If the wendon group owns shares in intersango does that make them liable ?
Topic: World's First Bitcoin Lawsuit - Cartmell v. Bitcoinica - page 5. (Read 18714 times)
Oh that's great, so now instead of bitcoinica victims a few guys have decided to take all Intersango customers down the drain with them? Sharing is caring?
Intersango customers can pull their funds out and use another exchange while this plays out. It's Intersango itself which might end up being the sacrifice offered to appease the angry gods. Intersango was always going to get dragged into this. The only question up until now has been when and by whom.
Yea i suppose so, but since there seem to be a lot of people complaining about funds being stuck in intersango i have the feeling they will never get it back now that this is going on.
Just hoping it won't cause many more people losses.
Oh that's great, so now instead of bitcoinica victims a few guys have decided to take all Intersango customers down the drain with them? Sharing is caring?
Intersango customers can pull their funds out and use another exchange while this plays out. It's Intersango itself which might end up being the sacrifice offered to appease the angry gods. Intersango was always going to get dragged into this. The only question up until now has been when and by whom.
Oh that's great, so now instead of bitcoinica victims a few guys have decided to take all Intersango customers down the drain with them? Sharing is caring?
Its a race to see who can clean them out first and get hold of the chinese relics.
Oh that's great, so now instead of bitcoinica victims a few guys have decided to take all Intersango customers down the drain with them? Sharing is caring?
At least Zhou's comments about secret documents and Patrick walking away from the refund process make sense now.
It seems a tremendous shame Zhou isn't in charge, he has handled this entire situation with the utmost professionalism and candor despite some really off base personal attacks pointed in his direction.
What, you mean when it became clear that he was responsible for the recent MtGox theft and he came up with some bullshit excuse involving some mysterious chinese crook?
Wait till you find out which Bitcoiner is into Chinese archaeology (read relics).
~Bruno~
It seems a tremendous shame Zhou isn't in charge, he has handled this entire situation with the utmost professionalism and candor despite some really off base personal attacks pointed in his direction.
What, you mean when it became clear that he was responsible for the recent MtGox theft and he came up with some bullshit excuse involving some mysterious chinese crook?
I'm sure appropriate lawyers have already answered this, but would the Californian courts hold any jurisdiction over a UK incorporated company (and/or directors) and the NZ main entity? What action could this court realistically impose on the company?
Its AU/NZ, our governments bend over goatse style for America.
Now if only we were talking about downloaded mp3s or movies - FBI with NZ police would have already raided these guys.
None of "these guys" are in NZ - there's literally nothing for the NZ police to raid. Nor will any US legal action have any material effect on the liquidation of an NZ company. This is all about being able to pursue remedies which may allow them to recover amounts above and beyond those which they might receive in any pro-rata distribution of Bitcoinica funds (whether informally through the previous refund process or through liquidation). Their complaint specifically states that they never agreed to a pro-rata refund. (They were somewhat willing to accept a pro-rata refund under the proposed settlement agreement if certain conditions were met, but the agreement was never ratified by Bitcoinica LP so there was no agreement to accept less than 100%).
Ironically, it's possible that the NZ liquidator will find that the actions of those involved in Bitcoinica LP give rise to personal liability - which would bolster the US case.
The complaint has not been filed as a "complex case" under California Rules, which means that they're not seeking to raise difficult/novel issues such as the nature of Bitcoin and whether or not it has value.
It's generally not in the interests of either party for the matter to go to trial, especially when the defendants don't have deep pockets.
The Notice to Plaintiff states that participation in some kind of alternative dispute resolution process is required before the matter can proceed to trial.
The Notice to Plaintiff states that participation in some kind of alternative dispute resolution process is required before the matter can proceed to trial.
Added this to the OP:
It should be known that the four plaintiffs had previously attempted to expedite the claims process and proposed a settlement agreement with Bitcoinica that would have granted a limited period of time to complete the claims, a much larger margin for error, and immunity: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B_ECG6JRZs-7SXFtdG1QXy1uSnM
Discussions began at the end of June, and while Tihan and Zhou were very cooperative and seemed to genuinely want what was in the best interest of the Bitcoinica users, Donald, Patrick and Amir were not taking the situation seriously. Soon, those three stopped responding to communications altogether and on July 9th, 2012, we presented them with the settlement offer. Tihan and Zhou (unfortunately, powerless) were again keen to take the offer, however, Donald Patrick and Amir declined.
Whether it's relevant or not, I don't know:
July 7th - Amir released the Bitcoinica source code
July 11th - Amir announces Mt.Gox account theft.
This is excellent news. Trying to handle this matter as individuals and self-interested businesses was never going to work, it just turned into a mob going after innocent people. Only the government can fix this Bitcoinica situation and set everything right for us so the Bitcoin community can get back on track. I only hope this is a sign of things to come and soon the governments of the world will play an even larger role in regulating the Bitcoin economy.
v @btcx, It seems a tremendous shame Zhou isn't in charge, he has handled this entire situation with the utmost professionalism and candor despite some really off base personal attacks pointed in his direction.
A very wise man said, “Communication is the universal solvent” and this lawsuit will mean they are finnaly gonna have to start communicating. It's about time.
v @btcx, It seems a tremendous shame Zhou isn't in charge, he has handled this entire situation with the utmost professionalism and candor despite some really off base personal attacks pointed in his direction.
Quote
Soon, those three stopped responding to communications altogether
A very wise man said, “Communication is the universal solvent” and this lawsuit will mean they are finnaly gonna have to start communicating. It's about time.
I'm sure appropriate lawyers have already answered this, but would the Californian courts hold any jurisdiction over a UK incorporated company (and/or directors) and the NZ main entity? What action could this court realistically impose on the company?
Its AU/NZ, our governments bend over goatse style for America.
Now if only we were talking about downloaded mp3s or movies - FBI with NZ police would have already raided these guys.
This is good.
what will be even better is seeing how the courts handle this
will their be a live feed of the trial?
this is epic
this really sucks for BITCOINICA they buy the site, get hacked left and right and now this Lawsuit, crazy.
It's generally not in the interests of either party for the matter to go to trial, especially when the defendants don't have deep pockets.
The Notice to Plaintiff states that participation in some kind of alternative dispute resolution process is required before the matter can proceed to trial.
This is good.
this is epic this really sucks for BITCOINICA they buy the site, get hacked left and right and now this Lawsuit, crazy.
Here, I fixed it for you: they buy the site, get hacked left and right, abandon their customers and now this Lawsuit, crazy.
Epic indeed. I've said goodbye to my 50btc but I would like to see some justice. Now if only the police would get interested in Zhou's little thieving scheme, the Bitcoinica story would go straight to r/justiceporn
I'm sure appropriate lawyers have already answered this, but would the Californian courts hold any jurisdiction over a UK incorporated company (and/or directors) and the NZ main entity? What action could this court realistically impose on the company?
xWaylab is incorporated in the US.
This is good.
what will be even better is seeing how the courts handle this
will their be a live feed of the trial?
this is epic
this really sucks for BITCOINICA they buy the site, get hacked left and right and now this Lawsuit, crazy.
This is good.
I'm sure appropriate lawyers have already answered this, but would the Californian courts hold any jurisdiction over a UK incorporated company (and/or directors) and the NZ main entity? What action could this court realistically impose on the company?
Assuming the defendants get legal representation, lack of jurisdiction will be one of the first arguments made by the defendants. Bitcoinica LP will likely have been liquidated by early 2013. This is about setting the stage to go after individuals and their assets. Also, obtaining a judgement and enforcing a judgement are two very different things, especially if enforcement requires an order to be domesticated by a foreign court (hell, it can even be problematic getting judgements made in one US state enforced in another).
I'm sure appropriate lawyers have already answered this, but would the Californian courts hold any jurisdiction over a UK incorporated company (and/or directors) and the NZ main entity? What action could this court realistically impose on the company?
Sure, you can be sued wherever you have contacts. In this case, Bitcoinica has both customers and employees in San Francisco.
I'm sure appropriate lawyers have already answered this, but would the Californian courts hold any jurisdiction over a UK incorporated company (and/or directors) and the NZ main entity? What action could this court realistically impose on the company?
Jump to: