## Crypto VCs’ Appeal Against Curve’s Creator Falls Flat
* A California appellate tribunal has reinforced the rejection of a legal action initiated by a group of venture capital organizations against Michael Egorov, the creator of Curve.
* The tribunal determined that Egorov’s restricted links to California failed to fulfill the stipulations for jurisdiction within the state.
* Egorov lives in Switzerland.
The judicial clash involving Michael Egorov, the originator of the decentralized exchange Curve, and three prominent crypto venture capital enterprises has experienced a further development.
A California appellate tribunal has validated the dismissal of the VC’s legal action, asserting that California constitutes an unsuitable location for the case. Ice Open Network and ChainGPT Reveal Innovative Web3-AI Alliance
The disagreement commenced in June 2020 when ParaFi, Framework Ventures, and 1kx invested \$3 million into Swiss Stake GmbH, the entity responsible for Curve. Nevertheless, Egorov nullified the investment in August 2020, referencing missed cutoff dates and retaining the assured equity.
The legal action was submitted within California in October 2022, indicting Egorov of deceit and embezzlement. Egorov has refuted these claims.
In September 2023, a San Francisco adjudicator dismissed the legal action, decreeing that California was not the suitable location for the case. The venture capital enterprises appealed the decree, but the California appellate tribunal has now validated the prior determination.
Egorov informed DL News, “They retain the option to protest and appeal, but the official court documents are exceedingly compelling.”
Within their appeal, the venture capital enterprises contended that Egorov misrepresented the scheduling of his relocation to Switzerland, citing discrepancies in his pronouncements and details.
However, the tribunal ascertained that irrespective of whether Egorov relocated from Washington to Switzerland in March or August 2020, it remained beyond uncertainty, as the documents demonstrated.
Richard B. Ulmer, a magistrate, noted that the complainants had provided details that highlighted the investigation’s parameters, specifically Egorov’s “discrepancies” and purported “untrue declarations” regarding “the type and degree of his ties within California.” The magistrate further mentioned that even if inaccuracies existed, such contradictions wouldn’t establish jurisdictional grounds.
In the legal action initiated in 2023, venture capital entities asserted that Egorov “deceitfully swayed them into accepting the Swiss court selection provision within the investment arrangement.”
The Court of Appeal determined that Egorov’s restricted and roundabout dealings with California fell short of fulfilling the “minimal connections” necessary for the state to assert authority over him. The magistrate stated that the venture capital entities’ endeavors to forge a professional bond with Egorov didn’t indicate deliberate conduct on his part within California.
1kx, which has no connection to California, facilitated the introduction of Egorov to ParaFi and Framework Ventures, and the venture capital entities then started subsequent communications.
The magistrate stated, “Egorov never journeyed to California with the intention of endorsing Curve, soliciting investors, or even engaging with the complainants during negotiations.”
Scott Joiner, a lawyer from Latham & Watkins representing the venture capital entities, conveyed to DL News: “The California tribunal dismissed the California proceedings completely due to technical jurisdictional reasons, underscoring Switzerland’s authority over the issue, instead of the case’s merits.” Do On-Chain Measurements Herald the Cessation of Bitcoin’s Upward Trend?
Egorov’s legal representatives asserted in a legal action submitted in May 2023 that the venture capital entities were participating in “blatant forum shopping.”
“Egorov absconded from the United States to Switzerland while executing the concluding phases of his strategy…attempting to circumvent the jurisdiction of the United States tribunals.”
“The separate Swiss proceedings are still in progress in Switzerland and remain unaffected by the California proceedings. We anticipate resolving this matter based on its merits in Switzerland.”
January 24 Revision: This piece has been revised to incorporate remarks from a legal advisor at an investment company.
Disclosure: Two originators of DL News (who are not named in the legal action) formerly played significant roles in the Curve system.
I’ve provided additional background information and adjusted the wording somewhat for enhanced understanding. The disclosure is vital for openness, thus I ensured it was unambiguous.
