Judge Rules Poolin Cofounders to Return Compensation and Pay 1.2M Fines toBitman

Harlot

hero member

Activity: 1806

Merit: 672

Quote from: avikz on April 21, 2020, 08:07:44 AM

That makes complete sense! Such kind of non-competition agreements are usually put in place to safeguard the business. Let's assume, I start a company in a certain sector today and hired three employees. These employees worked for me for a year to understand how the business work and receive their salaries during that period. Now after a year, they resign and started challenging the existence of my own business. That's not done!

Long back, I used to work for a freight forwarding company who were just starting up with their own platform for freight forwarders. They have built a unique platform to integrate freight forwarding as well as trucking industry in a single go. I had a similar kind of agreement executed with the while joining the company which stated I can't join a freight forwarding business for another 3 years after leaving their company. The Judge has taken right decision to safeguard the intellectual integrity of a business!

However what bugs me is why these ex-employees continue to create their own mining pool if they have an existing non-compete clause with Bitmain. Bitmain might did a dirty trick by hiding the clause itself under their contract rather than outright telling that a non-compete clause such exist. Non-competes and NDAs(Non-disclosure Agreements) clauses are supposed to be said vocally and is clearly seen in their contracts so that they are fully aware of their contract. These three executives might not even have a clue that's why they got trapped by Bitmain. I have a feeling that this is a possibility here since they did this kind of dirty tactic to Micree when he got ousted.

avikz

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1500

Quote from: hugeblack on April 14, 2020, 07:14:14 AM

The case started in August 2018 when Bitmain first filed a lawsuit against the three former chief executives who started a rival mining pool claiming that they violated the non-competition agreement.
According to the ruling result, the three former chief executives have already violated the non-competition agreement and will pay their former employer a penalty for breaching the agreement.
As the ruling stated that Pan Zhibiao, the legal representative of Poolin, Zhu Fa, the shareholder of Poolin, and Li Tianzhao, another shareholder, ordered the implementation of the NOC and also ordered the three to return all compensation (they should return all the paid compensation and pay fines totaling more than $170,000).

Read more and source --------> https://news.8btc.com/judge-rules-poolin-cofounders-to-return-compensation-and-pay-1-2mln-fines-to-bitmain

That makes complete sense! Such kind of non-competition agreements are usually put in place to safeguard the business. Let's assume, I start a company in a certain sector today and hired three employees. These employees worked for me for a year to understand how the business work and receive their salaries during that period. Now after a year, they resign and started challenging the existence of my own business. That's not done!

Long back, I used to work for a freight forwarding company who were just starting up with their own platform for freight forwarders. They have built a unique platform to integrate freight forwarding as well as trucking industry in a single go. I had a similar kind of agreement executed with the while joining the company which stated I can't join a freight forwarding business for another 3 years after leaving their company. The Judge has taken right decision to safeguard the intellectual integrity of a business!

jseverson

hero member

Activity: 1834

Merit: 759

Quote from: buwaytress on April 15, 2020, 07:28:54 AM

I mean, plenty of employees set off on their own after gaining the skills and know-how, and in my experience, most former employers don't mind -- as long as boundaries are set and it's all done in good faith.

That's probably because it doesn't threaten employers' business under most circumstances. In this case though, these employees had money to burn, and their current stature proves that they are at least a significant competitor in Bitmain's business. Bitmain exercised their right, which they definitely didn't need to do, but the court agreed anyway.

Quote from: Theb on April 14, 2020, 10:53:04 AM

With all this noise happening in the courtroom it would be less and less likely for the company to be listed in the NYSE.

The Zhan mess is certainly ugly, but I don't think this case will affect Bitmain's public perception very much. There was an agreement and it was broken, so it's understandable that they went to court. Either way though, I don't think they have much of a chance considering they weren't even able to breach HK.

Theb

hero member

Activity: 1680

Merit: 655

Quote from: NotATether on April 15, 2020, 07:40:35 AM

Quote from: Theb on April 14, 2020, 10:53:04 AM

Regarding about Micree Zhan I guess that his legal action isn't over yet with Bitmain and there are still news surfacing about it. With all this noise happening in the courtroom it would be less and less likely for the company to be listed in the NYSE.

Does anyone know why Micree Zhan was fired in the first place? All I can see from news articles is that Jihan Wu fired him without telling him first.

First of all Micree Zhan is not "fired" but ousted from his position in the board, even if he was removed from the board he still has shares of Bitmain that's why he can still pursue legal action against the company of his own. After all Zhan himself has 36% shares of Bitmain as compared to Wu who only has 20% but the thing is Wu might have allies himself to other members of the board that's why he have greater voting power in this decision. Also Zhan being clueless with his ousting is also one of the strategies of any board takeover to surprise the current seating chairman.

NotATether

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 6660

bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org

Quote from: Theb on April 14, 2020, 10:53:04 AM

Regarding about Micree Zhan I guess that his legal action isn't over yet with Bitmain and there are still news surfacing about it. With all this noise happening in the courtroom it would be less and less likely for the company to be listed in the NYSE.

Does anyone know why Micree Zhan was fired in the first place? All I can see from news articles is that Jihan Wu fired him without telling him first.

buwaytress

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 3684

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Almost forgot about this. I generally think China does try to be fair in business law, but I suppose the legal text is unambiguous when it comes to NDA and non-compete clauses, so am really surprised these guys went that direction without getting the clear from Bitmain. I mean, plenty of employees set off on their own after gaining the skills and know-how, and in my experience, most former employers don't mind -- as long as boundaries are set and it's all done in good faith.

I agree with Theb that the employment compensation being returned is a bit unfair, the fines ought to have been enough. I suppose they're trying to set an example here.

Theb

hero member

Activity: 1680

Merit: 655

And I though Micree Zhan is the only person having troubles with Bitmain and now I am seeing that they also have non-compete issues against their former employees. Honestly I don't have any issues regarding this, even if it looks dirty and all if their bylaws and contracts state a non-compete clause and NDA agreements they will most likely fail if their business will ever come close to what Bitmain is offering. What I didn't like about the court's decision is even their compensation for the two years their work for Bitmain will be given back to them which honestly is unfair for them. Regarding about Micree Zhan I guess that his legal action isn't over yet with Bitmain and there are still news surfacing about it. With all this noise happening in the courtroom it would be less and less likely for the company to be listed in the NYSE.

hugeblack

legendary

Activity: 2688

Merit: 3983

The case started in August 2018 when Bitmain first filed a lawsuit against the three former chief executives who started a rival mining pool claiming that they violated the non-competition agreement.
According to the ruling result, the three former chief executives have already violated the non-competition agreement and will pay their former employer a penalty for breaching the agreement.
As the ruling stated that Pan Zhibiao, the legal representative of Poolin, Zhu Fa, the shareholder of Poolin, and Li Tianzhao, another shareholder, ordered the implementation of the NOC and also ordered the three to return all compensation (they should return all the paid compensation and pay fines totaling more than $170,000).

Read more and source --------> https://news.8btc.com/judge-rules-poolin-cofounders-to-return-compensation-and-pay-1-2mln-fines-to-bitmain

Topic: Judge Rules Poolin Cofounders to Return Compensation and Pay 1.2M Fines toBitman (Read 207 times)