GAW Sued for Nearly $350,000 in Federal Court

Coin Fire has learned that on April 8, 2015, the Mississippi Power Company (MPC) filed suit against GAW Miners, LLC, the embattled cryptocurrency company, in the Southern District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

MPC’s complaint alleges that it was contracted by GAW to provide services to GAW’s Horn Lake, Mississippi facility, beginning in October 2014. MPC claims that it spent nearly $50,000 to install equipment to be used by GAW’s facility. The installation of this equipment was conditioned on GAW using MPC’s electric service for twelve months.

The complaint further alleges that, “To date, GAW has only made one payment to MPC for electric service provided.” MPC is seeking to recover not only its installation costs, but the costs of the services provided to GAW until GAW disconnected MPC’s service in January 2015. At the time of the disconnect, MPC claims GAW was $223,818.61 past due. The total costs of damages sought by MPC, relating to the electric service provided to GAW, is $346,6479.29. MPC is further seeking interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees.

MPC is suing primarily under a theory of breach of contract. Further claims against GAW included an open account claim. In Mississippi, an open account refers to a a credit arrangement between a seller and a buyer where the seller allows the buyer, by advance agreement, to purchase without security. (See: Cox v. Howard, Weil, Labouisse, Friedrichs, Inc., 619 So. 2d 908 Miss. 1993.)

If the court does not find there to be an express contract between MPC and GAW, MPC argues an alternative theory of unjust enrichment. Under Mississippi law, unjust enrichment occurs when there is a promise, implied by contract, that one will pay a person what that person is entitled. (See: Montgomery v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 955 F. Supp. 2d 640 S.D. Miss. 2013.)

MPC is represented by the law firm Balch & Bingham LLP, which has over 250 attorneys in six different offices.

Coin Fire reached out to GAW’s CEO, Josh Garza, by email, but has not received an official comment at this time. On HashTalk, Mr. Garza categorized the situation between GAW and MPC as a “dispute over the fee structure.”

Mr. Garza categorized the complaint as a “dispute over the fee structure” of the contract between MPC and GAW.

We will update this story when GAW responds to MPC’s complaint by filing an answer. GAW has twenty-one days to file an answer, barring any extensions they might request or be granted.