We previously reported how, in the Tezos litigation, the court denied a temporary restraining order that sought to enjoin the defendants from selling, transferring, converting, or otherwise disposing of any assets collected or derived from an ICO, holding that plaintiff had failed to show that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief. Today, in connection with the class action against BitConnect, (Paige v Bitconnect, case 3:18-cv-0058-JHM W.D. Ky 1-30-18), the district court did grant a TRO. The court found that the plaintiffs stood to lose any chance of recovering their funds if BitConnect’s assets were not frozen, and that enforcing a TRO is in the public interest because the public is interested in preventing massive consumer fraud and other securities violations. The court forbade BitConnect from moving assets unless allowed by the Court ordered the defendants 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.
One other notable aspect of this TRO was that it was granted without notice to the defendant, which is almost unheard of in litigation practice today in the United States.
