Does Craig Wright Have Access to Encrypted Satoshi Files With Private Keys for $7.5B in BTC?

The class-action lawsuit filed by the Kleiman Estate against Craig Wright, the self-proclaimed Bitcoin creator and former partner of late Dave Kleiman has seen several twists and turns with no definitive outcome.

Kleiman Estate is suing Wright to get access to the Bitcoin mined by Wright in partnership with Dave Kleiman, while Wright maintains there was no such partnership.

The latest twist in the case came from the Kleiman Estate, which now claims that Wright had access to the Encrypted Files believed to be those of Satoshi, which contains private keys associated with 820,000 Bitcoin. The Estate filed a new court document on 21st May claiming Wright has the access to Encrypted Files but he won’t do so since it contains clear evidence of his partnership with Dave.

The court document claimed that $1.6 million worth of Bitcoin has been spent from the addresses submitted to the court as a proof suggesting Wright has access to those private keys. It also points to the threats made by Wright about crashing the Bitcoin market, which is only possible by a large amount of dump in the market.

Craig Wright has since submitted a list of 16,404 BTC addresses to prove his claim of being the owner. However, Kleiman’s Estate claimed that this is one of the three batches of addresses which Wright has access to and the fact that a significant amount of BTC has been spent from these addresses “is incontrovertible evidence that Wright has either:

  • Submitted a fraudulent/incomplete list of his bitcoin as the CSW Filed List and/or
  • He does have access to a list of his bitcoin and the private keys associated with them and is lying.

The legal team further points out that Craig Wright throughout the case has lied, submitted misleading filings, caused obstruction with forged evidence are clear signs that Wright has access to the Encrypted files.

Kleiman Estate Lists Lies and Perjuries of Wright

The legal court document also lists four instances where Wright has either lied during the case or submitted forged documents. The one being just last week where Wright has submitted a forged divorce document.

The document claimed that Wright’s wife too lied about the claims of his husband since she is financially dependent on him and thus had clear reasons to do that. The document also claimed that she has lied in the past.

The Kleiman Estate in its legal filing also criticised the court for being soft on Wright and only putting sanctions despite him showing no respect for the legal procedure and the court, as evident from his continuous lying. They appealed to the court to take strict action against the accused to keep him in check. The court filings read:

“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue an order pursuant to its inherent powers striking Dr. Wright’s Amended Answer and entering a default judgment against Dr. Wright.”

Read Original/a>
Author: Rebecca Asseh

Massive Adoption Crypto Conference Organizer Faces Lawsuit For Not Refunding Canceled Event

Jacob Kostecki, the organizer behind the ‘Massive Adoption’ crypto conference, is at the receiving end of a class-action lawsuit from over 2,000 people.

The lawsuit has been levied due to those who bought a tickets to one of his events, but never got a refund, even when the event was canceled by Kostecki himself. The lawsuit aims to recover $75,000 in damages.

The filed complaint claimed that Kostecki advertised the crypto-conference from February 27 to 28th in Memphis, Tennessee, and sold a large number of tickets, along with hotel and airfare packages at considerably lower prices. In total, Kostecki collected about $75,000 from these sales.

However, Kotecki canceled the event on January 31st (original scheduled for November 2019) citing cash issues, while promising to pay back everyone who bought tickets. But none of these customers who paid for the event received any refund, even after a couple of months raising the suspicion.

David Silver, a crypto attorney, filed the class-action lawsuit against the organizer in a Colorado District court this Thursday.

Silver said that the case came to his notice when he saw Kostecki taking advantage of people who could not afford legal representation. Silver took to Twitter and warned Kostecki to return what he owes to people otherwise he would be served with a lawsuit.

Ashley Gentry, of San Dimas who is the lead plaintiff in the case, revealed that the event was scheduled for November and was later postponed to February before being canceled.

The event promised to host 2,000 attendees, along with 60 speakers. Gentry bought a complete package costing $794 for herself, her husband, and one other person back in December.

Silver said that people should be aware and never take hollow twitter promises for granted. He explained:

“We seek damages in excess of $75,000,” the attorney said, which includes the money people lost, interest, other costs, and attorney fees. Typically in a class-action, a law firm only collects fees if it recovers money but according to Silver, who is doing the work pro-bono, “even if we collect attorney’s fees, we will give it back to the victims.”

Read Original/a>
Author: James W

MakerDAO Faces Another $28 Million Class Action Lawsuit Over Black Thursday Meltdown

The Maker Foundation’s troubles don’t seem to fade away, as it faces a class-action lawsuit after its protocol malfunction on March 12th. This meltdown contributed to a massive fall in the crypto market, which saw a 50% fall in the price of Bitcoin, for example.

A group of investors has filled another class-action lawsuit against the Maker Foundation and its associate in the Northern District Court of California. The class-action lawsuit aims to obtain more than $28.3 million in damages.

The lawsuit alleges that the Maker Foundation, along with Maker’s Ecosystem Growth Foundation, the DAI Foundation and the Maker Foundation both intentionally downplayed the risks involved with Collateralized debt positions (CDPs). Resulting in investors losing $8.5 million on March 12th. The complaint states:

“While misrepresenting to CDP Holders the actual risks they faced, The Maker Foundation neglected its responsibilities to its investors by either fostering or, at the very least, allowing the conditions that led to Black Thursday, all after actively soliciting millions of dollars of investment into its ecosystem.”

The main plaintiff in the case – Peter Johnson – will be represented by Harris Berne Christensen LLP, has filed three counts, which include: negligence, intentional misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation in connection with the losses incurred by the investors.

MakeDAO has not tried to downplay the incident and has promised to look into the issue and address all the queries as directly as possible. However, they denied commenting on any of the lawsuits filed against the firm.

[Also Read: Top 11 Crypto Companies Face NY Class Action Lawsuit for ‘Unlawful Selling Of Securities’]

The Black Thursday Mayhem

The DeFi ecosystem works on top of the Ethereum ecosystem, where Ether is used as the main digital asset for collateral in the MakerDAO protocol, and DAI stablecoin is minted against the collateralized Ether.

On March 12th, just like any other asset, Ether’s price dropped suddenly and significantly leading to congestion on the Ethereum network. This simultaneously liquidated thousands of Collateralized debt positions (CDPs) on the DeFi platform.

Johnson has alleged that the project’s white paper assured investors that their collateral would be returned in case of a 13% drop. However, that did not happen, and a majority of these CDPs were completely liquidated contrary to assurances.

He further claimed that not just MakerDAOs Defi protocol, but its products including the popular decentralized application, Oasis claimed 13 percent penalties, being the highest strike for liquidation.

The complaint also mentions the Maker Foundation’s recent push for attracting investment through these CDPs in the form of educational efforts in association with the crypto exchange – Coinbase.

“The Maker Foundation and other third-party user interfaces informed users that, because their CDPs would be significantly overcollateralized, liquidation events would only result in a 13 [percent] liquidation penalty applied against the remaining collateral, after which the remaining collateral would be returned to the user,”

Johnson asserts that these advertisements for CDP investment intentionally excluded the risk involved with CDPs, which led to a personal loss of $200,000 in ETH.

Maker Foundation Call For Compensation of Liquidation Losses

The investors might have filed the lawsuit against the Maker Ecosystem for not revealing the risks associated with CDPs. However, the Maker community is working on partial compensation of losses for investors.

The foundation also conducted a governance poll on April 13 which led to the decision of partial refunding. Another governance poll in the coming week could decide the mode of currency through which the refunding will be initiated.

Johnson also revealed that he was aware of the refunding governance vote, but said that he was skeptical whether the vote would result in any form of real compensation.

Here is the full document:

Read Original/a>
Author: James W

Plaintiffs Withdraw Class Action Lawsuit Accusing Bitfinex, Tether of Manipulating BTC Prices

The class-action lawsuit brought against Bitfinex and Tether for manipulating BTC market prices has officially been withdrawn by the complainants.

According to court documents filed in the Western District of Washington on 7th January 2020, Adam Kurtz and Eric Young, the plaintiffs who had accused the two firms of manipulating BTC market prices have chosen to opt for voluntary case dismissal. The two initially filed the case against iFinex, the parent company to Bitfinex and Tether on 22nd November 2019.

The two petitioners had indicated in the court documents that they were crypto traders focusing on BTC trades. When filing their case, they purported that the two aforementioned companies had provided erroneous trade details. They also claimed that both companies had entered into an agreement that would see them take over the BTC market.

New York’s Attorney General Case

By relying on a past case that had been brought forward by the NYAG the petitioners also went as far as to accuse the respondents of attempting to influence the bitcoin market by printing unbacked tethers. The original filing by the plaintiffs read that:

When Bitcoin prices were falling, Defendants and their co-conspirators printed USD₮s and artificially increased the price of Bitcoin.”

Bitfinex had come out to strongly deny the accusations leveled against it by the plaintiffs. A company spokesperson states that the allegations were baseless and mercenary. The spokesperson went as far as to state that the company was more than willing to challenge any nuisance defrayals.

While it has not yet been established what motivated the two to drop their case, it’s worth noting that the laws in the United States will let someone re-file their suit at a later date. However, they cannot bring it back to the court if they decide to withdraw it for a second time.

Tether had filed a letter of intent that stated their intention to put forth a motion that would lead to the dismissal of yet another class-action lawsuit. In this case, Tether had been accused of manipulating BTC prices, and the plaintiffs were seeking damages to the tune of one trillion dollars.

Read Original/a>
Author: Daniel W