The Chief Executive Officer of the cryptocurrency miner Layer1 Technologies has filed a lawsuit against the other two board members of the business, one of whom being Jakov Dolic, the co-founder of the company. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated several policies and procedures of the company. This allegation is reinforced by the plaintiff’s charges, which state that the defendants improperly appropriated Layer1’s activities for their own benefit. The plaintiff is the one who brought this lawsuit.
The action against Dolic and fellow board member Tobias Ebel was filed with the Delaware Chancery Court on February 2, by John Harney, the Chief Executive Officer of Layer1, and DGF Investments Inc., an investment corporation having its home in the British Virgin Islands. Dolic and Ebel were named as the targets of the lawsuit. When the complaint was first filed against Dolic and Ebel, it was Harney and DGF Investments Inc. who were the ones to commence the legal proceedings by doing so.
The complaint alleges that both Dolic and Ebel took advantage of a lack of leadership at Layer1’s equity parent Enigma in order to gain control of the Bitcoin mining firm and manage it as their “own personal fiefdom.” The complaint also alleges that they did this in order to enrich themselves financially. This is what the claims that are included in the complaint allege to be the case. It is speculated that this took place at Enigma, the equity parent company of Layer1, and that a power vacuum was used in order to accomplish the task.
Harney and DGF Investments Inc., which owns a majority stake in Enigma, claim that the defendants have “usurped the authority” of Layer1’s CEO and prevented Harney from “responsibly operating Layer1.” They say this happened because the defendants “obstructed” Harney’s ability to “responsibly operate Layer1.” They claim that this occurrence had place as a result of the defendants’ “obstruction” of Harney’s capacity to “responsibly run Layer1.” They claim that this happens because of the interference that the defendants provide, which precludes Harney from “responsibly running Layer1.” Both of these accusations are being brought up as potential claims in the legal action that has been taken against the defendants.