US Judge Rules Mt Gox Class Action Can Continue Against Mizuho Bank

A judge has rejected a claim by Mizuho Bank that a class action lawsuit related to its involvement in the collapse of Mt Gox should move to Japan.

AccessTimeIconMar 15, 2016 at 7:19 p.m. UTC
Updated Aug 18, 2021 at 4:40 p.m. UTC

Presented By Icon

Election 2024 coverage presented by

Stand with crypto

A US district judge has rejected a claim by Mizuho Bank that a class action lawsuit related to its relationship with failed bitcoin exchange Mt Gox should be moved to Japan.

Once the largest global bitcoin exchange, Tokyo-based Mt Gox collapsed in 2014, eventually filing for bankruptcy. Since then, the exchange, and its founder and CEO Mark Karpeles, have been embroiled in a lawsuits from customers seeking to recover millions in customer funds that remain unaccounted for.

  • Bitcoin Mining in the U.S. Will Become 'a Lot More Decentralized': Core Scientific CEO
    13:18
    Bitcoin Mining in the U.S. Will Become 'a Lot More Decentralized': Core Scientific CEO
  • Binance to Discontinue Its Nigerian Naira Services After Government Scrutiny
    05:10
    Binance to Discontinue Its Nigerian Naira Services After Government Scrutiny
  • The first video of the year 2024
    04:07
    The first video of the year 2024
  • The last regression video of the year 3.67.0
    40:07
    The last regression video of the year 3.67.0
  • Mizuho was first named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit brought by former exchange users in March 2014 as it served as Mt Gox’s banking partner, receiving fiat funds deposited by customers into the exchange and held by Mt Gox.

    In the latest ruling, U.S. District Judge Gary Feinerman criticized actions taken by the bank, suggesting it profited from its affiliation with Mt Gox even as it sought to limit the number and amount of customer withdrawals over concerns regarding its liability for deficiencies in the exchange’s business model.

    Feinerman wrote:

    "Mizuho's qualms about handling Mt. Gox’s business did not extend, however, to receiving fiat currency from Mt. Gox users for deposit into the Mt. Gox account. Even as it limited and then barred withdrawals, Mizuho continued to accept deposits from Mt Gox users, earning revenue from the associated service fees."

    The ruling goes so far as to allege that Mizuho prevented Mt Gox from telling customers that the bank was the cause of withdrawal issues, or that it was seeking to terminate its relationship with the now-defunct bitcoin exchange.

    “Mizuho knew that if Mt Gox’s members learned of its prohibition on withdrawals of fiat currency from Mt Gox’s Mizuho account, members would stop making deposits and Mizuho would stop collecting the associated fees,” Feinerman wrote.

    The class action lawsuit alleges that Mizuho "tortiously interfered" with the plaintiffs agreements with Mt Gox by affecting its ability to conduct business, and that it unjustly enriched itself through these actions.

    In statements, representatives from Edelson PC lauded the decision, stating:

    "Mizuho Bank is alleged to have committed fraud specifically against US citizens. The court was correct to allow these victims their day in a US court."

    Lawsuit relocation

    While Feinerman denied Mizuho’s request, he did find that the class action lawsuit would need to produce a new plaintiff, or otherwise be required to move to the Central District of California.

    At issue is that the lawsuit was brought by Illinois resident Gregory Greene, an individual who never sent fiat funds to the exchange, and as a result, never had "transactional contacts" with Mizuho.

    "Plaintiffs have not established that Mizuho Bank had sufficient suit-related contacts with Illinois to meet the standard articulated in Walden v Fiore, or that their claims arose out of Mizuho Bank’s contracts with Illinois," the judge wrote.

    As a result, Feinerman stated that the case should be moved to California, as plaintiff Joseph Lack transferred funds from his local bank to Mizuho.

    "Mizuho knowingly accepted a deposit from a bank it knew to be in California and from somebody it knew to be a California resident, knowing that it would not allow that money to be withdrawn, despite having concealed the no-withdrawal policy for the purpose of enticing such deposits," he wrote.

    However, prior to transferring the case, the judge is allowing the lawsuit to add an additional plaintiff who might better represent the lawsuit and its grounds for location in Illinois.

    Feinerman concluded:

    "If counsel fails to do so, this case will be transferred to the Central District of California."

    Disclosure

    Please note that our privacy policy, terms of use, cookies, and do not sell my personal information have been updated.

    CoinDesk is an award-winning media outlet that covers the cryptocurrency industry. Its journalists abide by a strict set of editorial policies. CoinDesk has adopted a set of principles aimed at ensuring the integrity, editorial independence and freedom from bias of its publications. CoinDesk is part of the Bullish group, which owns and invests in digital asset businesses and digital assets. CoinDesk employees, including journalists, may receive Bullish group equity-based compensation. Bullish was incubated by technology investor Block.one.


    Learn more about Consensus 2024, CoinDesk's longest-running and most influential event that brings together all sides of crypto, blockchain and Web3. Head to consensus.coindesk.com to register and buy your pass now.