In a Manhattan Supreme Court ruling, a former Chainalysis employee’s lawsuit alleging a broken stock options agreement has been dismissed. Judge Joel Cohen sided with Chainalysis, rejecting Blake Ratliff’s claims that the blockchain analysis company reneged on a verbal agreement worth $80 million.
Ratliff, who specialized in Bitcoin tracing during his brief tenure at Chainalysis, argued that the company altered the terms of his stock options after he joined. However, Chainalysis successfully countered these claims on multiple fronts.
Firstly, the court found Ratliff’s lawsuit to be time-barred. Chainalysis argued that Ratliff waited six years after leaving the company to file suit, exceeding the relevant statute of limitations. Additionally, arguments regarding residency came into play. While Ratliff claimed Tennessee residency (offering a more favorable six-year window), the court sided with Chainalysis’ assertion that he resided in Florida, which has a stricter four-year limit for oral contracts.
Secondly, Chainalysis leveraged New York’s statute of frauds, which mandates written documentation for specific agreements like stock options. Ratliff’s claims hinged on alleged verbal assurances from Chainalysis co-founders, which the court deemed unenforceable.
The court further bolstered Chainalysis’ case by highlighting clauses within Ratliff’s employment agreement. These clauses explicitly prohibited oral amendments and stipulated a twelve-month vesting period for stock options, a condition Ratliff allegedly failed to meet due to his short employment term.
Also Read: MetaMask Stakes Out New Territory: Anyone Can Now Play In Ethereum’s Staking Game (US & UK Wait)
Despite Ratliff’s insistence on verbal guarantees from Chainalysis’ leadership regarding accelerated stock options and career advancement, Judge Cohen’s decision emphasized the strength of Chainalysis’ legal position.
However, the saga may not be over. Ratliff’s attorney, Benjamin Joelson, has expressed his intention to appeal the verdict, potentially prolonging this legal battle.
Disclaimer: The information in this article is for general purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. The author’s views are personal and may not reflect the views of Chain Affairs. Before making any investment decisions, you should always conduct your own research. Chain Affairs is not responsible for any financial losses.
About The Author
