Back in October 2019 the Traffic Monsoon Receiver
sought to employ local attorneys
to go after Canadian net-winners.

The motion was denied later the same month. In denying the motion, the court recommended the Receiver ‘
solicit multiple bids from attorneys experienced in this area of Canadian law’.

On April 26th the Receiver filed a new motion requesting approval to employ Canadian counsel.

Addressing cost concerns raised by the court, the Receiver writes;

In recent months, the Receiver has contacted numerous firms with offices in Montreal to assist with this matter. Most of the firms’ rates were in excess of $600 CAD for partners.

After being ghosted by a “smaller firm with a lower billing rate”, the Receiver approached Gowling WLG.

Gowling has agreed to handle the Receiver’s need for Canadian counsel by leanly staffing only one associate … for the Receiver’s collection efforts against Boutin and other Canadian Net Winners.

If granted, the Receiver’s use of local counsel will allow her to pursue clawback litigation against Montreal resident Vincent Boutin

Vincent Boutin was one of Traffic Monsoon’s top net-winners, pocketing $761,541.

In addition to Boutin the Receiver hopes to pursue litigation against “at least sixty other” Canadian members, who together stole over $400,000.

Pending a decision on the Receiver’s motion, stay tuned…

Update 7th May 2021 – 
The Receiver’s motion was granted on April 29th, 2021.

Update 27th September 2021 –
 On September 22nd the Receiver filed for default judgment against Vincent Boutin.

A decision on the motion remains pending.

Update 9th November 2021 – 
On October 27th a $945,693 default judgment was granted against Boutin.

Update 1st November 2023 – 
Vincent Boutin has
settled with the Traffic Monsoon Receivership
for an undisclosed sum.

🤖 Quick Answer

What action did the Traffic Monsoon Receiver take in April 2019 regarding Canadian net-winners?
In October 2019, the Traffic Monsoon Receiver sought to employ local Canadian attorneys to pursue clawback efforts against Canadian net-winners. The initial motion was denied by the court, which recommended soliciting multiple bids from attorneys with Canadian law expertise. On April 26th, the Receiver filed a new motion requesting approval to engage Canadian counsel.

Why did the court initially deny the Receiver's motion for Canadian legal representation?
The court denied the October 2019 motion without explicitly stated reasons in the available text. However, the court recommended that the Receiver solicit multiple competitive bids from attorneys experienced in Canadian law, suggesting concerns about the procurement process and cost management in selecting legal counsel.

What were the financial challenges the Receiver encountered when seeking Canadian legal counsel?
The Receiver contacted numerous law

🔗 Related Articles

- BlackOxygen Organics class-action alleges supplement toxicity
- 36 arrested in Ghana for “network marketing scamming”
- Aljazeera America publish “in-depth look at MLM”
- Herbalife makes legal threats, gets heavy metals paper pulled
- VictoriaBank’s petition for an appeal rehearing denied