In contrast to the granting of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against BitConnect in the Kentucky class-action, a Judge has denied essentially the same motion in Florida.
On February 5th Defendants Charles Wildes, Franciso Doria, Akiva Katz, James Gurry, Ronald Nelson and Justin Perry filed a motion for an ex parte TRO.
On February 8th the motion was denied.
In his order Judge Middlebrooks stated the Plaintiffs had ‘failed to show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will occur before Defendants are given an opportunity to respond‘.
Judge Middlebrooks noted that the Plaintiffs are free to file for a preliminary injunction after service has been effected.
Seemingly lost on Judge Middlebrooks is that BitConnect was a global Ponzi scheme. The yet to be identified owners of the company and named net-winner defendants are no doubt aware of the lawsuit against them and prospect of civil clawbacks.
Several defendants have already fled the US in anticipation of BitConnect’s collapse and resulting fallout.
Defendants BitConnect and Ryan Maasen are already the subject of a TRO in Kentucky. Joshua Jeppsen, Glen Arcaro, Trevon Brown (aka Trevon James), Ryan Hildreth, Craig Grant and Nicholas Trovato (aka CryptoNick) however, are free to continue dissipating ill-gotten gains.
As noted in the Kentucky order, the TRO against BitConnect and Maasen was granted because
the rights of the Plaintiff and the Class will be immediately and irreparably harmed absent a TRO,
The entry of a TRO is in the public interest because the public is interested in preventing massive consumer fraud and other securities violations described in the Class Action Complaint.
I suspect the reason for the Florida denial might be due to the increased number of named defendants.
Either that or Judge Middlebrooks genuinely isn’t concerned about Ponzi scammers dissipating assets to avoid clawback.
As at the time of publication there have been no further filings in the Wildes Florida case.
In the Kentucky case BitConnect and Ryan Maasen have been given until February 23rd to disclose
(a) all Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency wallet addresses,
(b) all cryptocurrency trading account addresses, and
(c) the identity of the holder/owner of any wallet or cryptocurrency address to which Defendants have transferred any Bitcoin or other cryptocurrency in the past 90 Days, so that these assets can be monitored and traced.
A preliminary injunction hearing has been scheduled for February 27th.