Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) Class Actions Lawsuits

Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) Class Actions Lawsuits

Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) Class Actions Lawsuits

Filing Date Title/Docket Court/Judge Plaintiff Firm Description
12/12/2018 Nirvana Capital Limited et al v. Mobile Gaming Technologies, Inc. et al, Docket No.
4:18-cv-07483
(N.D. Cal. Dec 12, 2018)		 Northern District of California
Magistrate Judge Kandis
A. Westmore		 Horizons Law & Consulting Group
Zeisler PLLC		 Nirvana Capital Limited, a British Virgin Islands private limited company, and Winslow Strong, a U.S. citizen residing in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, filed a federal securities class action against Mobile Gaming Technologies, Inc., its directors and offices Mike Reaves, George Weinberg, Fred Hsu, and Does 1-10 for securities fraud in the ICO of CashBet Coins. The complaint alleged violations of
(1) Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act,
(2) Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act,
(3) Section 15(a) of the Securities Act, (4) Section 11 of the Securities Act, and (5) fraud.
11/7/2018 Zakinov et al v. Ripple Labs, Inc., et al, Docket No.
3:18-cv-06753
(N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2018)		 Northern District of California
Judge William Alsup		 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Ripple Labs, Inc., XRP II, LLC, and individual defendants Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ron Will, Antoinette O’Gorman, Eric Van Miltenburg, Susan Athey, Zoe Cruz, Ken Kurson, Ben Lawsky, Anja Manuel, and Takashi Okita requested the removal of the class action lawsuits Vladi Zakinov, et. al. vs. Ripple Labs, Inc. et al, Docket No. 18CIV02845 and David Oconer vs. Ripple Labs, Inc. et al, Docket No. 18CIV03332 to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, after the consolidation of those lawsuits in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo and the removal of the class action lawsuit Avner Greenwald vs. Ripple Labs, Inc. et al, Docket No. 18CIV03461 from the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
10/25/2018 Avner Greenwald vs. Ripple Labs, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP Ripple Labs, Inc. and individual defendants Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ron Will, Antoinette O’Gorman, Eric Van
Inc., et al, Docket No. 18-80147 (9th
Cir. Oct. 25,
2018)		 Miltenburg, Susan Athey, Zoe Cruz, Ken Kurson, Ben Lawsky, Anja Manuel, and Takashi Okita sought permission to appeal the remand of the class action by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California after the defendants’ successful removal of it to the District Court in Greenwald vs. Ripple Labs, Inc. et al, Docket No. 3:18-cv-04790 (N.D. Cal. Aug 8, 2018).
8/13/2018 John Hastings
v. Unikrn, Inc., Docket No.
18-2-20306		 Superior Court of Washington
King County		 Stritmatter Kessler Whelan Koehler Moore Plaintiff John Hastings sued Unikrn, Inc., Unikrn Bermuda Ltd., Rahul Sood, Karl Flores, and Does 1-10 on behalf of all investors who purchased UnikoinGold Tokens during the UnikoinGold ICO in September-October 2017, for the offer and sale of unregistered securities in violation of Sections 5 and 12(a)(1) of the Securities  Act by all defendants, and in violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act by Unikrn, Inc., Rahul Sood, and Karl Flores. Unikrn had declared the UnikoinGold Tokens to be utility tokens and conducted a private presale to celebrity investors including Mark Cuban. Unikrn sold approximately 127 million tokens for over 112,000 Ethereum worth approximately $298 million at the time in the ICO, then continued to sell tokens to the public.
8/9/2018 Greenwald vs. Ripple Labs, Inc. et al, Docket No.
3:18-cv-04790
(N.D. Cal. Aug 8, 2018)		 Northern District of California
Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim		 Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP Ripple Labs, Inc. and individual defendants Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ron Will, Antoinette O’Gorman, Eric Van Miltenburg, Susan Athey, Zoe Cruz, Ken Kurson, Ben Lawsky, Anja Manuel, and Takashi Okita removed the action filed by Avner Greenwald from the Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1332(d) and 1453.
7/3/2018 Avner Greenwald vs. Ripple Labs, Inc. et al, Docket No.
18CIV03461		 California Superior Court
San Mateo County		 Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP Plaintiff Avner Greenwald sued Ripple Labs, Inc.; XRP II, LLC; and Ripple Labs controlling senior executives and directors Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ron Will, Antoinette O’Gorman, Eric Van Miltenburg, Susan Athey, Zoe Cruz, Ken Kurson, Ben Lawsky, Anja Manuel, and Takashi Okita for the offer and sale of unregistered securities, in violation of Sections 5 and 12(a)(1) of the Securities  Act against all defendants, and in violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act against Ripple Labs and the individual defendants.
6/27/2018 David Oconer vs. Ripple California Superior Court Robbins Arroyo LLP Plaintiff David Oconer sued Ripple Labs, Inc.; XRP II, LLC; Ripple Labs, Inc. CEO
Labs, Inc. et al, Docket No.
18CIV03332		 San Mateo County Bradley Garlinghouse; and Does 1-25 for the offer and sale of unregistered securities, in violation of Sections 25110 and 25503 of the California Corporations Code against all defendants, and in violation of Sections 25504 of the Corporations Code against Ripple Labs, Inc. and Garlinghouse.
6/19/2018 Balestra v. Cloud With Me Ltd. et al, Docket No.
2:18-cv-00804- LPL		 Western District of Pennsylvania
Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan		 Law Office of Alfred
G. Yates, Jr., P.C.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP		 The plaintiff brought a class action lawsuit against Cloud With Me Ltd., Gilad Somjen, and Asaf Zamir for violation of Sections 12(a)(1) and 15(a) of the Securities Act in connection with the Cloud ICO. The Cloud ICO, which began on approximately July 25, 2017 and was ongoing as of the date of the complaint, raised at least $10 million by selling Cloud Tokens to fund the creation of a decentralized “cloud” network in which millions of individual users could become part of a decentralized grid by sharing resources on their personal computing devices for others to use. The plaintiff made claims for (1) violation of Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act against all defendants by the offer and sale of unregistered securities, and (2) violation of Section 15(a) of the Securities Act against the individual defendants by acting as controlling persons of Cloud in the Cloud ICO.
6/6/2018 Solis v. Latium Network, Inc. et al, Docket No. 2:18-
cv-10255		 District of New Jersey
Judge Susan
D. Wigenton		 Calcagni & Kanefsky, LLP
Flint Law Firm LLC		 The plaintiff sued Latium Network, Inc., David Johnson, and Matthew Carden for violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act in the Latium ICO that raised over $17 million in a sale of “utility-based tokens” that allegedly was an offer and sale of unregistered securities.
6/5/2018 Vladi Zakinov, et. al. vs.
Ripple Labs, Inc. et al, Docket No. 18CIV02845		 California Superior Court
San Mateo County		 Robbins Arroyo LLP
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP		 Plaintiff Vladi Zakinov sued Ripple Labs, Inc.; XRP II, LLC; Ripple Labs, Inc. CEO Bradley Garlinghouse; and Does 1-25 for the offer and sale of unregistered securities, in violation of Sections 25110 and 25503 of the California Corporations Code against all defendants, and in violation of Sections 25504 of the Corporations Code against Ripple Labs, Inc., Garlinghouse, and Does 1-25.
6/4/2018 Malik v. Longfin Corp. al, Docket No. 1:18-cv-04953 Southern District of New York (Foley Square)
Judge Denise
L. Cote		 Levi & Korsinsky, LLP This class action lawsuit alleged fraud and deception in connection with common stock issued in an initial public offering (IPO) by a fintech company that acquired blockchain company; it did not involve an ICO. The complaint alleged that Longfin issued numerous false statements from December 15, 2017 to April 2, 2018, including in its press release for its addition to the Russell 2000 Index and Russell 3000 Index issued
on March 22, 2018. The stock price  declined after a series of events from March 26 to April 2, 2018 that included the filing,  on April 2, 2018, of a Form 10-K Annual Report for 2017 that admitted material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting and operating at a loss rather than a profit. The complaint alleged (1) violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and (2) violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the individual defendants Venkat S. Meenavalli, the CEO, and Vivek Kumar Ratakonda, the CFO.
6/1/2018 Ryan Coffey vs. Ripple Labs Inc. et al, Docket No.
4:18-cv-03286		 Northern District of California
Judge Phyllis
J. Hamilton		 Taylor-Copeland Law Ripple Labs Inc. filed a class action notice of removal from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
5/7/2018 Nathan Ross vs. Dan Gailey et al, Docket No.
CGC18566340		 California Superior Court
San Francisco		 Tyz Law Group The plaintiff claimed that the defendant, a business partner who co-founded a series of ventures, breached their partnership agreement, breached his fiduciary duties to the plaintiff, and refused to issue shares reflecting the plaintiff’s equity interest, reimburse him for the funds he advanced to the company, and return the cryptocurrency he loaned to the company. The company had raised an estimated $7 million in an ICO with which to repay the plaintiff’s advances.
5/3/2018 Ryan Coffey vs. Ripple Labs, Inc. et al, Docket No.
CGC18566271		 California Superior Court
San Francisco		 Taylor-Copeland Law The plaintiff claimed that Ripple Labs earned massive profits by selling XRP in “essentially a never-ending initial coin offering” and “consistently portrayed XRP as a good investment,” suing for (1) unregistered offer and sale of securities in violation of Sections 5 and 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act, (2) unregistered offer and sale of securities in violation of California Corporations Code Section 25110 and 25503, (3) violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act by controlling persons, and
(4) violation of California Corporations Code Section 25504 by controlling persons.
4/24/2018 Trigon Trading Pty. Ltd., et al
v. Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc. et al, Docket No. 18CIV02045		 California Superior Court
San Mateo County		 Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
Block & Leviton LLP		 Plaintiffs Trigon Trading Pty. Ltd. and Bruce MacDonald sued Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc., Tezos Stiftung (Foundation), Kathleen Breitman, Arthur Breitman, Timothy Cook Draper, Draper Associates V Crypto LLC, and Does 1-100 for violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 12(a) of the Securities Act of 1933.
4/19/2018 Wei v. Longfin Corp. al, Docket No.
1:18-cv-03462		 Southern District of New York (Foley Square)
Judge Denise
L. Cote		 Pomerantz LLP This class action lawsuit alleged fraud and deception in connection with common stock issued in an initial public offering (IPO) by a fintech company that acquired blockchain company; it did not involve an ICO. The complaint alleged that Longfin issued numerous false statements from December 15, 2017 to April 2, 2018, including in its ress release for its addition to the Russell 2000 Index and Russell 3000 Index issued on March 22, 2018. The stock price  declined after a series of events from March 26 to April 2, 2018 that included the filing,  on April 2, 2018, of a Form 10-K Annual Report for 2017 that admitted material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting and operating at a loss rather than a profit. The complaint alleged (1) violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and (2) violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the individual defendants Venkat S. Meenavalli, the CEO, and Vivek Kumar Ratakonda, the CFO.
4/9/2018 Miller v. Longfin Corp. al, Docket No. 1:18-cv-03121 Southern District of New York (Foley Square)
Judge Denise
L. Cote		 Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Holzer & Holzer, LLC		 This class action lawsuit alleged fraud and deception in connection with common stock issued in an initial public offering (IPO) by a fintech company that acquired blockchain company; it did not involve an ICO. The complaint alleged that Longfin issued numerous false statements from December 13, 2017 to April 2, 2018, including in its Form 1-A registration statement for its IPO on December 13, 2017; the Form 8-K filed for its acquisition of Ziddu.com on December 15, 2017; and a press release for its addition to the Russell 2000 Index and Russell 3000 Index issued on March 22, 2018. The stock price declined after a  series of events from March 23 to April 2, 2018 that included the filing of a Form 10-K Annual Report for 2017 that admitted material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting and operating at a loss rather than a profit. The complaint alleged
(1) violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and (2) violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the individual defendants Venkat S. Meenavalli, the CEO, and Vivek Kumar Ratakonda, the CFO.
4/6/2018 Brola v. Nano et al, Docket No. 1:18-
cv-02049		 Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn)
Judge Nina Gershon		 The Braunstein Law Firm, PLLC
Silver Miller		 The plaintiff brought a class action lawsuit against defendants who allegedly created the cryptocurrency Nano, formerly known as RaiBlocks (XRB), directed XRB investors to place their assets at the cryptocurrency exchange BitGrail which had significant
reliability and security problems, and when
$170 million worth of XRB at BitGrail disappeared in February 2018, disavowed any responsibility for the harm the XRB investors suffered. The complaint alleged
(1) violation of Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act against all defendants by the offer and sale of unregistered securities, (2) violation of Section 15(a) of the Securities Act against the individual defendants by acting as controlling persons of Nano, (3) negligent misrepresentation against all defendants, (4) unjust enrichment against all defendants, and (5) civil conspiracy against all defendants.
4/6/2018 Mahabadi v. Overstock.com et al, Docket No. 2:18-
cv-00290		 District of Utah (Central)
Magistrate Judge Justin
B. Pead		 Peters Scofield
Pomerantz LLP
Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman LLC		 Purchasers of Overstock common stock alleged that materially false and misleading statements from August through December 2017 by Overstock about its wholly owned subsidiary Medici Ventures, which oversaw a portfolio of blockchain and fintech businesses, and one of those businesses, tZERO, including about a planned $500 million ICO by tZERO, followed by the announcement of an SEC investigation of the planned ICO, the subsequent cancellation of the ICO, and the announcement instead of an underwritten offering of common stock, caused significant losses and damages to them.
The complaint alleged (1) violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and (2) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
4/4/2018 Min v. Longfin Corp. al, Docket No.
1:18-cv-02973		 Southern District of New York (Foley Square)
Judge Denise
L. Cote		 Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP This class action lawsuit alleged fraud and deception in connection with common stock issued in an initial public offering (IPO) by a fintech company that acquired blockchain company; it did not involve an ICO. The complaint alleged that Longfin issued numerous false statements from December 13, 2017 to April 2, 2018, including in its Form 1-A registration statement for its IPO on December 13, 2017; the Form 8-K filed for its acquisition of Ziddu.com on December 15, 2017; and a press release for its addition to the Russell 2000 Index and Russell 3000 Index issued on March 22, 2018. The stock price declined after a  series of events from March 23 to April 2, 2018 that included the filing of a Form 10-K Annual Report for 2017 that admitted material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting and operating at a loss rather than a profit. The complaint alleged
(1) violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all
defendants, and (2) violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the individual defendants Venkat S. Meenavalli, the CEO, and Vivek Kumar Ratakonda, the CFO.
4/4/2018 Chauhan v. Longfin Corp. al, Docket No. 1:18-cv-02010 Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn)
Judge Margo
K. Brodie		 The Rosen Law Firm, PA This class action lawsuit alleged fraud and deception in connection with common stock issued in an initial public offering (IPO) by a fintech company that acquired blockchain company; it did not involve an ICO. The complaint alleged that Longfin issued numerous false statements from December 13, 2017 to April 2, 2018, including in its Form 1-A registration statement for its IPO on December 13, 2017; the Form 8-K filed for its acquisition of Ziddu.com on December 15, 2017; and a press release for its addition Russell 2000 Index and Russell 3000 Index issued on March 22, 2018. The stock price declined after a series of events from March 23 to April 2, 2018 that included the filing of a Form 10-K Annual Report for 2017 that admitted material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting and operating at a loss rather than a profit. The complaint alleged (1) violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and (2) violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the individual defendants Venkat S. Meenavalli, the CEO, and Vivek Kumar Ratakonda, the CFO.
4/3/2018 Reddy et al v. Longfin Corp. al, Docket No. 1:18-cv-02933 Southern District of New York (Foley Square)
Judge Denise
L. Cote		 Levi & Korsinsky, LLP This class action lawsuit alleged fraud and deception in connection with common stock issued in an initial public offering (IPO) by a fintech company acquiring a blockchain company; it did not involve an ICO. Longfin, a finance and fintech company, held a Reg A+ IPO on NASDAQ on December 13, 2017. On December 15, 2017, it announced the acquisition of Ziddu.com, a blockchain– empowered global micro-lending solutions provider that offered lending against collateralized warehouse receipts using Ziddu Coins, causing its stock price to increase 1,243% by December 18, 2017. A
January 23, 2018 press release announced a $52.7 million investment in Longfin by an institutional investor. On March 16, 2018, Russell added Longfin to the Russell 2000 Index and Russell 3000 Index erroneously, and Longfin issued a March 22, 2018 press release about it, after which the stock price increased 12.23% in one day. The stock price declined after a series of events from March 23 to April 2, 2018 that included the filing of a Form 10-K Annual Report for 2017 that admitted material weaknesses in
internal control over financial reporting and operating at a loss rather than a profit. The complaint alleged (1) violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and (2) violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the individual defendant Venkat S. Meenavalli, the CEO.
3/29/2018 Morris et al v. Overstock.com et al, Docket No. 2:18-
cv-00271		 District of Utah (Central)
Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner		 Anderson & Karrenberg, P.C.
Scott + Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
Holzer & Holzer LLC		 Purchasers of Overstock common stock alleged that Overstock’s representation in October 2017 that it planned to raise $500 million in an ICO drove up the price of Overstock common stock by 500% in five months, followed by a fall in price after the announcements that the SEC had requested information about the planned ICO, which was problematic and potentially illegal, and was investigating Overstock’s blockchain subsidiary. The complaint alleged (1) violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and (2) Section 20 of the Exchange Act.
3/23/2018 Avalos v. BitConnect International PLC et al, Docket No. 1:18-cv-21118 S.D. Florida (Miami)
Judge Ursula Ungaro		 Komlossy Law P.A.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP		 The complaint alleged (1) violation of Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act, (2) violation of Section 15(a) of the Securities Act, (3) violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat.
§§ 501.211 et seq., (4) breach of contract,
(5) unjust enrichment, (6) fraudulent inducement, (7) fraudulent misrepresentation, (8) negligent misrepresentation, (9) conversion, and (10) civil conspiracy.
3/20/2018 Balestra v. Giga Watt Inc et al, Docket No. 2:18-
cv-00103		 E.D.
Washington
Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr.		 Breskin Johnson & Townsend PLLC
Levi & Korsinski, LLP		 Giga Watt, Inc., Giga Watt, PTE, Ltd., Cryptonomos Pte. Ltd., and Dave Carlson had conducted a May-June 2017 ICO presale that raised $20 million for a project to develop a full service, turnkey processing center for cryptocurrency mining in the state of Washington. The plaintiff alleged that Giga Watt had represented its tokens as anticipated to increase significantly in value and that the tokens met the definition of a security, and that Giga Watt had refused demands for refunds after the project did not meet deadlines. The complaint alleged violations of Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act and Section 15(a) of the Securities Act.
2/22/2018 Avalos v. BitConnect International et al, Docket No. 3:18-cv-01165 N.D. Cal. (San Francisco)
Judge Jeffrey
S. White		 Levi & Korsinsky, LLP The complaint alleged (1) violation of Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act, (2) violation of Section 15(a) of the Securities Act, (3) violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
§§ 17200 et seq., (4) breach of contract, (5) actual fraud under Cal. Civ. Code § 1572,
(6) constructive fraud under Cal. Civ. Code
§ 1573, and (7) unjust enrichment.
Voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff, 3/14/2018
2/22/2018 Argiro v. BitConnect International PLC et al, Docket No. 0:18-cv-60392 S.D. Fla. (Ft. Lauderdale)
Judge Beth Bloom		 Pro se The complaint alleged (1) tortious interference with contract, (2) breach of contract, (3) misappropriation, (4) conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1965(5), 1962(D), (5) unfair business practices under Connecticut Business & Professions Code § 735(A), (6) breach of covenant of good faith, (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (8) fraud, (9) using a false record or statement to get a false claim paid in violation of 31 U.S.C.
§ 3729(A)(1)(B) and 31 U.S.C.
§ 3729(A)(2), (10) violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, C.G.S. §§ 42-110(a)-(q), (11) civil
conspiracy, and (12) forgery, and (13) mail fraud in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
2/17/2018 Takata v. Riot Blockchain, Inc. et al, Docket No.
3:18-cv-02293		 D.N.J.
(Trenton)
Judge Freda L. Wolfson		 The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. The complaint alleged (1) violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and (2) violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
2/7/2018 Kline et al v. Bitconnect et al, Docket No. 8:18-cv-00319 M.D. Florida (Tampa)
Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich		 Eggnatz Pascucci Stull, Stull & Brody The complaint alleged (1) violation of Sections 5 and 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act, (2) violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act, (3) fraud in the offer or sale of securities in violation of Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, (4) controlling person liability pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, (5) common law fraud, (6) aiding and abetting common law fraud, (7) violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq., (8) violation of the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 517.011, et seq., (9) violation of the Rhode Island Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-13.1 et seq., and
(10) violation of the Rhode Island Uniform Securities Act, R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 7-11.
1/31/2018 Mengesha v. Bitconnect International PLC et al, Docket No. 0:18-cv-00279 D. Minnesota
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright		 Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.
Meshbesher & Spence Ltd.		 The complaint alleged (1) violation of Minnesota securities laws, specifically Minn. Stat. § 80A.40 et seq., (2) violation of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the federal Securities Act, (3) breach of contract, (4) fraud by concealment, and (5) violation of the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, Minn. Stat. § 325F.69, (6) false
advertising in violation of the Minnesota False Statement in Advertising Act, Minn. Stat. § 325F.67; and (7) fraudulent inducement.
1/30/2018 Davy v. Paragon Coin, Inc. et al, Docket No.
3:18-cv-00671		 N.D. California (San Francisco)
Judge Jeffrey
S. White		 Levi & Korsinsky, LLP The plaintiff filed a federal securities class action against Paragon Coin Inc. and its founders Jessica VerSteeg and Egor Lavrov for securities fraud in the ICO of Paragon, whose “mission statement” was “to pull the cannabis community to mainstream by building blockchain into every step of the cannabis industry and by working toward  full legalization.” The complaint alleged violations of (1) Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act, and (2) Section 15(a) of the Securities Act.
1/30/2018 Long et al v. Bitconnect International, PLC et al, Docket No. 6:18-cv-00154 M.D. Florida (Orlando)
Senior Judge
G. Kendall Sharp		 Abbott Law Group, P.A.
Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group
Jones Ward PLC
Abigale Rhodes Green Injury Law, PLLC		 The plaintiffs sued Bitconnect alleging that it had operated a Ponzi scheme, after Texas and North Carolina issued cease and desist letters to Bitconnect, and Bitconnect closed its cryptocurrency lending and exchange platform on January 17, 2018.
The complaint alleged (1) violation of Florida securities laws, Fla. Stat. 517.011  et seq., (2) violation of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the federal Securities Act, (3) breach of contract, (4) fraud by concealment, and
(5) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. 510.201, et seq.
1/29/2018 Paige v. Bitconnect International PLC et al, Docket No. 3:18-cv-00058 W.D. Kentucky (Louisville)
Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley		 Jones Ward PLC
Abigale Rhodes Green Injury Law, PLLC		 The plaintiffs sued Bitconnect alleging that it had operated a Ponzi scheme, after Texas and North Carolina issued cease and desist letters to Bitconnect, and Bitconnect closed its cryptocurrency lending and exchange platform on January 17, 2018.
The complaint alleged (1) violation of Kentucky securities laws, KRS 292.310 et seq., (2) violation of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the federal Securities Act, (3) breach of contract, (4) fraud by concealment, and (5) violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, KRS 367.210, et seq.
The court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) freezing Bitconnect’s assets on January 29, 2018. The TRO would expire in 14 days.
Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order
1/24/2018 Wildes et al v. BitConnect S.D. Florida Silver Miller The plaintiffs sued Bitconnect alleging that it had operated a Ponzi scheme, after Texas
International PLC et al, Docket No. 9:18-cv-80086 Judge Donald M.
Middlebrooks		 and North Carolina issued cease and desist letters to Bitconnect, and Bitconnect closed its cryptocurrency lending and exchange platform on January 17, 2018.
The complaint alleged (1) the offer and sale of unregistered securities in violation of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act,
(2) fraud in the offer and sale of securities in violation of Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act, (3) fraud in the offer or sale of securities in violation of Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, (4) rescission of contract, (5) the unregistered offer and sale of securities in violation of Fla. Stat. §§ 517.011, et seq., (6) fraud in the offer and sale of securities in violation of Fla. Stat. §§ 517.011, et seq., (7) violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Chapter 501, § 211(1), Fla. Stat., (8) fraudulent inducement, (9) fraudulent misrepresentation, (10) negligent misrepresentation, (11) conversion, and
(12) conspiracy.
1/24/2018 Li v. Xunlei Limited et al, Docket No. 1:18-cv-00646 S.D. New York Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Pomerantz LLP		 The plaintiff filed a federal securities class action on behalf of investors who acquired Xunlei American Depository Shares between October 10, 2017 and January 11, 2018. Xunlei is a Cayman Islands corporation with its principal place of business in Shenzhen, China whose main product is OneCloud, a network linked storage device. On October 10, 2017, Xunlei announced the introduction of OneCoin, in what allegedly was an illegal ICO after China announced its ban on ICOs.
The complaint alleged violations of (1) Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and (2) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
1/18/2018 Dookeran v. Xunlei Limited et al, Docket No. 1:18-
cv-00467		 S.D. New York
Judge Richard
J. Sullivan		 Levi & Korsinsky, LLP The plaintiff filed a federal securities class action on behalf of investors who acquired Xunlei American Depository Shares between October 10, 2017 and January 11, 2018. Xunlei is a Cayman Islands corporation with its principal place of business in Shenzhen, China whose main product is OneCloud, a network linked storage device. On October 10, 2017, Xunlei announced the introduction of OneCoin, in what allegedly was an illegal ICO after China announced its ban on ICOs.
The complaint alleged violations of (1) Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and (2)
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
12/28/2017 StormsMedia LLC v. Giga Watt Inc et al, Docket No.
2:17-cv-00438		 E.D.
Washington
Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr.		 Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC
Silver Miller		 StormsMedia LLC sued Giga Watt, Inc., a Washington corporation, and Giga Watt, PTE, Ltd., a foreign corporation, which had conducted a June-August 2017 ICO that raised $20 million for a project to develop a full service, turnkey processing center for cryptocurrency mining in the state of Washington. The plaintiff alleged that Giga Watt had represented its tokens as anticipated to increase significantly in value and that the tokens met the definition of a security, and that Giga Watt had refused demands for refunds after the project did not meet deadlines. The complaint alleged unregistered offer and sale of securities in violation of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act and recission of contract.
Dismissed with prejudice 1/19/2018.
12/19/2017 Hodges et al v. Monkey Capital, LLC et al, Docket No. 9:17-cv-81370 S.D. Florida
Judge Donald M.
Middlebrooks		 Silver Miller The plaintiffs sued Monkey Capital, LLC, a Delaware LLC, Monkey Capital In., a  foreign corporation, and Daniel Harrison after an ICO scheduled for July 2017 did not occur, after class members contributed more than $5 million worth of cryptocurrency in advance.
12/13/2017 Rensel v. Centra Tech, Inc. et al, Docket No. 1:17-cv-24500 S.D. Florida
Senior Judge James Lawrence King		 Komlossy Law P.A.
Levi & Korsinsky LLP		 The plaintiff filed a federal securities class action against Centra Tech, its founders Sohrab Sharma, Raymond Trapani and Robert Farkas, and chairman of the board William Hagner for securities fraud in the July-October 2017 ICO of Centra, which received over $30 million in digital currency investments for development of a blockchain debit card. The complaint alleged violations of Section 12(a)(1) and Section 15(a) of the Securities Act.
12/13/2017 McDonald v. Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc. et al, Docket No. 3:17-
cv-07095		 N.D. California
Judge Richard Seeborg		 Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP The plaintiff sued Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc., Kathleen Breitman, Arthur Breitman, and the Tezos Stiftung (Foundation), Timothy Cook Draper, Draper Associates LP, Johann Gevers, Diego Ponz, Guide Schmitz-Krummacher, Bitcoin Suisse AG, and Niklas Nikolajsen for the offer and sale of unregistered securities within the state of California in violation of California Corporations Code § 25110, and for engaging in unlawful business practices in violation of the Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professional Code
§§ 17200 et seq.
11/29/2017 Baker v. Dynamic N.D. California Taylor-Copeland Law Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc., Kathleen Breitman, Arthur Breitman, and the Tezos
Ledger Solutions, Inc. et al, Docket No. 3:17-
cv-06850		 Judge Richard Seeborg Stiftung (Foundation), Johann Gevers, and Strange Brew Strategies LLC for the unregistered offer and sale of securities in violation of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act, fraud in the offer or sale of securities in violation of Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act, fraud in the offer or sale of securities in violation of Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, false advertising in violation of California Business & Professional Code §§ 17500 et seq, unfair competition in violation of California Business & Professional Code
§§ 17200 et seq,, and alter ego liability.
Originally filed in San Francisco Superior Court on 10/23/2017, case number
CGC-17-562144. Removed to federal court 11/29/2017.
11/28/2017 Okusko v. Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc. et al, Docket No. 3:17-
cv-06829		 N.D. California
Judge Richard Seeborg		 Levi & Korsinsky, LLP The plaintiff sued Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc., Kathleen Breitman, Arthur Breitman, the Tezos Foundation, and Timothy Draper for selling unregistered securities in violation of Section 12(a) of the Securities Act, and for liability as a controlling person in violation of Section 15(a) of the Securities Act.
11/26/2017 GGCC, LLC v.
Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc., Docket No.
3:17-cv-06779		 N.D. California
Judge Richard Seeborg		 The Restis Law Firm, P.C. The plaintiff sued Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc., Kathleen Breitman, Arthur Breitman, and the Tezos Stiftung (Foundation) for the illegal offer and sale of unregistered securities in violation of Section 5 and 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act, and liability as controlling persons in violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act.
11/13/2017 Gaviria v. Dynamic Ledger Solutions et al, Inc. et al, Docket No.
6:17-cv-01959		 M.D. Florida
Judge Paul G. Byron		 Silver Miller The plaintiff sued Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc., Kathleen Breitman, Arthur Breitman, and the Tezos Foundation for the unregistered offer and sale of securities in violation of Section 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act, and fraud in the offer and sale of securities in violation of Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act.