The United States Federal Court rejected the procedural motion filed by World Liberty Financial (WLFI) and did not agree to transfer all Sun ' s claims to private arbitration. This means that the individual claims filed by Sun will continue to be advanced in open court and the related disputes will be subject to external scrutiny.
Involving $45 million in investments
This dispute is related to Sun’s investment in WLFI. Reports indicate that the investment was about $45 million, involving 4 billion coins. Sun sought hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation and charged WLFI with retaining in the contract the power to freeze, transfer and destroy the bearer ' s currency.
Sun Sun stated that the relevant powers had not been fully disclosed and that WLFI had subsequently exercised these controls over its tokens. According to him, his token was limited within days of being unlocked.
The focus of the dispute is on the control of tokens.
The Court did not accept WLFI ' s claim to have the case as a whole transferred to a closed procedure, so that the dispute was no longer a mere ordinary investment dispute. The case will be taken forward in the framework of a public hearing, and the differences between the parties over the design of the contract and the competence to dispose of currency will become clearer.
Sun Woo morning then expanded the focus of the case. He stated that the litigation was not just about financial losses but also about whether the holding of block chain assets really amounted to control. If the issuer of the token can freeze the holder ' s assets in the absence of disclosure, governance procedures or formal processes, the meaning of so-called digital asset ownership will be weakened.
Or to influence the way in which currency contracts are examined.
Sun sought to shape the case into a judicial test of the chain of ownership of assets. The core view is that if the issuer can unilaterally dispose of the user's tokens, the long-emphasized unlicensed holding and control relationship of the industry may not be consistent with the actual situation.
At present, the Federal Court ' s procedural decision merely leaves the case in open court and does not represent a conclusion of the substantive dispute. However, as the case moves into a more open trial phase, WLFI and its currency contract design, control powers and enforcement modalities are expected to face a more rigorous legal review.