[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.0.47″][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.0.48″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.0.47″][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.21″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”]

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Blockvest LLC, et al., Civil Action №18-CV-2287-GPB(MSB) (S.D. Cal.

Parties:
SEC (Plaintiff);
Blockvest and Reginald Buddy Ringgold III, also known as Rasool Abdul Rahim El (Defendants).

Date: February 14, 2019

Facts of the case:

Blockvest LLC (a US legal entity) positioned itself as the first licensed crypto-exchange and an index fund. In October 2018 SEC had suspended Blockvest’s Initial Coin Offering through an emergency court order. SEC claimed that the company ran its ICO on social media, which constitutes a public offering. Blockvest contested that their tokens were “offered to a small test subject group of thirty-two individuals receiving a sum below ten thousand dollars ($10,000)”.

Issue: Whether Blockvest’s tokens (BLV tokens) constitute securities, and whether their offering was to be registered under U.S. securities law.

Court ruling:

The contents of defendants’ website, the whitepaper and social media posts concerning the ICO of the BLV tokens to the public at large constitute an ‘offer’ of ‘securities’ under the Securities Act of 1933. An offer of unregistered securities, therefore, violates Section 17(a) of the Securities Act.

To determine the nature of tokens, the court applied “Howey’s test”, which requires security to be: “(1) an investment of money (2) in a common enterprise (3) with an expectation of profits produced by the efforts of others”. In respect to the ICO of the BLV token, it was found that “investment of money” took place as ICO’s website and its whitepaper’s contained an invitation to potential investors to provide digital currency in return for BLV tokens. The “common enterprise” feature is satisfied as the company claimed that the funds raised would be pooled with a profit-sharing plan. Moreover, according to the project’s whitepaper, “a Blockvest token <…> will generate a pro-rated share of 50% of the profit generated quarterly as well as fees for processing transactions”. Finally, the defendants’ website and whitepaper promise that Blockvest investors would be “passive” investors and the BLV tokens would generate “passive income”.

Outcome:

A preliminary injunction against Blockvest LLC, and its founder Reginald Buddy Ringgold III aka Rasool Abdul Rahim El, for making fraudulent offers of securities.

[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.21″ global_module=”217159″]

OP-ED Disclaimer: This is an Op-ed article. The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own. Texploxe.com is not responsible for or liable for any content, accuracy or quality within the Op-ed article. Readers should do their own due diligence before taking any actions related to the content. Texploxe.com is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any information in this Op-ed article.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

Published by GMT Legal

GMT Legal is an International law firm providing services in crypto and blockchain industry.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share This

Share this post with your friends!