The court rejected Bitmain’s claims for $ 30 million against the founders of a rival …

The court rejects Bitmain claims for $ 30 million against the founders of a rival mining pool

The court in China rejected the complaint of Mining company Bitmain, hoping to collect $ 30 million in quality compensation for harm from the three founders of the Poolin mining pool, writes CoinDesk. Decision It was adopted on August 31 and promulgated on September 8.

The court rejected Bitmain's claims for $ 30 million against the founders of the rival ...

When this the court agreed to increase the amount of fines for violation non-competition treaty requirements, which the the founders of the pool concluded with his former employer BTC.com, a subsidiary of Bitmain. As a result, Pan Zhibiao, Lee Tianzhao and Zhu Fa will be should pay $ 200,000, $ 178 000 and $ 154,000 fine, respectively, but more large-scale sanctions that could help Bitmain strengthen its position in the market, they managed to avoid.

In April 2019 of the year at Bitmain’s initial claim stated damages due to violation of the terms of the contract in $ 4.3 million, then raising up to $ 10 million for each of the founders.

The court rejected Bitmain's claims for $ 30 million against the founders of the rival ...

Five months ago, the trial court accepted a similar decision, but limited himself to more modest fines and rejected other claims Bitmain. The company tried to appeal him, simultaneously increasing the amount of the claim. Bitmain’s lawyers claimed Poolin earned about $ 30 million in commissions in your pool in time non-competition agreement.

Representatives of the defendants said that Bitmain filed a lawsuit against the background of a decrease in its share by market mining equipment and in the hashrate bitcoin. On this basis they are concluded that even without competition from Poolin, the money could not have gone to the pools controlled by Bitmain. Court in the last decision also noted, that Bitmain was unable to prove that its losses of-for the actions of the defendants turned out to be higher than the fines imposed, and therefore rejected the demand to recover from them $ 30 million.