4. Abnormal commitment agreement. I have seen the commitment agreement and it is indeed abnormal. Its anomalies stem from the fact that contingency fee agreements are not legal in Russia (charging 50% if you win is a success commission). The issue of contingency fees explains another anomaly: why these lawyers did not propose to simply file a class action lawsuit on our behalf (class actions exist in Russia). A class action lawsuit is a lawsuit in which many plaintiffs in a similar situation are represented by a single plaintiff. Russian Recovery`s lawyers could file a complaint on behalf of a creditor and then file a petition to designate that creditor to represent all creditors as a group. If the court accepts the request, all creditors would be represented by Russian collection lawyers and each creditor would have to contact them individually to refuse representation. Why has this not been done? Simply put, filing a class action lawsuit would put a damper on plans to claim 50% of the winnings, as success fees are not legal in Russia.

A Russian court would not approve success fees and these lawyers would honestly earn only $350 an hour. 5. Weaken creditors. Russian Recovery`s lawyers initially demanded about 80% and their fee agreement did not clearly exclude amounts already held by the trustee. Let`s call it what it is: a blatant attempt to capitalize on the desperation felt by many of MtGox`s creditors after five years of litigation. This first offer was not the mark of honest lawyers who wanted to gain the trust of clients. This was the mark of lawyers who tried to exploit the distress of their potential clients to get an unfair deal from those same potential clients. Russian Recovery`s lawyers must have known that MtGox`s seasoned creditors would never have trusted a random law firm that demands 80% of their bitcoins. So they hired Andy to ask.

The information in this section is based on publicly available information and general discussions with insolvency lawyers. I do not have access to non-public information on this case. None of this should be construed as legal advice to you. The following was originally discussed in the MtGox Legal Forum. Since then, other creditors have asked me to share it publicly, as not all creditors have access to the MtGox Legal forum. This article analyzes a contingency fee offer from Russian lawyers who wish to represent MtGox`s creditors in debt collection disputes. Thank you! It`s still hard to judge – I guess the professors provided a more nuanced discussion of 5-10 minutes, including the rationale and sources of uncertainty, and then FT condensed that into a conclusion and fragment of analysis. It`s a very lossy compression for me; That said, I can`t extract much from what the professors said (or thought).

This is not a criticism of France Télécom because its purpose was not to provide information to the recipients (let alone to provide them with legal advice). Legal work costs money and this website is designed to coordinate this fundraising and share information provided by our lawyers. Some – perhaps a lot – of the grants appear to have been made through an entity that I do not know is legally or formally affiliated with the other entities you are talking about here. And I wonder if that could change the situation. This is not legal advice and I am not a lawyer, and it may be completely wrong, but it may be helpful to know that, as I understand it, I have yet to see any evidence of recovery from duplicate companies, how that would be involved if the grants were recovered from FTX Philanthropy grantees even though FTX Philanthropy is not bankrupt. And I searched. So, what is FTX Foundation Inc.? Here (forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/2mx6xrDrwiEKzfgks/announcing-the-future-fund-1?commentId=qtJ7KviYxWiZPubtY), one of the leaders of the Future Fund said: Finally, I am working to arrange additional legal support opportunities for FTX grantees and organizations most affected in this process. The leader of the largest organized group of creditors, which includes former users of the failed bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox, is stepping down amid a prolonged legal quagmire that could take years to fully resolve.

“Not a big update. The usual financial report. $1.2 million spent in the last 6 months,” said “H.Ono,” a member of the Mt. Gox Legal creditor group, adding: “No updates on Vinnik, NZ, FinCEN or new collections.” I saw this today in a Financial Times article on FTX: “General experts argue that even if these funds were proven to be related to wrongdoing, there would likely be no legal basis for recoveries. James Cox, a professor of corporate and securities law at Duke University, said this is due to the principle of “good faith,” which protects people who accept money without knowing it comes from illegal activities. www.ft.com/content/428c7800-c72d-4c59-9940-4376fea6e263 (Paywalled) I just wanted to say that I think your comments answering many questions about the legal consequences are very helpful. They balance the focus on the uncertainty of the situation very well with the information. Mt. Gox Legal is a cooperative organization made up of more than 900 creditors of Mt.

Gox, a former bitcoin exchange that suffered a huge hacking attack underway between 2013 and 2014. The attack resulted in the loss of approximately 125,000 Bitcoins (BTC) for Mt. Gox customers. The organisation was founded in 2017 by Andy Pag, a BBC journalist, to help those taking legal action against Mt. Gox. The website has a forum where members can discuss their efforts. A payment of $100/£85 is required to register. [1] (This is not legal advice; I am not a lawyer; I totally agree with Jason`s warning against pride in both directions.) 1. Legal ethics. Russian Recovery`s lawyers said they will not disclose specific facts about the case, as we are free to take them to another law firm as soon as they share them. News in brief: How the legal services market works. When a lawyer has a good record, he shows it to his client and offers a fair price.

If the client trusts the lawyer, the client opts for the obvious solution and looks him in the face. These lawyers treated their engagement like a mysterious box, asking us to play with much of our right to reinstatement before we could remove their legal strategy from their package.