Consider the following:
1. If what Bloomberg says is false, why is Tether not denying it
2. If what Bloomberg says is not completely true, why isn't Tether clearing it up by releasing their asset breakdowns
3. If Tether is somehow not allowed to deny holding x due to ongoing court cases, why are they doing it anyway for things like Evergrande
4. If Tether is somehow not allowed to release their detailed asset breakdowns and audits, why do they keep promising they will be be released "soon"
5. If absolutely any of these extremely damning allegations are even slightly wrong in any way, why is Tether saying "Everyone already knew all this, it's old news."
In regards to Moore Cayman, as far as I am aware Moore is a franchising firm who takes payments for people to license its name. Moore Cayman is not a subsidiary of Moore, it is a licensee. These are very different things to the extent of being basically unrelated. It is not like KPMG or pwc or other global accounting firms. And even if Moore Cayman is 100% legit, which they might well be, why are they unable to provide an audit? They're accounting professionals and yet have provided nothing more than extremely vague asset breakdowns with no mention of counterparties. Every single other entity which resembles Tether provides an exact asset breakdown with counterparties. It is the only real important information you need to know in a money market fund. Everything else is noise. You would think this would be crucial information that a reputable accounting firm would provide.
However, let's try to stay on-topic as jumping from point to point isn't discussing anything - let's assume Moore is fully legit, because nothing Moore claims is contrary to what Bloomberg is claiming, and get back to the previous points.
I have no idea. I was speculating.
Isn’t that screenshot a denial?
Fair enough re: speculating. I can tell you now that nothing legally prevents them though, which is why they deny holding Evergrande.
That screenshot is not a denial. Tether are very clever with their wording. To dismiss something is not that same as denying it. They "dismiss" the allegations on the basis that everyone already knows it - they are (apparently) not new. Likewise, they say Bloomberg uses "dubious sources" - they do not say that anything these dubious sources have claimed is actually in doubt, or wrong at all. As soon as you recognise what they're trying to do, you realise why they are so careful with their wording.
Really, have a read of that statement they released. I read a lot of bullshit as part of my job and that is a masterpiece. It should honestly be used as educational material on "how to say absolutely nothing and (attempt to) avoid liability for fraud. Ultimately I don't think they will get away with it - fraud provisions are very good, especially "obtaining financial advantage by deception", and everything they've done is deception.