I was talking about the initial subpoena, not discovery. (Discovery occurs during the lawsuit, which happened later on.) The initial subpoena has not been quashed afaik, and would be pretty obvious grounds to stop issuance if it had yielded info about a hole in the balance sheet.
They haven't produced the information that would allow NYAG to establish the state of their balance sheet, and they appear to be fighting pretty hard to avoid producing that evidence.
NYAG can't, at the moment, do anything as the case has not yet reached court.
Most of the discussions in the case I've seen so far resolve around iFinex trying to insist the NYAG does not have jurisdiction over them, and so they don't have to provide any information about their finances. Whilst they don't appear to be winning that argument e.g. https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docInde...
they haven't (as far as I'm aware) actually produced the information about their finances so far.
First: You understand that your comment was about discovery (from the lawsuit) and mine was about the subpoena before the lawsuit?
> They haven't produced the information that would allow NYAG to establish the state of their balance sheet,
I don't know why you think this. It's the basis of the current lawsuit from the NYAG, who questions the nature of the loans that make up a portion of the balance sheet (on the asset side).
You're asking a number of questions that have no bearing on whether they've produced financial information for the balance sheet. We can get to those issues, but first I want to make sure you understand the difference between lawsuit discovery and the initial subpoena.
The initial subpoena requested financial information. I inferred that the time elapsed since the subpoena to mean tether backing was demonstrated. You mentioned that tether is fighting discovery, implying that financial information has not been provided. The subpoena and discovery are two entirely different matters, and moreover the reason discovery is happening is because Tether Inc complied with the subpoena.
It is the reason that all but the tinfoil-hat people have stopped worrying about tether. Their business might go under, but it wasn't the silly printing fraud that people like Bitfinexed were claiming.
So you're inferring that iFinex provided information in response to the Subpoena, just based on it having been a while....
Do you have any evidence of iFinex having provided all the relevant financial information relating to their balance sheet to the NYAG (a court filing for example).
All the court filing's I've seen relate to their case state that they're still fighting having to provide their financial information.
Edit: you can read the latest court filing here https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docInde... . Now IANAL but that does not sound to me like the NYAG was given the information needed. And the information they did provide was enough to cause the NYAG to initiate the martin act hearing they're currently contesting.
