Judge Tosses Securities Class Action Over Chinese Crypto Token
"This all may true, but it is not illegal," U.S. District Judge Paul Crotty of the Southern District of New York wrote.
September 10, 2019 at 05:17 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
Chinese technology firm Xunlei Ltd.'s offering of cryptocurrency through a cloud-computing rewards program did not violate China's ban on token-based financing, a Manhattan federal judge said Tuesday in dismissing a securities class action that accused the company of hiding alleged illegality from American investors.
The lawsuit, filed in 2018, claimed that the Shenzhen-based online service provider created massive volatility in its stock by declining to address third-party trading of OneCoin, a blockchain-based "cyrpto token" meant to reward customers for buying into its crowdsourced computing system.
According to the complaint, the program ran afoul of Chinese law that bars fundraising through coin offering. The plaintiffs, who acquired American Depository Shares from Xunlei, alleged in the suit that the company and its executives ignored illegal trading by third-party speculators, who created markets for OneCoin and, in turn, drove up participation in Xunlei's rewards program.
The complaint said that OneCoin's launch in September 2017 for a time made Xunlei one of the best performing stocks in the world, but uncertainty surrounding the technology caused significant fluctuations before the price bottomed out following a decline of more than 31 percentage points in January 2018.
"When the truth about Xunlei's misconduct and its lack of operational and financial controls was revealed, the value of the company [American Deposit Shares] declined precipitously as the prior artificial inflation no longer propped up its stock price," plaintiffs attorneys from Levi & Korsinsky wrote in the 22-page filing.
"The decline in Xunlei's ADS price was a direct result of the nature and extent of Defendants' fraud finally being revealed to investors and the market," they said.
Xunlei moved to dismiss the suit last August, arguing in court papers that the Chinese government had never found that the company acted illegally and did not impose any kind of ban on the program.
"The complaint's premise fails at its core, because the program is not illegal. But the complaint more fundamentally fails to state a claim because a company has no obligation under the securities laws to disparage its own program as 'illegal,' especially where, as here, all material aspects of the program are fully disclosed," the company's O'Melveny & Myers attorneys wrote.
On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Paul Crotty of the Southern District of New York agreed. In a 24-page opinion, Crotty said that the complaint made no allegations that Xunlei itself had ever offered any OneCoin-specific products or tried to raise money off of its rewards program. Instead, he said, the suit claimed the company had "stood idly by" as illegal trading occurred.
"Accepting the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, this all may true, but it is not illegal," Crotty said. "Plaintiffs' allegations essentially boil down to a theory of 'aiding and abetting' or 'willful blindness,' accusations for which liability does not attach under China's securities and fundraising laws."
Xunlei was represented by Jonathan Rosenberg and William K. Pao of O'Melveny & Myers.
The plaintiffs in the case were represented by Eduard Korsinsky and Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Omar Jafri, Jeremy Alan Lieberman and Joshua B. Silverman of Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross.
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAn ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
Travis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250