其开放链网络启动。该公司还认为，原告关于欺诈的主张没有足够的辩护。

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法官在这两个方面都同意了Dfinity。他发现，原告关于欺诈的主张“不足以满足联邦证券欺诈索赔的提高诉状标准”。

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.

法官还指出，原告没有向充分的可靠性指控任何来源，以归因于dfinity雇员的声明或实施证券欺诈的意图水平。

"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.

多纳托法官写道：“原告的指控是，创始人多米尼克·威廉姆斯（Dominic Williams）对与代币分布的问题有所了解，不足以满足1933年法案的第12（a）（2）和第12（b）条。”

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.

案件始于当时已停产的加密律师事务所Roche Freedman的创始人被指控利用诉讼来收集有关加密货币公司的机密信息。

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.

该公司的创始人在法庭上与Ava Labs发行的价值超过6000万美元的代币作斗争后，申诉人（现在是Selendy Gay PLLC的律师）声称，Dfinity在2021年5月的交易店后操纵了数字资产市场，并夸大了ICP代币价格。

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.

案件周二结束，多纳托法官授予原告在4月8日之前修改其投诉，或根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》驳回其投诉。

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.”

邮政法官驳回了关于管辖权参数的诉讼，首先出现在连锁店出现。输出：周二，美国地方法院法官詹姆斯·多纳托（James Donato）驳回了针对Crypto Company dfinity及其高管的集体诉讼，发现该案“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.

该诉讼于2021年8月首次提起，指控Dfinity出售未注册的证券，并对其Internet计算机项目（ICP）代币发表虚假陈述。

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，总部位于加利福尼亚州的多纳托法官于3月25日撤销了针对Dfinity的案件，批准了该公司驳回动议。法官认为，该案超出了《证券交易所法》中的三年休息法，该案被“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.”

该案始于加利福尼亚居民丹尼尔·奥卡莫（Daniel Ocampo）“代表所有在2021年5月10日或之后购买Internet计算机项目代币的投资者。”

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.

原告辩称，Dfinity的ICP令牌是以未注册的发行出售的证券。他们还声称，Dfinity对其业务和技术发表了虚假和误导性的陈述，该声明促使投资者以人为夸大的价格购买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认为其ICP令牌不是证券，其公开供给令牌始于2017年2月，其开放链网络启动。该公司还认为，原告关于欺诈的主张没有足够的辩护。

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法官在这两个方面都同意了Dfinity。他发现，原告关于欺诈的主张“不足以满足联邦证券欺诈索赔的提高标准”。

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.

法官还指出，原告没有向充分的可靠性指控任何来源，以归因于dfinity雇员的声明或实施证券欺诈的意图水平。

“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.

多纳托法官写道：“原告的指控是，创始人多米尼克·威廉姆斯（Dominic Williams）必须对代币分布的问题有所了解。

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.

案件始于当时已停产的加密律师事务所Roche Freedman的创始人被指控利用诉讼来收集有关加密货币公司的机密信息。

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

该公司的创始人去法庭作战后，由申诉人Ava Labs发行的价值超过价值超过6000万美元的代币，如今