Over the past fortnight two class-action lawsuits have been filed against BitConnect and several top investor promoters.

The first class-action, filed in Kentucky, is moving along with surprising speed.

Following the filing of an amended complaint on June 30th, BitConnect insider Joshua Jeppesen and affiliate Ryan Maasen have been added as defendants.

Jeppesen, officially credited as BitConnect’s Development Director for U.S. and European operations, is believed to either be part of or in direct contact with BitConnect’s owner(s).

Ryan Maasen promoted BitConnect heavily on YouTube through “Team Rhyno”. He is also a named defendant in the Kentucky class-action.

Fellow defendants Glenn Arcaro, Trevon Brown (aka Trevon James), Craig Grant and “CryptoNick” have all gone into hiding over the past week.

James was active up until a few days ago on his YouTube channel, wherein he told BitConnect victims they were “crybaby ass motherfuckers“.

Ryan Hildreth is still active on YouTube but is avoiding mention of BitConnect or similar lending ICO Ponzi schemes.

As per a February 1st order, a tentative trial date for the Florida class-action has been scheduled for September 17th, 2018.

A Scheduling Conference has been set for February 22nd.

Meanwhile over in Kentucky a motion for a preliminary injunction was filed on February 1st.

The filing follows the granting of a TRO on January 30th, ordering BitConnect and defendant Ryan Maasen to “identify and disclose” any cryptocurrency addresses they’ve used in the last 90 days.

The requested preliminary injunction seeks to freeze BitConnect and Maasen’s assets ‘and allow for monitoring of Defendants’ accounts until the resolution of this litigation‘.

The motion asserts that a freeze is warranted because ‘Bitconnect and its promoters, including Maasen, may dissipate money generated from Plaintiff and the Class or dump it into another scam‘.

Maasen’s promotion of the Davor Ponzi scheme following the BitConnect’s collapse is cited.

For the same reasons a temporary restraining order was appropriate, a preliminary injunction is also appropriate.

A hearing has already been scheduled for February 12th, at which it’s expected a decision on the requested preliminary injunction will also be made.

Of particular interest is how the Kentucky case will proceed, particularly with respect to tracking BitConnect’s assets if the company fails to respond.

Stay tuned…