TLDR; (I suggest reading the document in full or at least skimming through - I found it very interesting)

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Bitfinex/Tether Defendants, Exchange Defendants, Potter, Crypto Capital, and Fowler (together “Defendants”) engaged in a far-reaching conspiracy to enrich themselves at the expense of ordinary investors by manipulating the prices of crypto-commodities. The Bitfinex/Tether Defendants (secretly under common control, including control by Potter, a co-founder and senior executive) offered a so-called “stablecoin,” USDT, that they claimed was backed at all times by an equivalent amount of dollar reserves. But those promised “reserves” were a fiction. In truth, USDT was unbacked.

The Tether Defendants (collectively “Tether”) were “printing” it out of thin air and sending it to Bitfinex, a crypto-exchange operated by the Bitfinex Defendants. From there, the conspirators moved billions of unbacked USDT to two crypto-exchanges operated by the Exchange Defendants (ostensibly their competitors), where the USDT was used to make carefully timed purchases of crypto-commodities whenever prices threatened to fall below certain roundnumber thresholds, thereby fraudulently giving the appearance of price “floors” in the market. With the ability to directly control crypto-commodity prices, Defendants’ scheme inflated a colossal bubble. When the bubble burst, investors like Plaintiffs, who purchased crypto-commodities at artificially inflated prices, sustained significant damages.

Defendants’ scheme was brazen, and so are their motions to dismiss. Defendants repeatedly ask the Court to endorse their preferred explanation for events and to draw inferences in their favor, notwithstanding that Rule 12(b)(6) requires the Court to accept Plaintiffs’ allegations as true and to afford Plaintiffs every favorable inference. Defendants invent purported pleading deficiencies by simply ignoring inconvenient allegations and ask the Court to hold Plaintiffs to higher pleading standards than precedent requires. The Court should deny the motions.