b'STATE REGULATORY ACTIONS GOODWINYork customers from using their platforms since 2017pervasive connections to New York. Second, the and (2) the New York Attorney Generals claims inNew York Attorney General argued that Bitfinexs support of its petitionwhich are based on the loanand Tethers assertion that tether is not a security in 2019 from Tether to Bitfinex that allegedly impairedor commodity under the Martin Act is premature the reserves backing tether that were availablegiven the defendants refusal to produce documents to redeem customers tether for fiat currency andmaterial to tethers status and, in any event, the New rendered false the representations that tether wasYork Attorney Generals investigation is not limited backed by fiat currencyhad no connection to Newto tether but also focuses on the operation of the York. Second, Bitfinex and Tether argued that the trialBitfinex platformwhich allows trades of nearly one court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because tetherhundred other virtual currencies, any of which may is a virtual currency, not a security or commodity, andbe a security or commodity. The New York Attorney therefore falls outside of the reach of the Martin Act.General also argued that Bitfinex and Tether were not Bitfinex and Tether also argued that, for the New Yorkentitled to halt its investigation based on objections Attorney General to impose the full power of the stateto what they think the New York Attorney General government on Bitfinex and Tether, the trial courtwill claim in a future lawsuit. Indeed, the New York should have determined whether tether was actuallyAttorney General need not definitively establish within the New York Attorney Generals statutorya violation of New York law but only a reasonable mandate and not relied on assertions that the Newbasis to believe that Bitfinex and Tether violated New York Attorney Generals investigation might at someYork law and are subject to the New York Attorney point touch on other products that qualify as securitiesGenerals jurisdiction.or commodities. The appeal remains pending.In response, the New York Attorney General opposed Bitfinexs and Tethers arguments. First, the New York Attorney General argued that the trial court had personal jurisdiction because Bitfinexs and Tethers own documents demonstrated their 16'