The judge of the district of New York, Nina Gershon, recently rejected the class action lawsuit on the developers of the Nano (NANO) cryptocurrency for the case of hacking that affected the Bitgrail crypto exchange, which generated losses of up to $200 million at that time. According to documents filed this week by the New York Court, the lawsuit, which had been filed in April 2018 by an investor identified as Alex Brola, would have been rejected by the authorities one month after the plaintiff voluntarily withdrew the legal remedy.
The lawsuit indicated that Nano (NANO) team was primarily responsible for the theft that affected the Bitgrail crypto exchange last February, when a total of 17 million NANO, estimated at approximately $200 million, were stolen. Alex Brola claimed, both on his behalf and on behalf of all those affected by the hack that the team behind Nano (NANO) would have violated the US securities laws by encouraging users to trade in an exchange house that was not registered nationally, as Bitgrail was of Italian origin.
To make matters worse, they also pointed out that the developers had not applied all their methods at their disposal to recover the stolen cryptos. Some indicated that a possible hard fork of the Nano (NANO) network would have avoided the losses of the investors and even demanded a compensation with the creation of a new cryptocurrency to cover the damages.
New York court dismisses the lawsuit against Nano (NANO) devs in the Bitgrail case
However, a few months after introducing the suit, Brola voluntarily withdrew it without issuing any statement, although some consider it to be due to lack of merit in the lawsuit. Beyond this action, Nano (NANO) developers asked the authorities to review the lawsuit case and dismiss it, a petition that was carried out by Judge Nina Gershon.
Among the arguments outlined by the developers to dismiss the accusations, it was stated that the tokens distributed by Nano are not guarantees, much less value, because they do not depend on a group of investors, so they are not subject to the securities laws of the United States.
“The value of Nano (NANO) is not derived from a group of managers or executives who manage other people’s property; rather, the value of Nano is derived from its usefulness or potential usefulness as a cryptocurrency,” Nano (NANO) devs stated.
