Simon Liu v ECC

General
46

Don’t think this article is accurate, the are mixing up numbers of shares and stock prices. Ex-Employee Sues Zcash Operator in $2 Million Lawsuit Over Unpaid Stocks

1 Like
47
48

Thanks for posting, I am fully aware and hope that others know as well that commenting while this is pending would be the end of your job if you worked for ECC, unless you too had been burned and had additional proof; hence the statement it can only be answered by employee’s of ECC and the likelihood of them answering it in a public forums is about as likely as getting struck by lighting while riding your motorcycle on I95 in Florida. (oh wait that happened!) lets try winning the jackpot lottery then having to bail your partner out of jail three separate times for a total of 21 million dollars oh and just to kick up the odds you are also sued by your pastor for not giving tithes to the church you go to from your lottery winnings!

1 Like
49

This post just doesn’t belong here @Shawn . All i commented is the Founders Reward and Distribution.
Even if the base text was somehow affilated with the Lawsuit absolute ALL comments here are towards Zcash Future and Founders Reward…

Edit: There isn’t even a single word regarding the Liu vs. ECC lawsuite in the whole quoted and moved post!

1 Like
50

Ycash team will have new member soon?:thinking::grin:

1 Like
51

The post was restored back to the 2020 thread.

1 Like
52

Just checked out of curiousity the Simon Liu V ECC case:

What does this mean in normal easy to understand English?

Stipulation For Protective Order And Confidentiality Agreement; Proposed Order (transaction Id # 100077367) Filed By Defendant The Zerocoin Electric Coin Company Llc’

https://norcalrecord.com/stories/512925084-court-activity-on-july-11-simon-liu-vs-the-zerocoin

https://norcalrecord.com/stories/512925110-court-activity-on-july-17-simon-liu-vs-the-zerocoin

53

A protective order and confidentiality agreement means the rest of the case won’t be in the public records, it will be private between the parties.

2 Likes
54

Must be highly secret information than, lol. Transparency pure, lol.

55

99% they settle the case. Liu gets money and ECC never disclose.
Like a drop in the water… like it never happend… what were we talking about?

1 Like
56

Actually you can read the twenty seven (27), yes that’s right… 27 reasons why ECC says they are not liable

B R Y A N C A V E L E I G H T O N PA I S N E R L LP
T H R E E E M B A R C A D E R O C E N T E R , 7
T H
F L O O R
S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A 9 4 1 1 1
ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. CGC-19-576321
12793311.1
E-Mail: kaye.steinsapir @bclplaw.com
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
SIMON LIU,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE ZEROCOIN ELECTRIC COIN
COMPANY, LLC; AND DOES 1 through 50,
INCLUSIVE,
Defendants.
Case No. CGC-19-576321
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
Date Action Filed: May 29, 2019
Trial Date: None set
Kaye E. Steinsapir (CBN 223171)
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
120 Broadway, Suite 300
Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386
Telephone: (310) 576-2100
Facsimile: (310) 576-2200
Goli Mahdavi (CBN 245705)
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 675-3400
Facsimile: (415) 675-3434
E-Mail: goli.mahdavi@bclplaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant
THE ZEROCOIN ELECTRIC COIN COMPANY,
LLC
ELECTRONICALLY
F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
07/17/2019
Clerk of the Court
BY: EDWARD SANTOS
Deputy Clerk

Defendant The Zerocoin Electric Coin Company, LLC (“Defendant”) hereby answers the
unverified Complaint of Plaintiff Simon Liu (“Plaintiff”) as follows:
GENERAL DENIAL
Pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30(d),
Defendant hereby denies generally and specifically each and every allegation and purported cause
of action contained in the Complaint. Defendant further denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the
relief he seeks, or any other relief, or that Plaintiff has been damaged in any amount whatsoever.
This Paragraph is incorporated by reference into each and every Affirmative Defense set forth
below.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
In addition, without assuming any burden Defendant would not otherwise bear, and
without admitting any facts alleged in the Complaint, Defendant asserts the following separate and
distinct Affirmative Defenses:
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State Facts Sufficient to Constitute a Cause of Action)

  1. The Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged in the Complaint, fails
    to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant.
    SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    (Unclean Hands, Waiver, Laches, Estoppel, Consent)
  2. Plaintiff is precluded from asserting any rights alleged in the Complaint by the
    doctrines of unclean hands, waiver, laches, estoppel and/or consent.
    THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    (Statutes of Limitations)
  3. The Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged in the Complaint, is
    barred in whole or in part by all applicable statutes of limitations, including, but not limited to,
    California Code of Civil Procedure sections 338 and 343.
    //
    (Unjust Enrichment)
  4. The Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred because any
    award in this action would constitute unjust enrichment.
    FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    (Offset)
  5. If Plaintiff is entitled to recover against Defendant for any damages alleged in the
    Complaint, such recovery against Defendant must be offset by amounts previously paid to
    Plaintiff.
    SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    (Management Discretion)
  6. Any and all conduct of which Plaintiff complains was a just and proper exercise of
    management discretion by Defendant undertaken for a fair and honest reason and regulated by
    good faith under the circumstances that existed.
    SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    (No Proximate Cause)
  7. Any acts, or failures to act, by Defendant were not the proximate cause of any
    damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiff.
    EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    (No Damage or Injury)
  8. The Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, is barred
    because Plaintiff has not suffered any damages or injury as a result of any actions allegedly taken
    (or omissions allegedly made) by Defendant.
    NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    (Consent)
  9. The Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred because
    Plaintiff consented or acquiesced to the conduct of Defendant about which he now complains.
    //
    (Business Necessity)
  10. The Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged therein, cannot be
    maintained against Defendant because the conduct towards Plaintiff by Defendant was undertaken
    by reason of business necessity and/or for lawful business reasons.
    ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    (No Termination in Violation of Public Policy)
  11. Plaintiff’s cause of action for constructive discharge in violation of public policy
    fails to state a claim because Plaintiff was not constructively discharged.
    TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    (Ripeness)
  12. The Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred because it is
    not ripe and/or justiciable.
    THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    (Performance of Duties)
  13. The Complaint, and each purported claim for relief alleged therein, is barred
    because Defendant has fully performed any and all contractual, statutory, and/or other duties it
    arguably owed to Plaintiff under applicable law.
    FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    (Failure to Mitigate)
  14. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages and failed to exercise due diligence in
    his effort, if any, to mitigate his damages.
    FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    (Comparative Negligence)
  15. If Plaintiff sustained any loss, injury, damage or detriment as alleged in the
    Complaint, any such loss, injury, damage or detriment was caused and contributed to by the
    actions of Plaintiff. Because his own acts and omissions proximately caused and contributed to
    any loss, injury, damage or detriment he sustained, Plaintiff’s recovery, if any, should be reduced
    in proportion to the percentage of Plaintiff’s negligence or in proportion to his fault.
    SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    (Excuse of Performance)
  16. Plaintiff is barred from recovering under its claims to the extent it is claiming that
    Defendant breached any duties, fiduciary, contractual, or otherwise. Plaintiff failed to perform his
    own obligations pursuant to the agreements alleged in the Complaint.
    SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    (Failure to State a Cause of Action for Punitive Damages)
  17. The Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for
    punitive damages in any amount whatsoever.
    EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    (Lack of Actual Controversy)
  18. The Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred because it
    does not present an actual, concrete controversy over a proper subject.
    NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    (Avoidable Consequences Doctrine)
  19. Plaintiff is not entitled to recovery on some or all of the purported causes of action
    because any purported loss could and should have been reduced or avoided by Plaintiff by
    complying with the instructions, procedures and employment policies of Defendant.
    TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    (Attorneys’ Fees)
  20. The Complaint, and each purported cause of action alleged in the Complaint, fails
    to allege facts sufficient to allow recovery of attorneys’ fees from Defendant .
    TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    (No Right to Prejudgment Interest)
  21. Plaintiff is not entitled to recover prejudgment interest because Plaintiff’s alleged
    damages are not certain or capable of being made certain by any calculation.
    //

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Punitive Damages Would be Unconstitutional)
22. Plaintiff is not entitled to recover punitive damages as prayed for in the Complaint
because such an award would violate Defendant’s rights under the Constitution of the United
States of America and the Constitution of the State of California, including without limitation,
Defendant’s rights to (1) procedural due process under the Constitution of the State of California
and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America; (2) protection
from excessive fines as provided in the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States of America, and Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of California; and (3)
substantive due process provided in the Constitution of the State of California and the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America.
TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Ratification)
23. The Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred because
Plaintiff consented to, approved of, and/or ratified the conduct which forms the basis of his
Complaint.
TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Justification)
24. The Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred because any
purported acts, representations, or omissions of Defendant alleged in the Complaint are justified,
among other reasons, as a result of the acts or omissions of Plaintiff.
TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Business Judgment Rule)
25. Plaintiff is barred from recovering under his claims because any and all actions
alleged by Plaintiff to be wrongful were undertaken by Defendant in good faith, were disclosed to
Plaintiff, and were pursued using the same care a reasonable person in similar circumstances
would have used in the same situation.
//
TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Reasonable Reliance)
26. Plaintiff did not reasonably rely on the representations alleged.
TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Reservation of Rights to Assert Additional Defenses)
27. Defendant has not knowingly or voluntarily waived any further applicable defenses
and reserves the right to assert and rely on such other applicable defenses as may become available
or apparent during discovery proceedings. Defendant further reserves the right to amend its
Answer and/or affirmative defenses and/or to delete affirmative defenses that Defendant
determines are not applicable during the course of subsequent discovery.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows:

  1. That Plaintiff takes nothing by way of the Complaint;
  2. That the Complaint and each purported cause of action contained therein be
    dismissed with prejudice;
  3. That Defendant be awarded costs of suit incurred herein; and
  4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
    Dated: July 17, 2019 BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
    Kaye E. Steinsapir
    Goli Mahdavi
    By:
    Kaye E. Steinsapir
    Attorneys for Defendant
    THE ZEROCOIN ELECTRIC COIN COMPANY,
    LLC

B R Y A N C A V E L E I G H T O N PA I S N E R L LP
T H R E E E M B A R C A D E R O C E N T E R , 7
T H
F L O O R
S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A 9 4 1 1 1
8
ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. CGC-19-576321
12793311.1
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the aforesaid County, State of California; I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is: Bryan Cave Leighton
Paisner LLP, Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111.
On July 17, 2019, I caused to be served on the interested parties in said action the within:
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope addressed as follows:
Seth W. Wiener, Esq.
Law Offices of Seth W. Wiener
609 Karina Court
San Ramon, CA 94582
Tel: (925) 487-5607
Attorney for Plaintiff
Simon Liu

57

Hey folks! I’m happy to tell you that this issue has been resolved positively. Here’s the announcement, but I’ll copy the contents of it into this post: https://electriccoin.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ECC-Liu-1.pdf

Simon Liu and the Electric Coin Co announce the resolution of a lawsuit

September 27, 2019

Simon Liu and the Electric Coin Company (Zerocoin Electric Coin Company, LLC) are announcing the resolution of a lawsuit filed by Simon Liu on May 29th, 2019.

Simon Liu and the Electric Coin Co issue the following joint statement: “This matter was the result of confusion and timing. The Electric Coin Company has fulfilled all of its obligations and this matter is now closed.”

The parties have nothing further to say on this matter.

Simon Liu
Zooko Wilcox
CEO, Electric Coin Company

We aren’t going to answer any further questions about this matter, but I just wanted to make sure that you saw it.

7 Likes
58

Closing this thread since the matter has been mutually resolved.