[MTGox Sued 5/2/2013] Statement Regarding Formal Complaint

[New_Frontier]

Mt. Gox has been contacted by Coinlab (US) regarding a formal complaint filed against us in the United States. As we have just now received the complaint, neither Mt. Gox nor our legal team can make any official comment on the matter at this time, but we take this very seriously and will respond appropriately and quickly once we have had time to review it.

Source:
https://mtgox.com/pdf/20130503_coinlab_lawsuit.pdf

[1714548323]

1714548323

[1714548323]

1714548323

[1714548323]

1714548323

[1714548323]

1714548323

[TheButterZone]

http://ia601700.us.archive.org/8/items/gov.uscourts.wawd.192566/gov.uscourts.wawd.192566.docket.html

[Twerka]

We, as a mass of people, can withdraw all the money from both companies: COinLab and MtGOx.

Nobody has a right to control Bitcoin, and a corporation suing another one, fighting for "its users" sound to me pathetic.


Cash out, let them without any dolar, without any bitcoin. Fight for your rights.

[Zeke_Vermillion]

It seems contrary to the spirit of bitcoin to resort to the courts over a purely commercial dispute. Absent some fraud or theft on the part of Gox, I would rather see this settled in private. That said, this raises the question of whether "exclusive license" means exclusive of the licensor...

[superduh]

best business ever.
start company, enter agreement,
not have it fulfilled
sue for 75 million.
retire

[Stringer Bell]

Besides making many announcements and now suing Mt.Gox - have CoinLab actually helped Bitcoin in any way?

Have they done anything at all?

For such a clever group, I would expect more.

[farlack]

Wait what did I miss I thought coinlab was going to trade to US customers, now they're suing??

[BeeCoin]

OK, this is going to be interesting...
Does anybody have background information on this:
Who was unwilling (not capable?) to fulfill their part of the agreement? Did MtGox i.e. intentionally take the risk of loosing 50+Mio%?

[w33mhz]

Well they can definitely challenge the courts jurisdiction on the matter, and it would be up to CoinLab to prove that Mt. Gox was doing buisness in Seattle (Washington Western District).  It sounds like Mt. Gox doesn't want to sell off its US customer base, at least not yet.

http://coinlab.com/press

http://www.scribd.com/doc/139160091/Coinlab-v-Mt-Gox

[zhalox]

Here is further detailed information regarding CoinLab's lawsuit against Mt. Gox:

2013-05-02 Gawker article, "Massive Bitcoin Business Partnership Devolves Into $75 Million Lawsuit":
http://gawker.com/massive-bitcoin-business-partnership-devolves-into-75-487857656

Official court document, CoinLab, Inc. v. Mt. Gox KK & Tibanne KK (filed 2013-05-02 in Washington by CoinLab's attorneys at the law offices of Breskin Johnson & Townsend PLLC):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/139160091/Coinlab-v-Mt-Gox

Official contract between CoinLab, Inc. & Mt. Gox KK, "Exclusive License Agreement for the USA & Cananda", with signatures of Mark Karpeles, CEO of Mt. Gox KK & Peter Vessenes, CEO of CoinLab, Inc.:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/139181173/Contract-between-Mt-Gox-and-Coinlab

[Epicurus]

It seems contrary to the spirit of bitcoin to resort to the courts over a purely commercial dispute. Absent some fraud or theft on the part of Gox, I would rather see this settled in private. That said, this raises the question of whether "exclusive license" means exclusive of the licensor...

Sorry, what? So, if I break into your house and steal the USB your private key is stored on (an example - I have no idea where you store your private key), you won't sue me or prosecute? You'll attempt to "settle in private", meaning you will ask for your money back, I'll laugh and ignore you?

What's your address?

[medicine]

Life will go on and toy companies don't make very good financial institutions.  On to bigger and better exchanges I hope.

[darkmule]

Well they can definitely challenge the courts jurisdiction on the matter, and it would be up to CoinLab to prove that Mt. Gox was doing buisness in Seattle (Washington Western District).  It sounds like Mt. Gox doesn't want to sell off its US customer base, at least not yet.

It is very unlikely they can challenge it successfully.  The contract contains a choice-of-forum provision specifying King County Washington and agrees to personal jurisdiction.

It's at least somewhat likely Gox can win there or anywhere, though.  We'll need to know more details before that can be judged, though.

Specifically:

7.  The Agreement provides that the Defendants “irrevocably consent to the personal jurisdiction of and venue in the state and federal courts located in King County, Washington with respect to any action, claim or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Agreement.”

8.  The Agreement provides that it shall be governed, construed and interpreted inaccordance with the laws of the State of Washington.

Such choice-of-forum and choice-of-law provisions are routinely enforced.

[w33mhz]

Well they can definitely challenge the courts jurisdiction on the matter, and it would be up to CoinLab to prove that Mt. Gox was doing buisness in Seattle (Washington Western District).  It sounds like Mt. Gox doesn't want to sell off its US customer base, at least not yet.

It is very unlikely they can challenge it successfully.  The contract contains a choice-of-forum provision specifying King County Washington and agrees to personal jurisdiction.

It's at least somewhat likely Gox can win there or anywhere, though.  We'll need to know more details before that can be judged, though.

Specifically:

7.  The Agreement provides that the Defendants “irrevocably consent to the personal jurisdiction of and venue in the state and federal courts located in King County, Washington with respect to any action, claim or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Agreement.”

8.  The Agreement provides that it shall be governed, construed and interpreted inaccordance with the laws of the State of Washington.

Such choice-of-forum and choice-of-law provisions are routinely enforced.

True.  I stand corrected.  I missed that section of the contract.

[hmmmstrange]

Sounds as if coinlab just wants out of the contract. With all the problems with mtgox they are better off starting off from scratch. 60% of existing revenue from existing US costomers and 40% of new customers to go to mtgox is a pretty bad deal for coinlab when they can cobble up a much better exchange in the matter of weeks and take 100% of the profits. mtgox shot themselves in the foot on this one.

[inge]

Sounds as if coinlab just wants out of the contract. With all the problems with mtgox they are better off starting off from scratch. 60% of existing revenue from existing US costomers and 40% of new customers to go to mtgox is a pretty bad deal for coinlab when they can cobble up a much better exchange in the matter of weeks and take 100% of the profits.

That would be an interesting development.

[Jay_Pal]

Besides making many announcements and now suing Mt.Gox - have CoinLab actually helped Bitcoin in any way?

Have they done anything at all?

For such a clever group, I would expect more.

Agree

[wtfvanity]

K. Liquidated Damages. Both Parties hereby agree that it may be impossible to determine the monetary harm
suffered by the non-breaching Party in the event that MtGox breaches section F.l or in the event that CoinLab breaches
section F.2 and that therefore, after careful consideration, the Parties agree that reasonable damages for such breach
shall be $50,000,000 USD, an amount the Parties agree is reasonable and fair given the nature of the Agreement

Holy shit. Who in their right mind would sign that when the section above in J shows year 1 and 2 being under a half million? It applies to both parties and is the stupidest thing they both ever signed. If anything, coinlabs put that in their. Their F2 is a 2 year thing, F1 is MtGox responsibility for the entire term. So either they did something brilliant or both teams should fire their attorneys because they are idiots.

[Severian]

So either they did something brilliant or both teams should fire their attorneys because they are idiots.

I'm going with your second choice.

[wtfvanity]

So either they did something brilliant or both teams should fire their attorneys because they are idiots.

I'm going with your second choice.

Just since I didn't really choose one, I do too. That contract was crazy. Someone thinks they are smart, but both of them do not have adequate legal counsel.

We need a lawyer4btc.com and give some people real advice lol.