IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

V.

BF LABS INC., et al.,

Plaintiff,

Defendants.

)
)
) Case No. 4:14-cv-00815-BCW
)
)
)
)

SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION TO INTERVENE

WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC

Noah K. Wood MO #51249
noah@woodlaw.com
Ari N. Rodopoulos MO #58777

ari@woodlaw.com
1100 Main Street, Suite 1800
Kansas City, MO 64105-5171
T: (816) 256-3582
F: (816) 337-4243

Attorneys for Kyle Alexander and Dylan
Symington

Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document 44 Filed 09/28/14 Page 1 of 18

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SPAIIGHOE AU MOPITICS 5 5. iaccncaieGiantaenaaiasencansseesdounanweseeaGesaytsveaugndseachoraunaseaeasunadassanuneeaaconmnsiane ii
I. REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY CONSIDERATION OF THIS MOTION ................ 1
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND xcs saaaveceoasneneesdadeinccsanadensesaateradesapnsastoetaaauaaneausasenniseats 2
Hi; 7APPLICABLE LEGAL STAN DARD iiscccccaseescaviacinaiacousesoacsscaaaiancaurarsueuaeonanenss 4
IV. CONSUMERS’ MOTION TO INTERVENE IS TIMELY ...............cccceesessseceeeeeeeenenees 5
V. INTERVENTION IS APPROPRIATE UNDER RULE 24(a) AND (D)...............0000 5
A. Consumers claim an interest in the exact property and exact
transactions that are the subject of the FTC action...............cccssceesseceesseees 5
B. Disposition of the FTC action will impair and impede
consumers’ ability to protect their own interests and satisfy
LAE Vt 42 VATEIAS ca cccaceatouaicucassecnsansadsdetaucansetetaascececdseraseetosnancesautass eerasaanensaees 5
C. The FTC cannot adequately represent consumers’ interests ............:cs000 8
VI. INTERVENTION IS A PRACTICAL NECESSITY ........... ccc cecssessesseesceceeceeceeeneees 11
Vit, RBOUPST POR ORAL ARG UIVIGINT iuicedcpacencaaucrsunteatecntiateneientateadeaeicaleesceraniaeante 12
PT, “OCI TUT CII & cectascrsececeasry scutcavoncsntisa etna cg .corenivcacten aetucinea mag ewer eapeneteneen aug etna anesnueoua aan ataaane 12
TR PCA OU SERV ICH ccc occaccnncsscwsnaveeceanseccasausaaveciunnaeseuseeasaeertann nee a aeaeeacanes 14

Federal Trade Commission v. BF Labs Inc., et al.

Suggestions in Support of Emergency Motion to Intervene

Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document 44 Filed 09/28/14 Page 2 of 18

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES
PLT C-.v. Pebre, 128 £30530; 536 (7 Cir, 1907) exciesscicsavencdeievsarieasnvamnoaveemanawess 7
Lehigh, inc, vy, Stevens; 468 P2d.177, 182 (Ratt; 1970) sissjacesicianteriivrcioncadiadaiorpesineoisannnts 6
Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians v. State of Minnesota, 989 F.2d

O04, 1001 (Bt, 1009) aces ancuioceneeeeeteqrateeeeenrs eax ee ee ees 4
SEC v. Flight Transp. Corp., 699 F.2d 943, 947-48 (8th Cir. 1983)........ccsccssscessseeesseeees 7
Tribovich v. United Mine Workers of Am., 404 U.S. 528, 538, n. 19.

Ce 772) Pare ere er reeeR nce Tet ony Oh eich ames De hRec nce ents Scr AeeeDn iter Drie ine near a enemas 4
Turn Key Gaming, Inc. v. Miler & Schroeder Investments, Corp., 164

F301000, 1052 (GUN Oil, 1600) vctisicuscacccconstsaaveateatuseniien se aceite eee 4
U.S, 0. Petters, 2008 WL 5234527, °2(D. Minn, 2008) isssasvcceteedecasinriveoverstasscmnaerenes 12
United States v. Union Electric Co., 64 F.3d 1152, 1158 (8' Cir. 1995) ......:::ccccssssececeeseees 4
Walker v. City of Mesquite, 858 F.2d 1071, 1073-1074 (5th Cir. 1988) ........ccsscessseeeeeees 5
STATUTES
DMA Oy cece cece vale aicin ea aside Seen tcc ach eel coh afc aca het celta capa nee 7
Federal Trade Commission Act Section 5 ........ccccsssscccsssssscceessssscecesseececsessnaeceessseseceessaaeeeees 3
RULES
Dg a pcs cactnce ca wh caress secs noe aeeis ne nes oA amas eee ee 1,4,5
Bg PRP sical caspases sonaanecticas aaa vane vn iandad ni snes pase ceeaav awe an 1
Federal Trade Commission v. BF Labs Inc., et al. li

Suggestions in Support of Emergency Motion to Intervene

Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document 44 Filed 09/28/14 Page 3 of 18

COME NOW Kyle Alexander and Dylan Symington (the “class representatives”),
on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated (the “Consumer class” or
Consumers”), by and through their attorneys of record, and pursuant to Rule 24 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby move to immediately intervene in this action.
In support of this Motion, consumers offer the following Suggestions in Support:

I. REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY CONSIDERATION OF THIS MOTION

Pursuant to Rule 6(c)(1)(C), the class representatives respectfully request this
Court to grant emergency consideration of this Motion because the Federal Trade
Commission (“FTC”) is scheduled to appear before this Court on September 29, 2014
and request relief, which, if granted, will cause irreparable harm to a putative class of
consumers whose interests are inconsistent with the relief requested by the FTC and
whose interests are not being represented by the parties currently in this action.
Consumers believe this Court may not be fully informed about the consequences of its
potential rulings, which may impair and/or impede consumers’ claims already pending
in the United States District Court, District of Kansas and being litigated by consumers
for approximately six months before the FTC instituted this action. Consumers
respectfully submit proceeding in this action without allowing the putative consumer
class a full and fair opportunity to be heard would be detrimental to the consumer class.

Due to the expedited nature of this proceeding and the need for emergency
consideration of the motion, counsel for the class contacted counsel for each of the
parties to inform them of the intention of filing this motion and to ascertain whether or
not they would consent or object to the motion. Counsel for the FTC indicated the FTC
objects to the motion. Counsel for the receiver indicated he was not able to take a

position until consulting with the receiver and the FTC. Counsel for defendants

Federal Trade Commission v. BF Labs Inc., et al. 1
Suggestions in Support of Emergency Motion to Intervene

Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document 44 Filed 09/28/14 Page 4 of 18

indicated they consented to this motion.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On April 4, 2014, consumers filed a class action complaint against Defendant BF
Labs Inc. (“BFL”) in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, Case No.
2:14-cv-02159. (Consumers’ Complaint, Exhibit 1). In their Complaint, consumers
alleged BFL violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (““KCPA”), were unjustly
enriched, made negligent misrepresentations, and committed conversion. Specifically,
consumers alleged BFL collected pre-payments for non-existent Bitcoin mining
equipment, failed to ship Bitcoin mining equipment orders for which consumers have
pre-paid, misrepresented the date such equipment would ship to customers, and
profited from Bitcoin mining for BFL’s own benefit by using customers’ equipment
without permission or authorization from customers. Consumers seek damages and a
constructive trust to recover the purchase price, the value of bitcoins paid to BFL, the
loss of use of bitcoins, the loss of use of mining equipment that was never received or
not received in a timely manner, the loss of bitcoins mined by BFL using consumers’
equipment, the diminution in value of mining equipment, costs of suit, attorney’s fees,
and punitive damages.

Between April and September of 2014, consumers engaged in significant
discovery and were in the process of negotiating a class settlement on behalf of a
putative class consisting of “all persons who pre-paid Defendant for Bitcoin mining
equipment.” Consumers and BFL engaged in settlement negotiations and agreed to
mediate on November 5, 2014. Trial is scheduled for January 4, 2016.

On September 15, 2014, the FTC filed a complaint in this Court against BFL and

other individuals seeking temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief,

Federal Trade Commission v. BF Labs Inc., et al. 2
Suggestions in Support of Emergency Motion to Intervene

Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document 44 Filed 09/28/14 Page 5 of 18

rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid,
disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and other equitable relief. (Doc. 2). Specifically, the
FTC alleges BFL and other individuals violated Section 5(a) of the FTC Act by engaging
in the same conduct alleged in consumers’ complaint, i.e., using deceptive and unfair
business practices in connection with the marketing and sale of Bitcoin mining
machines. The FTC also filed a motion to seal the case file and an ex parte motion for a
temporary restraining order with an asset freeze, appointment of a receiver, and seeking
other equitable relief.

On September 18, 2014, this Court entered an ex parte temporary restraining
order (“TRO”), which, among other things, temporarily enjoins BFL and other
individuals, freezes assets, and appoints a receiver. The TRO also states “[e]xcept by
leave of this Court, .. . Defendants and all other persons and entities . . . are stayed from
taking any action to establish or enforce any claim, right, or interest for, against, on
behalf of, in, or in the name of, the Receivership Defendant[.]” (Doc. 9). The record
does not have any indication the FTC informed this Court of the pending lawsuit on
behalf of consumers in the District of Kansas, or that entry of the TRO requested by the
FTC would stay a lawsuit set for trial and subject to case management order in a sister
federal court.

This Court has scheduled a show cause and preliminary injunction hearing for
September 29, 2014, where the FTC is expected to request this Court to convert the TRO
into a preliminary injunction. The putative consumer class has a direct interest in any
preliminary injunction that may be issued as a result of the hearing scheduled for

September 9, 2014.

Federal Trade Commission v. BF Labs Inc., et al. 3
Suggestions in Support of Emergency Motion to Intervene

Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document 44 Filed 09/28/14 Page 6 of 18

Il, APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD

Intervention is governed by Rule 24. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. Rule 24 provides for
intervention as of right as well as permissive intervention. Id. at Rule 24(a)-(b). On
timely motion, a district court “must permit anyone to intervene who .. . claims an
interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so
situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the
movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that
interest.” Id. at Rule 24(a)(2) (emphasis added). Further, on timely motion, a district
court “may permit anyone to intervene who .. . has a claim or defense that shares with
the main action a common question of law or fact.” Id. at Rule 24(b)(1)(B) (emphasis
added).

Intervention is to be construed liberally and doubts are resolved in favor of the
proposed intervenor. United States v. Union Electric Co., 64 F.3d 1152, 1158 (8 Cir.
1995). The intervenor need only satisfy the “minimal” burden of showing that the
representation of the intervenor’s interests “may be inadequate.” Tribovich v. United
Mine Workers of Am., 404 U.S. 528, 538, n. 19. (1972); Turn Key Gaming, Inc. v. Miler
& Schroeder Investments, Corp., 164 F.3d 1080, 1082 (8th Cir. 1999).

Where a proposed intervenor has different incentives to pursue a claim than the
existing parties, the proposed intervenor’s interests are not adequately represented, and
intervention should be allowed. Turn Key Gaming, Inc., 164 F.3d at 1082. For instance,
where an existing party’s interest in settling a lawsuit may diverge substantially from the
interests of proposed intervenors, the intervenors satisfy the minimal burden of showing
the representation of their interests by existing parties may be inadequate. Mille Lacs

Band of Chippewa Indians v. State of Minnesota, 989 F.2d 994, 1001 (8th Cir. 1993).

Federal Trade Commission v. BF Labs Inc., et al. 4
Suggestions in Support of Emergency Motion to Intervene

Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document 44 Filed 09/28/14 Page 7 of 18

Due process requires that any possibility of inadequate representation is sufficient to
allow class members to intervene. See Walker v. City of Mesquite, 858 F.2d 1071, 1073-
1074 (5th Cir. 1988).

IV. CONSUMERS’ MOTION TO INTERVENE IS TIMELY

Because the FTC action was just filed on September 15, 2014, and was sealed for
nearly a week thereafter, there is no question consumers’ motion to intervene is timely.

V. INTERVENTION IS APPROPRIATE UNDER RULE 24(a) AND (b)

A. Consumers claim an interest in the exact property and exact
transactions that are the subject of the FTC action

Here, the property that is the subject of the FTC action is BFL’s assets, which
include the money, bitcoins, and mining equipment pre-paid and/or purchased by
consumers. Further, the transactions that are the subject of the FTC action are the
prepayments made by consumers to BFL for Bitcoin mining equipment. There is no
question consumers are claiming an interest relating to the exact property and exact
transactions that are the subject of the FTC action.

B. Disposition of the FTC action will impair and impede
consumers’ ability to protect their own interests and satisfy
their own claims

Because the FTC action seeks temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive
relief, rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid,
disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and other equitable relief, there is also no question
disposition of the FTC action will as a practical matter impair and impede consumers’
ability to protect their own interests and satisfy their own claims. Although the FTC
action and consumers’ class action are based on the same allegations, the remedies

available in the FTC action are but a subset of, and in many respects may foreclose,

Federal Trade Commission v. BF Labs Inc., et al. 5
Suggestions in Support of Emergency Motion to Intervene

Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document 44 Filed 09/28/14 Page 8 of 18

remedies available in consumers’ class action.

For example, if the FTC obtains rescission of contracts, this will preclude
consumers’ recovery of damages on their Kansas statutory and/or common law claims.
See e.g., Lehigh, Inc. v. Stevens, 468 P.2d 177, 182 (Kan. 1970) (under Kansas law,
rescission of a contract is a remedy that excludes the recovery of damages; the plaintiff
must elect between available remedies). Further, rescission of contracts by the FTC may
— against consumers’ wishes — void express, implied, or extended warranties on Bitcoin
mining equipment consumers have received from BFL and/or may require consumers
to incur the expense of shipping equipment back to BFL.

If the FTC obtains rescission as a settlement term (or any other undesirable
remedy), it is unlikely the FTC will allow consumers the ability to opt out of the
settlement despite due process concerns. (See e.g., Notice of Mandatory Class
Settlement, Final Approval Hearing, and Distribution Process, Federal Trade
Commission, et al., v. Equinox International Corp., et al., p. 2, Exhibit 2) (“Potential
Claimants will be bound by the mandatory settlement whether or not they make a claim.
Potential Claimants cannot opt out of the settlement and must submit a claim, if at all,
through the process that this Notice describes.”); (see also The FTC and Class Actions,
“The Unintended Consequences of ‘Opt-Out’ Classes,” Exhibit 3). It is likely that many
consumers — if given the choice — would elect to seek consequential damages and
punitive damages rather than rescission. The FTC action, however, deprives consumers
of that choice and threatens to impede consumers’ due process rights by forcing them
into an FTC-elected remedy without consumers’ input and without allowing consumers
to opt out of the remedy chosen by the FTC.

The FTC is not electing between equitable or legal remedies for consumers based

Federal Trade Commission v. BF Labs Inc., et al. 6
Suggestions in Support of Emergency Motion to Intervene

Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document 44 Filed 09/28/14 Page 9 of 18

on any comparative analysis, consent from consumers, ethical obligations imposed by
an attorney-client relationship with consumers, or any legal malpractice standard of
care. Rather, the FTC is merely seeking equitable remedies because it has no authority
to seek consumers’ actual damages. For example, the FTC is unable to seek
consequential damages, punitive damages, costs of suit, or attorney’s fees for
consumers. See 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). The FTC is only able to obtain equitable monetary
relief, such as disgorgement or restitution. Jd. Although equitable remedies such as
disgorgement or restitution may result in monetary recovery, each consumer’s
maximum recovery is limited to the purchase price actually paid by the consumer. See
e.g., F.T.C. v. Febre, 128 F.3d 530, 536 (7 Cir. 1997) (the FTC may seek and obtain,
through the court’s equitable ancillary powers, the amount of the purchase price as
monetary relief for consumers). In consumers’ class action, however, consumers’
maximum recovery is not limited to the purchase price.

Further, if the FTC action results in disgorgement, restitution, or liquidation of
BFL’s assets, this will also impair, impede, and possibly even eliminate consumers’
ability to satisfy any judgment awarding compensatory damages, consequential
damages, punitive damages, costs of suit, and attorney’s fees under Kansas statutory
and/or common law. See SEC v. Flight Transp. Corp., 699 F.2d 943, 947-48 (8th Cir.
1983) (“Here, if the District Court orders [the defendant’s] frozen assets ‘disgorged’ to
defrauded investors, [intervenor] will be unable to obtain satisfaction of its claim.
[Intervenor] has a sufficiently direct interest to support intervention.”). In fact, the FTC
has acknowledged that it should consider whether consumers are already seeking
monetary damages on their own before the FTC seeks equitable relief on behalf of such

consumers because such equitable relief may impair or impede consumers’ ability to

Federal Trade Commission v. BF Labs Inc., et al. 7
Suggestions in Support of Emergency Motion to Intervene

Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document 44 Filed 09/28/14 Page 10 of 18

obtain monetary damages. (July 31, 2012 Statement of the Commission, p. 2, Exhibit
4) (“The question of whether there are alternative plaintiffs that may seek or are seeking
monetary relief is relevant in this context[.]”).

C. The FTC cannot adequately represent consumers’ interests

Because, as explained above, the remedies sought by the FTC conflict with,
frustrate, and deny remedies available to consumers, the FTC cannot adequately
represent consumers’ interests. The FTC action, on its face, does not even purport to
adequately represent consumers’ interests. The FTC is a civil enforcement agency that
has no attorney-client relationship with consumers and has no fiduciary duty to act in
any particular consumer’s best interests. Early FTC actions appear contrary to the best
interests of the putative consumer class on whose behalf the FTC acts, including:

° media statements the FTC has “shutdown” BFL (“At FTC’s Request, Court
Halts Bogus Bitcoin Mining Operation,” Exhibit 5);

° obtaining a restraining order preventing BFL from refunding customers,
which BFL started doing in response to the consumer class action;

° halting BFL from producing and shipping of mining equipment to
consumers for which customers have already paid;

° potentially foreclosing BFL’s ability to provide partial compensation to
customers through non-cash means such as hardware, bitcoins, or hashing
(this is especially relevant because the full extent of damages to the class
are likely to exceed the cash available to BFL through a liquidation);

° instituting suit without notification or consultation to the consumer class
or the District of Kansas, a practice the FTC admits is improper (see
Comments of the FTC on Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, pp. 4-5, Exhibit 6) (advance
notice should be given to the court and those whose rights may be
affected);

° the federal raid and takeover of BFL, which is believed to have occurred on
Friday, September 19, 2014, occurred shortly before BFL’s discovery
responses were due in consumers’ class action (due Monday, September
22, 2014) and it is unknown if relevant evidence was inadvertently lost or
destroyed during the chaos; and

Federal Trade Commission v. BF Labs Inc., et al. 8
Suggestions in Support of Emergency Motion to Intervene

Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document 44 Filed 09/28/14 Page 11 of 18

° the FTC specifically did not file suit in the federal district where:

the customer class lawsuit was already pending;
BFL was located;

BFL’s assets were located;

BFL’s officers were located.

O00 0

The FTC has taken the position that advance notice should be given whenever
private litigation substantially relates to the same conduct at issue in an enforcement
action to ensure that litigants will have the opportunity to intervene to protect their
interests. (Comments of the FTC on Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, p. 5, Exhibit 6). The FTC
acknowledges intervention is appropriate especially when advance notice was not given
about a suit seeking to adjudicate legal rights on the intervenor’s behalf or in the
intervenor’s absence. For example, the FTC has intervened in consumer actions when
the FTC was not given advance notice of the consumer action. (See e.g., Federal Trade
Commission’s Motion for Leave to Intervene, Elie v. Johnson, et al., p. 2, Exhibit 7)
(“[T]he FTC seeks to intervene because plaintiff Chad Elie has engaged in a secretive
race to the courthouse in an effort to grab money held by the defendants.”).

Further, although the FTC has intervened when consumers obtain class
settlements without FTC involvement, the FTC has objected when consumers seek to
intervene to dispute a settlkement obtained by the FTC on behalf of consumers.
(Compare Federal Trade Commission’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to
Intervene, Exquisite Caterers, LLC v. Popular Leasing USA, Inc., et al., p. 2, Exhibit 8)
(“[T]he [FTC] respectfully moves for leave to intervene in the above-captioned action,
solely for purpose of objecting to the proposed settlement agreement . . . between
plaintiffs and [defendant], which the court preliminarily approved[.]”); (with Plaintiffs

Opposition to Linda Pais’ Request for Expedited Hearing on “Emergency” Motion for

Federal Trade Commission v. BF Labs Inc., et al. 9
Suggestions in Support of Emergency Motion to Intervene

Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document 44 Filed 09/28/14 Page 12 of 18

Rule 24 Intervention, Federal Trade Commission v. American Telnet, Inc., et al., pp. 1-
2, Exhibit 9) (“Plaintiff . . . opposes Linda Pais’ request . . . [because] [a] settlement
was reached between the FTC and [defendants] . . . twenty-five days before the instant
motion was filed.”).

Consumers’ counsel sought the parties’ consent to intervene in this action. BFL
and the other defendants consent to intervention, the Receiver has not yet responded to
counsel, and, incredibly, the FTC has objected to consumers having a voice of their own.
Specifically, the FTC claims intervention by consumers is inappropriate because “this is
a statutory enforcement action[.]” (9/26/2014 Email from H. Wong, Exhibit 10). The
fact the FTC is pursuing a statutory enforcement action, however, is wholly irrelevant
under Rule 24. In communications with the FTC about consumer intervention, the FTC
did not deny the requirements of Rule 24 are easily satisfied.

Here, consumers and the consumer class action provide the best mechanism to
protect the interests of the consumer class. Consumers have already engaged in months
of investigation and substantial progress in their suit. Procedurally, consumers already
have survived the motion to dismiss stage, obtained a discovery framework (including a
comprehensive protocol for the exchange of electronically stored information and a
protective order), issued multiple subpoenas to non-parties (many of which are still
pending), collected and reviewed hundreds of thousands of pages of relevant
documents, engaged in meaningful settlement discussions, modeled complex scenarios
that may involve cash and non-cash benefits for class members (cash, bitcoin, hardware,
hashing), selected and retained a mediator, scheduled a mediation date with BFL, and
obtained a trial setting.

In response to the filing of the class action, BFL began issuing refunds to

Federal Trade Commission v. BF Labs Inc., et al. 10
Suggestions in Support of Emergency Motion to Intervene

Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document 44 Filed 09/28/14 Page 13 of 18

consumers. BFL has alleged it has made over $3,000,000 in refunds since the filing of
the class action suit. Class counsel has been the primary point of contact for over a
thousand consumers with claims against BFL, including telephone, e-mail, and postal
mail contact with consumers on a daily basis. Consumers’ class counsel has maintained
a website with regular updates to the consumers on their class action. In contrast, the
FTC has stated to the media and requesters under FOIA, only approximately 389 BFL
consumers have complained to the FTC. Many consumers were told the FTC offered
them no avenue of redress, the FTC was not willing to get involved, and/or consumers
needed to file a private lawsuit or complain to their local district attorney.

However, after consumers filed a private lawsuit to recover their damages, the
FTC has now sought and obtained an order ex parte in a different judicial district
without notification to the class representatives or to the District of Kansas, which
would subject customers to being found in contempt of court should they pursue their
lawsuit against BFL. After the FTC action was filed, a significant number of class
members have contacted class counsel expressing fear the FTC action will mean they
will never receive: (a) the equipment they ordered from BFL; (b) any money from the
consumer lawsuit; or (c) their day in court.

Consumers have state and federal rights to a trial by jury and the remedies sought
by the FTC may actually or effectively deny consumers their day in court. Consumers
are prepared to testify why the equitable remedies sought by the FTC are not desirable
and why the parties currently in this action will not and cannot adequately represent
their interests.

VI. INTERVENTION IS A PRACTICAL NECESSITY

Further, because this Court’s ex parte order requires all persons and entities to

Federal Trade Commission v. BF Labs Inc., et al. 11
Suggestions in Support of Emergency Motion to Intervene

Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document 44 Filed 09/28/14 Page 14 of 18

seek leave from this Court before instituting or continuing litigation against BFL,
intervention is a practical necessity. See e.g., U.S. v. Petters, 2008 WL 5234527, *2 (D.
Minn. 2008) (“[I]t would betray the stated intent of the order staying litigation to now
deny, under the guise of Rule 24, such nonparties the ability to move the Court for relief
from the stay.”).

VII. REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

The class representatives respectfully request this Court grant emergency
consideration of this Motion and permit oral argument prior to or concurrent with the
hearing at 9:00am on September 29, 2014, because the terms of the TRO and the
preliminary injunction requested by the FTC would, if granted, cause irreparable harm
to the putative class of consumers.

VIII. CONCLUSION

It is virtually without question the consumer class has a strong interest relating
to the property and transaction that is the subject of this action and the disposition of
this action will likely both impair and impede the consumer class’s ability to protect its
interest. The FTC’s desire to exclude the consumer class from having a voice in this
action is at best, puzzling and demonstrates the existing parties to this action, will not
adequately represent the interest of the consumer class. This Court should grant
consumers’ Motion to Intervene and hear from people who actually paid for mining
equipment, who actually engage in Bitcoin mining, and whose legal rights and property
are actually at issue.

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, consumers respectfully request this
Court to grant their Motion to Intervene, and for such further relief the Court deems fair

and just.

Federal Trade Commission v. BF Labs Inc., et al. 12
Suggestions in Support of Emergency Motion to Intervene

Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document 44 Filed 09/28/14 Page 15 of 18

Date: September 28, 2014
Respectfully submitted,

WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC

By _/s/ Noah K. Wood

Noah K. Wood MO #51249
noah@woodlaw.com
Ari N. Rodopoulos MO #58777

ari@woodlaw.com
1100 Main Street, Suite 1800
Kansas City, MO 64105-5171
T: (816) 256-3582
F: (816) 337-4243

Attorneys for Kyle Alexander and Dylan
Symington

Federal Trade Commission v. BF Labs Inc., et al. 13
Suggestions in Support of Emergency Motion to Intervene

Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document 44 Filed 09/28/14 Page 16 of 18

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 28, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF and served a copy of the foregoing
document via e-mail on the following counsel of record and pro se parties:

Helen Wong, DC Bar # 997800
Teresa N. Kosmidis, NY Bar# 4533824
Leah Frazier, DC Bar# 492540
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Mail Stop CC-10232
Washington, D.C. 20580
202-326-3779 (Wong)
202-326-3216 (Kosmidis)
202-326-2187 (Frazier)
Facsimile: 202-326-3768
hwong @ftc.gov
tkosmidis@ftc.gov

Ifrazier @ftc.gov

Charles M. Thomas, MO Bar #28522
Assistant United States Attorney
Charles Evans Whittaker Courthouse
400 East Ninth Street, Room 5510
Kansas City, MO 64106

Telephone: (816) 426-3130
Facsimile: (816) 426-3165

E-mail: charles.thomas@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Federal Trade Commission

Federal Trade Commission v. BF Labs Inc., et al.

James M. Humphrey, MO # 50200
Michael S. Foster, MO # 61205
Miriam E. Bailey, MO # 60366
POLSINELLI PC

900 W. 48th Place, Suite 900
Kansas City, Missouri 64112-1895
Telephone: (816) 753-1000
Facsimile: (816) 753-1536
jhumphrey@polsinelli.com
mfoster@polsinelli.com
mbailey@polsinelli.com

Braden M. Perry, MO # 53865
KENNYHERTZ PERRY LLC
420 Nichols Road, Suite 207
Kansas City, MO 64112

Direct: 816-527-9445

Mobile: 913-488-4882

Fax: 855-844-2914
braden@kennyhertzperry.com

Attorneys for Defendant BF Labs Inc.,
Darla Drake, Nasser Ghoseiri, and Sonny
Vleisides

14

Suggestions in Support of Emergency Motion to Intervene

Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document 44 Filed 09/28/14 Page 17 of 18

Bryant T. Lamer

Kersten L. Holzhueter

Andrea M. Chase

Katie Jo Wheeler

Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP
1000 Walnut Street, Suite 1400
Kansas City MO 64106
816-474-8100
blamer@spencerfane.com
kholzheuter@spencerfane.com
achase@spencerfane.com
kwheeler @spencerfane.com

Attorneys for Receiver Eric L. Johnson

Federal Trade Commission v. BF Labs Inc., et al.

/s/ Noah K. Wood

Attorney for Kyle Alexander and Dylan

Symington

Suggestions in Support of Emergency Motion to Intervene

Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document 44 Filed 09/28/14 Page 18 of 18

15