- Simon Liu, a former employee with Zcash, has sued the company for $2 million.
- Liu alleges that the company was not even legally allowed to provide stock options to employees.
Electric Coin Company Established, Separate from Zcash (ZEC)
Disgruntled former employees usually do not have the best things to say about their former employers. However, one employee that used to work with the Zcash company has taken his disdain a little further with a lawsuit, worth $2 million. According to the documents filed on May 29th, the employee is challenging the company for unpaid shares, says The Block.
The case has been filed with the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco, as the former employee said that he was not given $15,000 owed to him in stock, back in 2016. The former employee, Simon Liu, worked for the company when it was called Zerocoin, though it has since been renamed Electric Coin Company. The name change only just happened in February, allowing the company to create a clear line between the Zcash nonprofit organization and Zcash.
Legal Battles Over Offering Equity
However, the lawsuit appears to go further, alleging that the company was not even legally allowed to offer the equity in the first place. The document states, “Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Zerocoin did not have the authorization to issue common stock to employees in 2016, and that Defendants, and each of them, were aware that Zerocoin did not have such an authorization.” Liu added that he and his counsel were not given the ability to see company documents.
Right now, shares of Zcash can be purchased for $79, and has reached a $600 million market cap. At its best price, Zcash shares were traded at $900 in January 2018. In March, Bitmain developed an ASIC mining device that is specifically designed to mine Zcash and related Equihash coins.
At this point, there has not been a public statement from Zerocoin or CEO Zooko Wilcox directly. When The Block addressed the Electric Coin Company, the company stated that they were legally unable to provide comments on pending litigation.