Best match

Most recent

Bay of Plenty region

Bay of Plenty Times

Meta, Microsoft, Amazon and Google are cutting jobs and expansion plans to bet on artificial intelligence. Plus, BlackRock Australasia reveals its favourite asset right now. Video / NZ Herald The ...

Why Bay of Plenty business experts say don’t be afraid of using AI, like ChatGPT

The New Zealand Herald

LawVu, Uptime Legal Systems, LSG, Onit, Wolters Kluwer ELM Solutions,) and the business scene. The Enterprise Legal Management (ELM) Software Industry study also examines the impact of COVID-19 on ...

Enterprise Legal Management (ELM) Software Market Is Booming In Upcoming Period 2030

Mena FN

Get the most recent info and news about LawVu on HackerNoon, where 10k+ technologists publish stories for 4M+ monthly readers.

LawVu

What Are the Top Startups in Oceania?

Thank you to the problem solvers who campaigned extra hard in the first-ever competition! HackerNoon Startups of the Year focuses on recognizing the passion and stamina of those willing to find and create effective tech solutions for their cities. HackerNoon’s Startups of the Year To see who is a winner in each respective city, visit and pick a city. The name at the top of the list is the winner. (Awards, where cheaters were caught, are under review.) startups.hackernoon.com From all of us at , thank YOU for your excellent campaign perseverance🥺! We look forward to seeing you again in the 2022 campaign (stay tuned 😉)! HackerNoon Without further adieu, let us kick off by sharing the cities with top votes per region for 2021 🎉 . our series of Best Startups of the Year Stay tuned for the rest of the winners per region to be over the course of this week (Feb 14, 2022). announced North and Central America America is the concrete jungle where dreams are made of, the world’s capital of fashion, showbiz, business, major industry, etc., and surely, of Startups! Representing , we have: North and Central America (14,563 votes): Winner: Boulder Bury.com (10,521 votes) - Winner: New York City Hum Capital (7,987 votes) - Winner: San Francisco Zentist (7,713 votes) - Winner: Redwood City TigerGraph (469 votes) - Winner: Los Altos Stobox To see more awards in this region please click here. Europe Charming, sophisticated, cosmopolitan. There are many beautiful words used to describe this region. With its eccentric vibe, is also a place where new Startups thrive. Europe Representing Europe we have: (10, 010 votes) - Winner: Belfast Bob & Berts (5, 066 votes) - Winner: Ghent WeGroup (4, 712 votes) - Winner: Porto TAIKAI (3, 779 votes) - Winner: City of London Crypto Quantique To see more awards in this region please click here. Oceania The heat, the beaches, roaming kangaroos, or tarantulas? No. Startups! Representing the region of are: Oceania (1, 011 votes) - Winner: Sydney shotstack (430 votes) - Winner: Melbourne Doohly (118 votes) - Winner: Gold Coast Easil (76 votes) - Winner: Tauranga LawVu (40 votes) - Winner: Western Junction Today We Learned To see more awards in this region please click here. Asia Diverse in both ethnicity and culture, known for exotic sceneries as well as friendly people. Many Asian countries are on the verge of mass globalization and modernization. These fast-developing economies give way for many potential Startups. We present, for : Asia (12, 686 votes) - Winner: Singapore Cake DeFi (3,355 votes) - Winners: and (It’s a tie, we’re working on it!) Tel Aviv Applitools hyro (2, 402 votes) - Winner: Beirut Hovi Digital Lab (1.006 votes) - Winner: Hyderabad Quixy (756 votes) - Winner: Hanoi DeFi For You To see more city awards in this region please click here. Africa The second biggest continent in the world, home to many big animals, the longest river in the world AND the largest desert in the world. is known for many big things and sure enough, big Startups. Africa Representing Africa, we have: (884 votes) - Winner: Johannesburg MiBRAND (804 votes) - Winner: Lagos Goodtalent (526 votes) - Winner: Cape Town Revix (420 votes) - Winner: Lusaka ComGrow (224 votes) - Winner: Nairobi UTU To see more city awards in this region please click here. South America “South America is the land of the extreme.” - National Geographic Extremely beautiful people? Yes. Extremely worth-noticeable Startups? Hell yeah! We proudly present, Startups in : South America (217 votes ) - Winner: São Carlos Predify (193 votes) - Winner: Belo Horizonte CM Technologia (106 votes) - Winner: Porto Alegre Privacy Tools (82 votes) - Winner: Quito Agrodemanda (55 votes) -Winner: Rio De Janeiro Bybrand To see more city awards in this region please click here. Once again, and to all of the top Startups of each region this year! HUGE CONGRATULATIONS BIG PROPS The whole team at would like to thank you for your excellent campaign perseverance and we look forward to seeing you in the 2022 campaign. HackerNoon As part of honoring your participation, we will continue to host your company in this directory until further notice ( for legal reasons we hesitate to say ‘forever’..but pretty much forever).  As traffic is directed to the site, it will act as a promotional platform for your company. Have a great Valentine’s Day, HackerNoon loves y’all <3 More Information: If you’re a winner, please answer ! If you’re a reader, participant, just a curious individual, consider answering one of our interviews . this interview here Read the FAQs about or . Startups here here To see all of the winners you may visit , pick any city and view the name that appears at the top. this site If you’re interested in partnering with us, we invite you to look through some of these or reach out to our business department. unique sponsorship options Perhaps creating your very own tickles your fancy or maybe you have a whole new idea for how we can partner! writing contest Thank you to all of our sponsors! We truly appreciate your contribution to the tech world and thus the future! The Startups Awards are sponsored by: , , , , , , , , , , Blockster Brex FreeCodeCamp LaunchDarkly Coil Udacity Udemy Vercel Asia Pacific Transgender Network Bybit Everscale Network This post was written by Tuan Anh Vu. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to report a discrepancy please email ellen@hackernoon.com.

To the Winners of #Startups2021, With Love:

Hey Hackers! On April 24th, announced, via , that they have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which would compel the to respond to a filed by Coinbase in July of 2022. Coinbase blog post SEC rulemaking petition This rulemaking petition was filed almost a year ago without any answer, and it simply requested that the SEC “propose and adopt rules to govern the regulation of securities that are offered and traded via digitally native methods, including potential rules to identify which digital assets are securities”. Coinbase has reached out multiple times to the SEC for an answer, but all they received was a , notifying the exchange of impending charges or enforcement actions. Wells Notice Coinbase’s Chief Legal Officer, Paul Grewal, took to to let Coinbase customers know about the lawsuit. Twitter Here is a direct link to the lawsuit filed by Coinbase in federal court: https://assets.ctfassets.net/c5bd0wqjc7v0/5PWsXaPsqQ61gA9wlFWKEX/d1d3a27d35687082565770589ef9a3ac/Coinbase_-_Mandamus_Petition__TO_FILE_.pdf “Coinbase does not take any litigation lightly, especially when it relates to one of our regulators. Regulatory clarity is overdue for our industry. Yet Coinbase and other crypto companies are facing potential regulatory enforcement actions from the SEC, even though we have not been told how the SEC believes the law applies to our business. The rulemaking process is a critical step to giving the public notice about what activities they can and cannot engage in. So until the crypto industry gets that clarity, we will continue to take every step available to us to seek it, which includes today’s filing. We also remain available to the SEC and all of our regulators for dialogue any time on these issues.” - , Chief Legal Officer of Coinbase Paul Grewal As a way to drum up support for regulatory clarity, Coinbase is currently offering a to the crypto community. free NFT mint The “Stand with Crypto” commemorative Shield NFT is “a symbol of unity for the crypto community seeking sensible crypto policy”. The NFT is free, but it will actually cost 0.000777 ETH to mint it. According to Coinbase, all minting fees will be donated to “vetted organizations through a Crypto Advocacy Round with Gitcoin”. Please keep in mind that this is supposed to be a commemorative NFT, and Coinbase states that their is no intended value or utility to the NFT. We have not seen too many cryptocurrency companies take the fight to the regulatory agencies, like the SEC, so I am quite keen to see what happens as a result of this course of action. This move by Coinbase might very well motivate other cryptocurrency companies to stop playing defense and start being proactive. What are your thoughts on this news? Is this a smart move for Coinbase to sue the SEC? What do you think this could lead to? Did you mint the free NFT? Let me know in the comments below! Check out my Socials: https://linktr.ee/zerorequiem0x See ya! :)

This Landmark Lawsuit Will Establish Regulatory Clarity for Digital Assets

Esta demanda histórica establecerá claridad regulatoria para los activos digitales

Ce procès historique établira la clarté réglementaire pour les actifs numériques

यह मील का पत्थर मुकदमा डिजिटल संपत्तियों के लिए नियामक स्पष्टता स्थापित करेगा

この画期的な訴訟は、デジタル資産の規制を明確にする

Este processo histórico estabelecerá clareza regulatória para ativos digitais

Vụ kiện mang tính bước ngoặt này sẽ thiết lập sự rõ ràng về quy định đối với tài sản kỹ thuật số

这一具有里程碑意义的诉讼将为数字资产建立明确的监管

Hey Hackers! On April 17th, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission cryptocurrency exchange, Bittrex, and former CEO, William Shihara, with “operating an unregistered national securities exchange, broker, and clearing agency”. officially charged Bittrex’s international affiliate, Bittrex Global GmbH, was also hit with a charge for “failing to register as a national securities exchange in connection with its operation of a single shared order book”. The SEC alleges that Bittrex earned $1.3 billion in revenue from transaction fees from crypto assets that were “offered and sold as securities”. Here is a direct link to the SEC’s Legal Complaint against Bittrex: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2023/comp-pr2023-78.pdf “Today’s action, yet again, makes plain that the crypto markets suffer from a lack of regulatory compliance, not a lack of regulatory clarity. As alleged in our complaint, Bittrex and issuers that it worked with knew the rules that applied to them but went to great lengths to evade them by directing issuer-applicants to ‘scrub‘ offering materials of information indicating that certain crypto assets were securities. Further, Bittrex, as alleged, failed to register and comply with U.S. securities laws as an exchange, broker-dealer, and clearing agency. Cosmetic alterations did nothing to change the underlying economic realities of the offerings and Bittrex’s conduct. Today we’re holding Bittrex accountable for its non-compliance.” - , SEC Chair Gary Gensler This lawsuit comes a few weeks after Bittrex they would be closing down operations in the United States due to “continual regulatory uncertainty”. announced After the lawsuit was made official, Bittrex made another on their website and specifically urged U.S. customers to withdraw their funds as soon as possible. announcement All Bittrex operations in the United States will cease on April 30th, so be sure you check out the announcements and get your assets off of the exchange in a timely manner. Please note that this does not impact non-U.S. customers using Bittrex Global. “We are disappointed with the SEC’s decision to bring an enforcement action against Bittrex as part of Chairman Gensler’s larger crusade to drive cryptocurrency out of the United States. The impact of the SEC’s approach of regulation by enforcement will have a chilling effect on not just cryptocurrency in the United States, but on blockchain technology and innovation in general.” - Official Statement by Bittrex The SEC’s lawsuit calls into question Bittrex’s listing of some cryptocurrency tokens that “have characteristics” of securities; specifically naming OMG Network ( ), Dash ( ), Algorand ( ), Monolith ( ), Naga ( ), and Real Estate Protocol ( ). OMG DASH ALGO TKN NGC IHT Twitter does what it does best and found a of Gary Gensler complimenting Algorand by saying it is “a great technology, it has performance, you could create Uber on top of it”. clip It is certainly odd for the SEC Chair Gary Gensler to call Algorand a “great technology” and then name them in a legal complaint alluding to the project as an example of a security. I think this is a clear example of Gensler’s failure to communicate clear regulations to cryptocurrency exchanges and projects. To Gary Gensler, one day Algorand is an amazing technology, then the next day ALGO is a security that, should not only be regulated but probably charged with securities fraud. We shall see what happens in time. What are your thoughts on this news? Are you, or were you, a customer of Bittrex? Is this a clear sign that all crypto exchanges in the United States will be charged? Check out my Socials: https://linktr.ee/zerorequiem0x See ya! :) Also published . here

Everything You Need to Know About SEC's Lawsuit Against Bittrex 

EPIC GAMES, INC., Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., Defendant Court Filing, is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is the table of links with all 11 parts. Aug 24 2020 HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here Feature Image: , Prompt “an epic apple playing games” HackerNoon’s Stable Diffusion AI : 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Case Number : EPIC GAMES, INC. Plaintiffs : APPLE INC. Defendants : Filing Date AUGUST 24, 2020 : UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Location : The law firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore - Attorneys for the Plaintiff Filer TABLE OF LINKS I - Opinion II - Background - A Players III - Background- B Relevant Background IV - LEGAL FRAMEWORK V - ANALYSIS - A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits: 1.Preliminary Considerations VI - ANALYSIS - Part A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits: 2. Monopoly Maintenance VII - ANALYSIS - Part A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits: 3. Tying under Section 1 of the Sherman Act VIII - Summary - Part B. Irreparable Harm IX - Summary - Part C. Balance of Equities X - Summary - Part D. Public Interest & E. Weighing of Factors XI - Conclusion About We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: This court case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR on Oct 9, 2020, is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. published

An Epic Showdown of the Fortnite - Apple 2020 Lawsuit

Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) v. Caroline Ellison (“Ellison”) and Zixiao “Gary” Wang (“Wang”) Court Filing,  Dec 21 2022 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 12 of 12. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here *Feature Image: movie poster, featuring Ellison, Wang, SBF, and the SEC, made by HackerNoon * The big fraud short : 1:22-cv-10794 Case Number : Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) Plaintiffs : Caroline Ellison (“Ellison”) and Zixiao “Gary” Wang (“Wang”) Defendants : Dec 21, 2022 Filing Date : US District Court, Southern District of New York Location : Jorge G. Tenreiro, David L. Hirsch (not admitted in SDNY), Ladan F. Stewart, Amy Harman Burkart, David J. D'Addio - Attorneys for the Plaintiff Filer FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF FRAUD IN THE OFFER OR SALE OF SECURITIES (Violations of Section 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act) 116. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 115. 117. By reason of the conduct described above, Defendants, in connection with the offer or sale of securities, by the use of the means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce or of the mails, directly or indirectly, acting knowingly, recklessly, or, as to (ii), negligently,(i) employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud; and (ii) engaged in acts, practices, or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any persons, including purchasers or sellers of the securities. 118. By reason of the conduct described above, Defendants violated Securities Act Sections 17(a)(1) and (a)(3) [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1) and (a)(3)]. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF FRAUD IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE OR SALE OF SECURITIES (Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) Thereunder) 119. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 115. 120. By reason of the conduct described above, Defendants, directly or indirectly, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, by the use of the means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange, knowingly or recklessly, (i) employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud; and (ii) engaged in acts, practices, or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any persons, including purchasers of the securities. 121. By reason of the conduct described above, Defendants violated Exchange Act Section 10(b) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a) and (c)] thereunder. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court enter a Final Judgment: A. Permanently restraining and enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction by personal service or otherwise, and each of them, from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)], and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5]; B. Ordering Defendants pay disgorgement plus prejudgment interest of all ill-gotten gains obtained by reason of the unlawful conduct alleged in this Complaint, pursuant to Exchange Act Sections 21(d)(5) and 21(d)(7) [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(5) and 78u(d)(7)]; C. Ordering Defendants to pay civil monetary penalties pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)]; D. Ordering Defendants barred from acting as an officer or director pursuant to Section 20(e) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(e)] and Section 21(d)(2) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(2)]; E. Prohibiting Defendants from participating, directly or indirectly, including, but not limited to, through any entity controlled by them, in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of any securities, including crypto asset securities, provided, however, that such injunction shall not prevent Defendants from purchasing or selling securities, including crypto asset securities, for their own personal accounts; and F. Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. JURY DEMAND The Commission demands trial by jury. About We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: This court case 1:22-cv-10794 on Dec 21 2022, is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. retrieved

Ellison & Wang shall face Trial by Jury, per SEC lawsuit 

Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) v. Caroline Ellison (“Ellison”) and Zixiao “Gary” Wang (“Wang”) Court Filing,  Dec 21 2022 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 7 of 12. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here Green highlights added by HackerNoon. : 1:22-cv-10794 Case Number : Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) Plaintiffs : Caroline Ellison (“Ellison”) and Zixiao “Gary” Wang (“Wang”) Defendants : Dec 21, 2022 Filing Date : US District Court, Southern District of New York Location : Jorge G. Tenreiro, David L. Hirsch (not admitted in SDNY), Ladan F. Stewart, Amy Harman Burkart, David J. D'Addio - Attorneys for the Plaintiff Filer FACTS A. Bankman-Fried, Actively Supported by Defendants, Created a Complex Web of Entities, with FTX and Alameda at Its Center. 18. In or around October 2017, Bankman-Fried and Wang founded Alameda, a quantitative trading firm specializing in crypto assets. (3) 19. At inception, Alameda was focused on arbitrage trading strategies, but went on to employ other strategies including market making, yield farming (pooling of crypto assets in exchange for interest or other rewards), and volatility trading. Alameda also offered over-the- counter trading services, and made and managed other debt and equity investments. 20. At first, Bankman-Fried was responsible for trading operations, and Wang handled the engineering and programming functions. Over time, Alameda hired additional employees, including Singh (in or around December 2017), Ellison (in or around March 2018), and Trabucco (in or around 2019). By the end of 2021, Alameda had approximately 30 employees. At times, Alameda shared office space and employees with FTX. 21. Bankman-Fried remained the ultimate decision-maker at Alameda, even after Ellison and Trabucco became co-CEOs in or around October 2021. Bankman-Fried directed investment and operational decisions, frequently communicated with Alameda employees, and had full access to Alameda’s records and databases. 22. Ellison was a trader at Alameda during the time Bankman-Fried acted as CEO. When Ellison became co-CEO in 2021, and continuing through November 2022, Ellison was responsible for Alameda’s day-to-day operations. Though Ellison made some trading decisions, she frequently consulted with Bankman-Fried, particularly about strategic issues and significant trades. 23. In or around 2018, Bankman-Fried began work on building a crypto asset trading platform. Together with Wang and Singh, Bankman-Fried ultimately founded FTX, which began operations in or around May 2019. 24. FTX offered its customers a number of services. For example: FTX offered a “spot market,” a trading platform through which customers could trade crypto assets with other FTX customers in exchange for fiat currency ( , currency such as U.S. Dollars) or other crypto assets. i.e. FTX offered “spot margin trading” services, which allowed FTX customers to trade using assets they did not have ( , to trade “on margin”) by posting collateral in their FTX accounts and borrowing crypto assets through the “spot market” on the FTX platform. FTX also allowed customers to lend their crypto assets to other FTX customers who would then use those crypto assets to spot trade. i.e. FTX offered an off-platform (over-the-counter or “OTC”) portal that enabled customers to connect and request quotes for spot crypto assets and to conduct trades. 25. Wang and Singh were the lead engineers responsible for writing the software code for FTX, including the code that allowed for the services described above. Bankman-Fried was the ultimate decision maker at FTX from the platform’s inception in or around May 2019 until he resigned as CEO on or about November 11, 2022 (“the Relevant Period”). 26. In or around January 2020, Bankman-Fried, Wang, and Singh founded FTX US, a crypto asset trading platform designed primarily for customers in the United States. (4) 27. Over time, Bankman-Fried expanded his holdings to include a number of companies focused on making and managing private (or “venture”) investments. 28. This interconnected web of companies grew to include over 100 separate entities, with Bankman-Fried at the top and Alameda, his crypto hedge fund, at the center. 29. Throughout the Relevant Period, in multiple public statements, Bankman-Fried held himself out as a visionary leader in the crypto industry, and touted his efforts to create a regulated and thriving crypto asset market. He conducted an intensive public relations campaign to brand himself and his companies as honest stewards of crypto. 30. The reality was very different: From the start, contrary to what FTX investors and trading customers were told, Bankman-Fried, actively supported by Defendants, continually diverted FTX customer funds to Alameda and then used those funds to continue to grow his empire, using billions of dollars to make undisclosed private venture investments, political contributions, and real estate purchases. 31. At the same time, throughout the Relevant Period, Bankman-Fried, with Defendants’ knowledge, solicited equity investors by touting FTX’s controls and risk management, ultimately raising at least $1.8 billion from investors in exchange for various classes of stock in FTX through multiple fundraising rounds, including raising: (1) approximately $8 million from the sale of shares of FTX Series A preferred stock, with fundraising completed in or around August 2019; (2) approximately $1 billion from the sale of shares of FTX Series B preferred stock, with fundraising completed in or around July 2021; (3) approximately $420 million from the sale of shares of FTX Series B-1 stock, with fundraising completed in or around October 2021; and (4) approximately $500 million from the sale of shares of FTX Series C stock, with fundraising completed in or around January 2022. Of this total, approximately $1.1 billion was invested in FTX by approximately 90 investors based in the United States. 32. For the entire span of the Relevant Period, while raising money from equity investors, Bankman-Fried, and those speaking at his direction and on his behalf, with the knowledge of Defendants, claimed in widely distributed public forums and directly to investors that: FTX was a safe crypto asset trading platform; FTX had a comparative advantage due to its automated risk mitigation procedures; and FTX and its customers were protected from other customers’ losses due to FTX’s automated liquidation process. A** ** Similarly, Bankman-Fried’s statements concerning the separation of FTX and Alameda, made throughout the Relevant Period, were misleading because he did not disclose the special treatment afforded to Alameda on FTX, including its virtually unlimited “line of credit” at FTX, its ability to carry a negative balance in its FTX customer account, and its exemption from FTX’s automated liquidation process—none of which any other customer of the platform enjoyed, but which changed the risk profile of FTX. Defendants were aware that Bankman-Fried was making false or misleading statements in order to raise money for FTX from equity investors. At times, they were in close proximity to these discussions, and directly or indirectly supported Bankman-Fried in providing false and misleading information to investors. s discussed further herein, these statements and others were misleading in light of Bankman-Fried’s failure to disclose to FTX investors the diversion of FTX customer funds to Alameda, which he then used for his own purposes, including loans to himself. 33. Bankman-Fried also misrepresented the risk profile of investing in FTX throughout the Relevant Period by failing to disclose FTX’s exposure to Alameda and, relatedly, that the collateral Alameda deposited on FTX consisted largely of illiquid, FTX-affiliated tokens, including FTT, the price of which Alameda was actively manipulating. In addition to these material omissions, Bankman-Fried also made material misrepresentations to FTX investors about FTX’s risk management and its relationship with Alameda. As detailed below, Bankman- Fried made these material misstatements throughout the Relevant Period, and the entire time he was raising or attempting to raise funds for FTX—from the time FTX began operations in May 2019 through its ultimate demise in November 2022. . Again, Defendants were aware that Bankman-Fried was making these false or misleading statements and that he was doing so in order to raise money from equity investors, and they directly or indirectly supported him in doing so (3) Crypto assets are unique digital assets maintained on a cryptographically-secured blockchain. A blockchain or distributed ledger is a peer-to-peer database spread across a network of computers that records all transactions in theoretically unchangeable, digitally recorded data packages. The system relies on cryptographic techniques for secure recording of transactions. Crypto tokens may be traded on crypto asset trading platforms in exchange for other crypto assets or fiat currency (legal tender issued by a country). (4) FTX US is the d/b/a for a subsidiary of West Realm Shires Inc., a separate legal entity from FTX Trading Ltd. that provided different services. FTX US’s conduct is not the subject of the allegations in this complaint. Continue Reading Here About We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: This court case 1:22-cv-10794 on Dec 21 2022, is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. retrieved

SBF knowingly diverted FTX customers' funds to fuel Alameda's growth and raise billions, per lawsuit

Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) v. Caroline Ellison (“Ellison”) and Zixiao “Gary” Wang (“Wang”) Court Filing,  Dec 21 2022 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 2 of 12. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here : 1:22-cv-10794 Case Number : Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) Plaintiffs : Caroline Ellison (“Ellison”) and Zixiao “Gary” Wang (“Wang”) Defendants : Dec 21, 2022 Filing Date : US District Court, Southern District of New York Location : Jorge G. Tenreiro, David L. Hirsch (not admitted in SDNY), Ladan F. Stewart, Amy Harman Burkart, David J. D'Addio - Attorneys for the Plaintiff Filer VIOLATIONS By engaging in the conduct set forth in this Complaint, Defendants violated Section 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1) and (3)]; and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a) and (c)]. Unless Defendants are permanently restrained and enjoined, they will continue to engage in the acts, practices, transactions and courses of business set forth in this Complaint and in acts, practices, transactions and courses of business of similar type and object. Continue Reading . Here About We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: This court case 1:22-cv-10794 on Dec 21 2022, is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. retrieved

Caroline Ellison and Garry Wang violated SEC's rules, per lawsuit 

Twitter v. Elon Musk Court Filing by Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, July 12, 2022 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 30 of 31. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here Feature Image: HackerNoon’s Stable Diffusion AI, prompt “breach of contract” CAUSE OF ACTION Breach of Contract — Specific Performance & Injunction 148. Twitter repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations above. 149. The merger agreement is a valid and enforceable contract. 150. Twitter has fully performed all of its obligations under the merger agreement to date, and is ready, willing, and able to continue so performing. 151. Defendants have breached the merger agreement by, among other things, violating Sections 6.1, 6.3, 6.4, 6.8, and 6.10. 152. In Section 9.9(a), each of the parties agreed that, without posting bond or other undertaking, the other parties “shall be entitled to an injunction, specific performance and other equitable relief to prevent breaches of this Agreement and to enforce specifically the terms and provisions hereof, in addition to any other remedy to which they are entitled at law or in equity.” 153. In Section 9.9(b), the parties expressly “acknowledged and agreed that the Company shall be entitled to specific performance or other equitable remedy to enforce Parent and Acquisition Sub’s obligations to cause the Equity Investor to fund the Equity Financing, or to enforce the Equity Investor’s obligation to fund the Equity Financing directly, and to consummate the Closing” if three conditions are met: (i) all of the conditions set forth in Section 7.1 and Section 7.2 have or will be satisfied at the closing; (ii) the debt financing has been funded or will be funded at the closing if the equity financing is funded; and (iii) the company has confirmed that the closing will occur. 154. All of the conditions set forth in Sections 7.1 and 7.2 have been satisfied or waived, or are expected to be satisfied or waived at the closing, and the closing will occur if the debt and equity financing are funded, which funding is solely within the control of defendants. 155. Twitter has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm as a result of defendants’ breaches. Continue reading here

Musk breached a 'valid and enforceable contract' with Twitter, per lawsuit 

Musk incumplió un 'contrato válido y exigible' con Twitter, según demanda

Musk a rompu un "contrat valide et exécutoire" avec Twitter, par procès

मस्क ने प्रति मुकदमा ट्विटर के साथ 'वैध और लागू करने योग्य अनुबंध' का उल्लंघन किया

訴訟によると、マスクはツイッターとの「有効で執行可能な契約」に違反した

Musk violou um 'contrato válido e executável' com o Twitter, por ação judicial

Musk đã vi phạm 'hợp đồng hợp lệ và có hiệu lực thi hành' với Twitter, theo một vụ kiện

根据诉讼，马斯克违反了与 Twitter 的“有效且可执行的合同”

Twitter v. Elon Musk Court Filing by Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, July 12, 2022 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 29 of 31 HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here Feature Image: HackerNoon’s Stable Diffusion AI, Prompt “the damage is done” FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS X. Twitter faces irreparable harm absent relief 144. Because of defendants’ breaches and the uncertainty they have generated, Twitter faces irreparable harm. Defendants stipulated in the merger agreement that “irreparable damage for which monetary damages, even if available, would not be an adequate remedy would occur in the event that the parties hereto do not perform the provisions of this Agreement (including failing to take such actions as are required of it hereunder to consummate this Agreement) in accordance with its specified terms or otherwise breach such provisions.” Ex. 1 § 9.9(a). 145. The expected closing date for the merger is fast approaching. The lone remaining application for regulatory approval is under consideration and the parties have received no indication of any obstacle on that front. Twitter is prepared to schedule a stockholder vote immediately upon clearance by the SEC of its proxy statement, as early as mid-August. Defendants must close “no later than” two business days after satisfaction of the closing conditions. Id. § 2.2. 146. Defendants’ actions in derogation of the deal’s consummation, and Musk’s repeated disparagement of Twitter and its personnel, create uncertainty and delay that harm Twitter and its stockholders and deprive them of their bargained for rights. They also expose Twitter to adverse effects on its business operations, employees, and stock price. 147. Swift remedial action in the form of specific performance and injunctive relief is warranted. Continue reading here

'Twitter faces irreparable harm' due to Musk's actions, per lawsuit 

'Twitter enfrenta un daño irreparable' debido a las acciones de Musk, según la demanda

"Twitter fait face à un préjudice irréparable" en raison des actions de Musk, par procès

मस्क के कार्यों के कारण 'ट्विटर को अपूरणीय क्षति हुई है', प्रति मुकदमा

訴訟によると、マスクの行動により「Twitterは取り返しのつかない損害に直面している」

'Twitter enfrenta danos irreparáveis' devido às ações de Musk, por processo

'Twitter phải đối mặt với tác hại không thể khắc phục' do hành động của Musk, mỗi vụ kiện

根据诉讼，由于马斯克的行为，“推特面临无法弥补的伤害”

Twitter v. Elon Musk Court Filing by Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, July 12, 2022 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 22 of 31. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS VII. Defendants materially breach their obligations to work toward closing and refrain from unreasonable withholding of consent to operational changes B. Musk delays and stymies key operational decisions 115. Since signing, Twitter has complied in all respects with its obligation under Section 6.1 of the merger agreement to operate the business in the ordinary course. In an excess of caution, the company has sought Musk’s consent even for matters falling well within the zone of commercial reasonableness. Though Musk has approved some of Twitter’s requests, he has been slow to respond to ones that required urgency and has unreasonably withheld his consent to others, in breach of his own obligations under Section 6.1. 116. Most notably, Musk has unreasonably withheld consent to two employee retention programs designed to keep selected top talent during a period of intense uncertainty generated in large part by Musk’s erratic conduct and public disparagement of the company and its personnel. 117. During negotiation of the merger agreement, Twitter had sought Musk’s consent to a broad retention plan. Musk’s team deferred decision on the matter; the plan Twitter proposed was detailed, and time for negotiation was short. But Musk indicated he was open to further discussion. 118. During a May 6, 2022 post-signing diligence session, Twitter management again broached the subject of retention, and Musk was noncommittal. He suggested the matter be tabled pending further clarity on the expected interval before closing the deal. 119. Over the weeks that followed, Swan discussed with Twitter management a narrower retention plan than the one that had been discussed during the merger agreement negotiations. Consistent with those discussions, on June 20, 2022, Twitter sent defendants a formal request for consent to two tailored employee retention programs that had been vetted by the board and its compensation committee with the assistance of an outside compensation consultant. 120. Musk initially failed to respond at all to the June 20 consent request. (It would soon become clear that he had fired Swan.) After a follow-up request for consent, Musk’s counsel stated tersely that “Elon is not supportive of this program and has declined to grant consent for it.” Twitter offered to arrange a meeting between Musk and Lane Fox to explain the importance and utility of the proposed programs. Musk’s counsel repeated that Musk “doesn’t believe a retention program is warranted in the current environment,” and said Musk was unwilling to consider the advice of compensation consultants, but left open the possibility of speaking with Lane Fox. 121. On June 28, 2022, following further stonewalling from Musk’s counsel, Twitter urged that a discussion would be fruitful. After initially suggesting Musk might be “amenable to a call next week,” Musk’s counsel replied, “Elon already gave his response but I’ll remind him of Martha’s request for a call.” The call never happened — Musk has continued to duck it — and neither retention program has been implemented due to defendants’ unexplained and unreasonable withholding of consent. Employee attrition, meanwhile, has been on the upswing since the signing of the merger agreement. 122. Defendants have unreasonably withheld consent in other domains as well. On June 14, 2022, Twitter sought consent to terminate Twitter’s existing revolving credit facility, noting that no amounts were presently drawn under the facility and that the facility would have to be terminated in connection with the merger’s consummation. Maintaining the facility requires Twitter to incur ongoing monthly costs. After initially saying he would consent to the termination, Musk withdrew it the next day without explanation. Continue reading here

Musk's 'erratic conduct and public disparagement' caused Twitter employee attrition, per lawsuit

La 'conducta errática y el menosprecio público' de Musk causaron el desgaste de los empleados de Twitter, según la demanda

La «conduite erratique et le dénigrement public» de Musk ont provoqué l'attrition des employés de Twitter, par procès

मस्क के 'अनियमित आचरण और सार्वजनिक तिरस्कार' के कारण प्रति मुकदमा ट्विटर कर्मचारी की उदासीनता हुई

訴訟によると、マスクの「常軌を逸した行動と公の場での誹謗中傷」が原因で、Twitter の従業員が減少した

A 'conduta errática e depreciação pública' de Musk causou atrito com funcionários do Twitter, por ação judicial

'Hành vi thất thường và sự chê bai công khai' của Musk đã khiến nhân viên Twitter bị tiêu hao, theo mỗi vụ kiện

根据诉讼，马斯克的“古怪行为和公开贬低”导致 Twitter 员工流失

Twitter v. Elon Musk Court Filing by Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, July 12, 2022 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 13 of 31. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS III - The Final, Agreed-upon Term Deals G. Specific Performance 54. Twitter may seek specific performance, an injunction, or other equitable relief to enforce any of defendants’ obligations under the merger agreement. Id. § 9.9(a). It has the specific power to compel Musk to fund the equity financing and close the merger, provided the closing conditions are met (or are capable of being met at the time of closing), the debt financing (which is already committed) has been or will be funded at the closing, and the company is itself prepared to close. Id. § 9.9(b). Continue reading here

Twitter May Enforce Musk to Close Deal as long as It Met Closing Conditions, per Lawsuit 

Twitter puede obligar a Musk a cerrar un trato siempre que cumpla con las condiciones de cierre, según la demanda

Twitter peut obliger Musk à conclure l'accord tant qu'il respecte les conditions de clôture, par poursuite

ट्विटर मई मस्क को डील बंद करने के लिए मजबूर कर सकता है, जब तक कि यह प्रति मुकदमा बंद होने की स्थिति में है

訴訟によると、Twitter は成約条件を満たしている限り、Musk に取引を成立させる可能性がある

Twitter pode forçar Musk a fechar negócio, desde que atenda às condições de fechamento, por processo judicial

Twitter có thể buộc Musk phải đóng giao dịch miễn là nó đáp ứng các điều kiện kết thúc, theo vụ kiện

根据诉讼，Twitter 可能会强制马斯克在满足成交条件的情况下完成交易

Twitter v. Elon Musk Court Filing by Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, July 12, 2022 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 8 of 31. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here Feature Image: HackerNoon’s Midjourney AI, Prompt “hell or high water obligation” FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS III - The Final, Agreed-upon Term Deals B. Efforts Covenants 46. The agreement requires all parties, including Musk, to use their “reasonable best efforts” to consummate the merger and cause all of the closing conditions to be satisfied. Id. § 6.3(a). 47. Defendants, including Musk, have a “hell-or-high-water” obligation to close on their financing commitments for the transaction. They must: take, or cause to be taken, all actions and . . . do, or cause to be done, all things necessary, proper or advisable to arrange, obtain and consummate the Financing at or prior to the Closing on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Financing Commitments (including any “flex” provisions). . . . Id. § 6.10(a). More specifically, Musk and Parent have an unconditional obligation to “take (or cause to be taken) all actions, and do (or cause to be done) all things necessary, proper or advisable to obtain the Equity Financing,” which includes, among other things, Musk’s funding of his personal equity commitment at or before closing. Id. § 6.10(e). Continue reading here

"Hell-or-high-water" Obligation: Musk must Buy Twitter or Die Trying according to Lawsuit 

Obligación de "infierno o agua alta": Musk debe comprar Twitter o morir en el intento de acuerdo con la demanda

Obligation « enfer ou crue » : Musk doit acheter Twitter ou mourir en essayant selon le procès

"नर्क-या-उच्च पानी" दायित्व: कस्तूरी को ट्विटर खरीदना चाहिए या मुकदमे के अनुसार मरना चाहिए

「地獄か高波」の義務：マスクはTwitterを買収するか、訴訟によると死ぬか

Obrigação "inferno ou alto": Musk deve comprar o Twitter ou morrer tentando de acordo com o processo

Nghĩa vụ "địa ngục hoặc nước cao": Musk phải mua Twitter hoặc chết theo vụ kiện

“地狱或高水位”义务：马斯克必须根据诉讼购买推特或死去

Twitter v. Elon Musk Court Filing by Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, July 12, 2022 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 1 of 31. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here Feature Image: HackerNoon’s Midjourney AI, Prompt “lawyers says Musk is the model of hypocrisy” VERIFIED COMPLAINT Plaintiff Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”), by and through its undersigned counsel, as and for its complaint against defendants Elon R. Musk, X Holdings I, Inc. (“Parent”), and X Holdings II, Inc. (“Acquisition Sub”), alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION In April 2022, Elon Musk entered into a binding merger agreement with Twitter, promising to use his best efforts to get the deal done. Now, less than three months later, Musk refuses to honor his obligations to Twitter and its stockholders because the deal he signed no longer serves his personal interests. Having mounted a public spectacle to put Twitter in play, and having proposed and then signed a seller-friendly merger agreement, Musk apparently believes that he — unlike every other party subject to Delaware contract law — is free to change his mind, trash the company, disrupt its operations, destroy stockholder value, and walk away. This repudiation follows a long list of material contractual breaches by Musk that have cast a pall over Twitter and its business. Twitter brings this action to enjoin Musk from further breaches, to compel Musk to fulfill his legal obligations, and to compel consummation of the merger upon satisfaction of the few outstanding conditions. Musk, the Chief Executive Officer of Tesla, Inc. and leader of SpaceX and other entities, opened a Twitter account in 2009. His presence on the Twitter platform is ubiquitous. With over 100 million followers, Musk’s account is one of the most followed on Twitter, and he has Tweeted more than 18,000 times. He has also suggested he would consider starting his own company to compete with Twitter. On April 25, 2022, Musk, acting through and with his solely-owned entities, Parent and Acquisition Sub, agreed to buy Twitter for $54.20 per share in cash, for a total of about $44 billion. That price, presented by Musk on a take-it-or-leave-it basis in an unsolicited public offer, represented a 38% premium over Twitter’s unaffected share price. The other terms Musk offered and agreed to were, as he touted, “seller friendly.” There is no financing contingency and no diligence condition. The deal is backed by airtight debt and equity commitments. Musk has personally committed $33.5 billion. After the merger agreement was signed, the market fell. As the Wall Street Journal reported recently, the value of Musk’s stake in Tesla, the anchor of his personal wealth, has declined by more than $100 billion from its November 2021 peak. So Musk wants out. Rather than bear the cost of the market downturn, as the merger agreement requires, Musk wants to shift it to Twitter’s stockholders. This is in keeping with the tactics Musk has deployed against Twitter and its stockholders since earlier this year, when he started amassing an undisclosed stake in the company and continued to grow his position without required notification. It tracks the disdain he has shown for the company that one would have expected Musk, as its would-be steward, to protect. Since signing the merger agreement, Musk has repeatedly disparaged Twitter and the deal, creating business risk for Twitter and downward pressure on its share price. Musk’s exit strategy is a model of hypocrisy. One of the chief reasons Musk cited on March 31, 2022 for wanting to buy Twitter was to rid it of the “[c]rypto spam” he viewed as a “major blight on the user experience.” Musk said he needed to take the company private because, according to him, purging spam would otherwise be commercially impractical. In his press release announcing the deal on April 25, 2022, Musk raised a clarion call to “defeat[] the spam bots.” But when the market declined and the fixed-price deal became less attractive, Musk shifted his narrative, suddenly demanding “verification” that spam was not a serious problem on Twitter’s platform, and claiming a burning need to conduct “diligence” he had expressly forsworn. Musk’s strategy is also a model of bad faith. While pretending to exercise the narrow right he has under the merger agreement to information for “consummation of the transaction,” Musk has been working furiously — albeit fruitlessly — to try to show that the company he promised to buy and not disparage has made material misrepresentations about its business to regulators and investors. He has also asserted, falsely, that consummation of the merger depends on the results of his fishing expedition and his ability to secure debt financing. On July 8, 2022, a little over a month after first using bad-faith pursuit of spam-related evidence to assert a baseless claim of breach, Musk gave Twitter notice purporting to terminate the merger agreement. The notice alleges three grounds for termination: (i) purported breach of information-sharing and cooperation covenants; (ii) supposed “materially inaccurate representations” in the merger agreement that allegedly are “reasonably likely to result in” a Company Material Adverse Effect; and (iii) purported failure to comply with the ordinary course covenant by terminating certain employees, slowing hiring, and failing to retain key personnel. These claims are pretexts and lack any merit. Twitter has abided by its covenants, and no Company Material Adverse Effect has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur. Musk, by contrast, has been acting against this deal since the market started turning, and has breached the merger agreement repeatedly in the process. He has purported to put the deal on “hold” pending satisfaction of imaginary conditions, breached his financing efforts obligations in the process, violated his obligations to treat requests for consent reasonably and to provide information about financing status, violated his non-disparagement obligation, misused confidential information, and otherwise failed to employ required efforts to consummate the acquisition. Twitter is entitled to specific performance of defendants’ obligations under the merger agreement and to secure for Twitter stockholders the benefit of Musk’s bargain. Musk and his entities should be enjoined from further breaches, ordered to comply with their obligations to work toward satisfying the few closing conditions, and ordered to close upon satisfaction of those conditions. Continue reading here

'Musk’s exit strategy is a model of hypocrisy', says Twitter lawyer Peter Walsh in July 22 lawsuit

"La estrategia de salida de Musk es un modelo de hipocresía", dice el abogado de Twitter Peter Walsh en la demanda del 22 de julio

"La stratégie de sortie de Musk est un modèle d'hypocrisie", déclare l'avocat de Twitter Peter Walsh dans le procès du 22 juillet

22 जुलाई के मुकदमे में ट्विटर वकील पीटर वॉल्श कहते हैं, 'मस्क की निकास रणनीति पाखंड का एक मॉडल है'

「マスク氏の出口戦略は偽善のモデルだ」とツイッター弁護士のピーター・ウォルシュ氏は7月22日の訴訟で述べた

'A estratégia de saída de Musk é um modelo de hipocrisia', diz o advogado do Twitter Peter Walsh no processo de 22 de julho

"Chiến lược rút lui của Musk là một mô hình đạo đức giả", luật sư Twitter Peter Walsh nói trong vụ kiện ngày 22 tháng 7

推特律师彼得沃尔什在 7 月 22 日的诉讼中表示，“马斯克的退出策略是虚伪的典范”

Since the dawn of blockchain, cryptocurrency companies have often been seen as shady businesses somehow associated with crime. When it first emerged, Bitcoin was widely considered to be a vehicle for laundering money and trafficking illegal substances and weapons. The notorious dark web black market, Silk Road, which was launched in 2011, was accused of facilitating the sale of $1 billion in illegal drugs, with Bitcoin as the preferred method of payment. A Michigan man was purchasing and shipping gun components to buyers overseas in exchange for Bitcoin. , a scam website claiming to be run by the Albanian Mafia, offers Hit-Man-For-Hire services to disgruntled spouses on a sliding scale: $5,000 worth of Bitcoin for a standard murder, $6,000 to make it look like a car accident, and $12,000 for a sniper hit. caught Besa Mafia Meanwhile, at the peak of the ICO bubble of 2017-2018, thousands of investors were defrauded by conmen trying to capitalize on the crypto craze. For example, (One), whose founder once held a glitzy event in Wembley Stadium, was revealed to be a $4-billion Ponzi scheme. One of CoinMarketCap’s best-performing coins, (BCC), turned out to be another pyramid scheme before it collapsed, leaving its token holders with nothing. Like an estimated 90 to 95 per cent of joke tokens, (ZZZ) didn’t even last a year after launching with a promise that there would be no drama, no hype, and no pump and dumps. OneCoin BitConnect BoringCoin Many years have passed since then, and cryptocurrencies have become more acceptable to government regulators, as they now understand that, although cryptocurrencies ostensibly provide anonymity, their use can still be traced. And law enforcement agencies have been using this ability to good effect. To cite a few cases: Silk Road was shut down in 2013, and its founder, Ross Ulbricht, ; an American named pleaded guilty to running a $150-million Ponzi scheme in the first Bitcoin securities fraud case; and a Frenchman named was arrested and charged with fraud and embezzlement of $390 million from the now-shuttered Bitcoin currency exchange Mt. Gox. was convicted and sentenced to life in prison Trendon Shavers Mark Karpelès Although most of the focus with regards to criminal activity in the crypto world remains on its use in illicit trafficking and money laundering, there is another issue that goes largely unnoticed: attacks on legitimate blockchain companies and their founders by nefarious opportunists and extortionists, who see the big and seemingly easy money in the crypto world as low-hanging fruit, ripe for the taking. The Crypto World: Land of Great Opportunity and Dangers The list of crimes targeting crypto participants is huge: people who were known to own a large number of tokens have been beaten, tortured, and even killed. In 2018, when cryptocurrency extortion crimes reached an epidemic level, Bitcoin developer a table listing all known cases of attacks on digital currency executives and traders involving physical violence. Today, it contains 105 cases in which digital currency holders have suffered or even died. jlopp began compiling Among the victims have been well-known bloggers who publicly disclosed their income. For example, 23-year-old , was beaten and robbed of $425,000 in crypto when his home was raided, and computer equipment stolen. The successful blogger and crypto trader was later found dead in his apartment. The investigation found he had likely committed suicide due to his debts, as much of the stolen money had been that of investors whom he could not pay back, but murder was not ruled out. Pavel Nyashin Owners of cryptocurrency exchanges and large projects become a priori targets for criminals since they have access to passwords from online and offline wallets, which store not only their own tokens, but the coins of their entire project, as well as those of site users. Surprisingly, in most cases, crimes committed against the owners of cryptocurrency businesses go unpunished. Today, cryptocurrencies have gained a degree of legitimacy in the public eye, and it is becoming more and more accepted as a method of payment. and have even declared Bitcoin to be official legal tender in their countries. However, despite its growing respectability, for fraudsters and conmen, the crypto world is still a kind of Wild West – a place full of opportunities where anything goes, and wily hombres can do as they please as long as they’re faster on the draw than the sheriff. The Central African Republic El Salvador How Outlaws Attack Legitimate Blockchain Companies One notable victim of such scammers has been a Singapore-based blockchain company called Skycoin, which develops hardware and software that will contribute to the emergence of the long-anticipated decentralized Web 3.0. It also helps companies to optimize and secure their networks and data storage on blockchain, and aids individuals in taking back control of their personal information. Skycoin is an absolutely unique project that can trace its history back to the very beginning of the crypto industry. It was originally launched to solve problems with Bitcoin’s and Ethereum’s algorithms that compromise their degree of decentralization by Brandon Smietana, a blockchain pioneer who even wrote some of the original code for the world’s first cryptocurrency along with Satoshi Nakamoto The company’s token, SKY, serves as currency in the project’s ecosystem. When it launched in 2012, it was worth less than a penny. However, with the crypto craze of 2017, its price shot up to a peak of $53.83 – 5,000 times higher than its original value – bringing the project’s capitalization to a mindboggling $5 billion. Unfortunately, this monumental success attracted a number of low-life grifters and outlaws posing as a marketing company, who would have felt right at home in Tombstone’s infamous Clanton gang. In January of 2018, Skycoin hired Smolder LLC to revamp its website, perform SEO, and generate positive publicity. According to the crypto project, this unfortunate decision led to a seemingly endless series of criminal attacks, including fraud, blackmail, defamation, and even kidnapping. In fact, the alleged attempts to sink the company and slander its founder created quite a scandal. An ‘ ’ of the company even appeared in New Yorker magazine. expose I decided to get to the bottom of the Skycoin story to find out what had really transpired. To do this, I combed the internet for any open sources I could find and tried to reach Smietana and the alleged attackers to get their respective sides of the story. While I managed to reach Smietana and spoke to him at length, the attackers failed to respond. Here’s what I’ve managed to learn. The Skycoin Story Shortly after being hired, the marketing team led by the Smolder’s co-founder, Bradford Stephens, announced that they had uncovered a scheme by an unknown third party to damage Skycoin’s reputation by linking pornographic blogs, which included kiddie porn, and other harmful spam content to its website. Stephen’s requested additional money to ward of the attacks, and Skycoin provided the funds. Stephen’s first task in promoting the company was to go to a CoinAgenda conference in Las Vegas to rub shoulders with some blockchain bigwigs. While there, he threw a promo party at his own initiative, which included expensive steak dinners, top-shelf alcohol, and high-priced prostitutes. On his return, he presented Skycoin with a staggering bill for expenses amounting to $225,000. Among the more outrageous claims were a $3,550 tip for a $3,550 restaurant dinner, “cash tips for hostesses,” and $10,000 for “cupcake girls.” An un-itemized invoice for $873 in cash also caught the eye of Skycoin’s accountant, as it looked like it may have been used to buy drugs. In short, nearly none of the ‘expenses’ could be substantiated or actually matched the submitted invoices. To add injury to insult, as it turned out, none of the key people from the conference had actually attended this ‘VIP party’. In fact, no one but Stephens and some of his friends had apparently been there. Naturally, Skycoin refused to reimburse these expenses, as Stephens hadn’t even informed the company that he intended to organize the event. “Of course, we refused. This is not a business expense. We didn’t approve this, and we won’t pay it. I don’t think there’s any professionally run company that would pay for something like this,” Smietana noted. A month after the conference, Smietana says Stephens and his business partner, Harrison Gevirtz, met him in Shanghai. The pair allegedly took Brandon to a hotel room, where they introduced him to a ‘power marketer’ in a video call. There, the three said they wanted to invest $50 million in cash in Skycoin, which they claimed would increase the company’s value by several hundred times. But there was a catch: first Skycoin needed to pay Smolder LLC $30 million in BTC to prove that the company was serious about working with their marketing team. Brandon says he declined this questionable offer, noting that it would be nuts to send $30 million to someone he’d never even met after a Zoom call. The meeting ended in acrimony, with the ‘influential person’ promising to do everything in his power to destroy the Skycoin project. When Skycoin’s advisory board found out about this bizarre meeting, half its members threatened to quit unless Stephens left the company, as they were afraid their names would be connected with Gevirtz, aka “Harro”, who is widely considered to be the king of the blackhat marketing criminal underworld. There were also suspicions that the mysterious person in the Zoom call was Ryan Eagle, another Smolder partner, who had been named in a related to illegal marketing practices in 2014 and 2016. US Government FTC action Consequently, Stephens resigned less than two months after being contracted, on February 24, 2018, under pressure from Skycoin’s advisory board. It later emerged that the people behind the spam attacks on Skycoin’s website were none other than the contractors themselves. At that point, they demanded that Skycoin pay them $100,000 per month to cease their attacks on Skycoin’s site, later increasing their demand to $300,000 per month. Smietana described the scheme the conmen employed as follows: “So, they were running this extortion racket. What happened was they basically started attacking Siacoin and Substratum. And they went to Substratum and said: ‘Hey! Skycoin’s attacking you! You want to get revenge?’ And they got $100,000 per month from Substratum and Siacoin to attack us, but we had nothing to do with it. Then they came to us and said: ‘Hey, pay us $300,000 per month for protection money and we’ll leave you alone.’” Fearing for his company’s financial future, Smietana says he eventually gave in to the extortionists’ demands and made the first of three protection payments. A contributing factor to this decision was allusions that Stephen’s associate, Gevirtz, made to Eastern European crime gangs and “unconventional debt collection” methods used by the Albanian mafia. Ultimately, however, Smietana decided that enough was enough and refused to make any further payments. At that point, knowing that Skycoin was to be added to Bittrex in late February, Stephens allegedly told Smietana he would go to the exchange and provide them with damaging information that would prevent the listing unless his team was paid $30,000,000 in Bitcoin and 1,000,000 USD. He warned Brandon that if their demands were rejected, SKY’s price would crash to zero. Smietana says he held firm, refusing to submit to the blackmail. Consequently, Stephens did, in fact, provide Bittrex with slanderous and false information which ultimately kept Skycoin from being listed on the exchange. But this wasn’t the end. According to Smietana, in June of 2020, this group hatched yet another scheme to extort more money from Skycoin. The conspirators threatened to get the company’s token delisted from Binance and trash its reputation if it refused to pay them 50 BTC. The company refused again. Smietana recalls: “What happened with Binance is we had these people come and say, ‘Give us 50 Bitcoin or we’re going to get you delisted,’ and I told them ‘To hell with you! We’re not paying you $2 million!’ And this is a group of people that has been attacking us for 4 years now.” Subsequently, the group allegedly paid other individuals to make false complaints against Skycoin, including allegations that Smietana had engaged in drug use and criminal activities. They even publicly discussed what kind of smears could get Skycoin delisted from Binance. The extortionists were ultimately successful, and Skycoin was delisted from Binance on November 5, 2021. Afterwards, public messages appeared written by one of the co-conspirators, congratulating all those involved. “Nice work team” and “PARTY TIME”, they read.  A photo was even posted depicting Skycoin as New York’s World Trade Center just before its demolition. But it didn’t stop at just blackmail. At one point, the criminals’ efforts took a more violent turn. According to Smietana, Stephens and Gevirtz goaded Skycoin’s Chinese marketing team into kidnapping and robbing him by telling its members that they weren’t being paid enough and that everyone who worked in blockchain made $30 million a year in coins. Consequently, Smietana and his girlfriend were forcibly held in their Shanghai flat by kidnappers who tortured and beat Skycoin’s co-founder for six hours to get him to give up the passwords to his computer, which contained source code and other valuable information. Smietana finally capitulated, and the attackers managed to steal about $139,000 in Bitcoin and $220,000 in Skycoin as a result. Though the assailants were eventually identified, arrested, convicted, and sentenced to prison, the orchestrators were never punished. And they have yet to relent in their persecution of Skycoin and its co-founder, who remains the object of attacks and slander on social media to this day. Smietana has even been subject to antisemitic abuse, being called “a Jew who deserves to die.” Skycoin’s Lawsuit On February 8, 2022, Skycoin Global Foundation Singapore filed a federal RICO lawsuit ( , US District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Chicago) against the former contractors, as well as a number of other parties, for actions that occurred between 2018 and 2022. The defendants include Bradford Stephens, Harrison Gevirtz f/k/a ‘HaRRo’, Ryan Eagle, Andrew Young, former Eagle Web Assets (EWA) associates Aaron Kunstman and Joel Wayne Cuthriell AKA ‘Caribou’, as well as Morgen Peck, Tristan Greene, Bryan Clark, Catherine Byerly, Steven Leonard, and Josh Ogle of Far Ahead Marketing. Skycoin v. Stephens, 22-cv-00708 Among the list are two journalists, who are being sued for receiving money to publish false and defamatory statements against the company as part of an extortion racket. These include Morgen Peck, a freelance journalist writing for that the lawsuit alleges received bribes from the defendants, including Bradford Stephens, who she knew had been flagged by the FTC for violations connected with one of his previous companies. The New Yorker Skycoin hopes that this legal action will serve as a kind of OK Corral, that will rid it of these outlaws once and for all and allow it to finally continue with its important work of building blockchain for the future without being harassed.

Wild West Crypto World: The Story of Skycoin’s Lawsuit Against Fraudsters

Wild West Crypto World: La historia de la demanda de Skycoin contra los estafadores

Wild West Crypto World: L'histoire du procès de Skycoin contre les fraudeurs

वाइल्ड वेस्ट क्रिप्टो वर्ल्ड: फ्रॉडस्टर्स के खिलाफ स्काईकॉइन के मुकदमे की कहानी

Wild West Crypto World: 詐欺師に対する Skycoin の訴訟の話

Wild West Crypto World: a história do processo judicial da Skycoin contra fraudadores

Thế giới tiền điện tử miền Tây hoang dã: Câu chuyện về vụ kiện của Skycoin chống lại những kẻ gian lận

狂野西部加密世界：Skycoin 对欺诈者提起诉讼的故事

Ripple has long been a consistent player in the world of cryptocurrencies. Having existed in the ecosystem since 2012, XRP has continually found itself within the top 10 digital coins based on its market capitalization. However, a chaotic beginning in 2021, punctuated by social media pump attempts and SEC lawsuits, created greater levels of volatility and price movements. Since November 2020, Ripple has been on a rollercoaster of dizzying highs and devastating lows, causing the coin’s value to leap dramatically before floundering. ** (Image: ) CoinGecko Aside from a stratospheric skyrocketing of XRP’s value in 2018, Ripple has consistently traded between $0.15 and $0.40 for much of the past two years of bear markets. However, after a winter of fighting SEC lawsuits and becoming a community favorite on Reddit message boards and social networks like TikTok, XRP may have lost its consistency for good. The First Social Pump It’s not uncommon for users of social networks to gather together in a bid to pump the value of a cryptocurrency or stock. In the world of crypto, Dogecoin has regularly experienced price fluctuations, and users rally to buy into the meme-based coin. (Image: ) Twitter When TikTok Investors shared a video on the social network to Twitter, claiming that “this is your moment to be Elon Musk...I introduce you to $XRP,” it seemed like another speculative attempt to influence the market enough to turn a profit. However, the impact of the TikTok Ripple pump was so significant that it managed to turn XRP from being the worst-performing asset throughout 2018, 2019, and early 2020 into the fastest appreciating coin on the market - leaping 123% in the space of a week. XRP even leapfrogged the likes of Bitcoin and Ethereum in trading volume, clocking in at $6.07 billion, while BTC and ETH could only muster $5.05bn and $3.89, respectively. The power of Ripple’s November pump was an extraordinary example of the power of social media, but unbeknownst to investors, an SEC lawsuit was about to send XRP tumbling back down to earth. Lawsuit Uncertainty In December 2020, as XRP was still riding the wave of mass investment from social media, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and two of its executives with a lawsuit, claiming that they have determined the cryptocurrency to be an unregistered security. served Ripple The action sent a shockwave throughout the cryptocurrency market, with investors fearing that their coins could suffer the same fate. One by one, like Coinbase Crypto.com and OK Coin, began delisting the popular asset. cryptocurrency exchanges In the space of three days between the 21st and 24th of December, XRP had shed half of its value and appeared to be disappearing from its position of prominence. In early February, Ripple formally responded to the SEC lawsuit, claiming that it’s "unsupported by both the facts and the law.” , who’s consulting Ripple from the law firm Debevoise & Plimpton, added: “The SEC is now stretching the concept of an 'investment contract' beyond its breaking point. We look forward to presenting our case in Court.” Andrew Ceresney Although Ripple’s battle with the SEC remains ongoing, the network appears to be confident of securing a victory that would likely restore investor confidence in XRP. However, XRP’s price has continued to experience heavy volatility throughout 2022 as wider market downturns hit the fortunes of many cryptocurrencies. Benefitting From the Meme-Stock Frenzy After another social pump in the world of stocks and shares caused headline stories across the world as a group of Reddit investors caused hedge funds to lose out on almost $13 billion through shorting GameStop shares, the world of crypto is beginning to coin pumps. experience more coordinated As members of the Reddit group, WallStreetBets made money at the cost of hedge funds, and investment apps like Robinhood sought to limit their access to the pumping stocks. The reaction to this restrictive move was largely one of disgust, and it led to more investors turning their back on the exchange to seek out that also supported cryptocurrency holdings to invest in. alternatives Amazingly, despite Ripple being subject to an SEC lawsuit, the coin rallied from $0.25 on the 28th of January to $0.49 on the 1st of February. Dogecoin was another winner from the post-GameStop crypto action. Despite both XRP and DOGE suffering corrections in the wake of the pump, both assets are still trading higher than their initial price, indicating that investors are still showing faith in their assets. Buoyed by the rapid rise of meme-based investing, XRP enjoyed an excellent 2021, with the coin’s price peaking at $1.84 and spending much of the year valued at over $1 - a feat that hadn’t been achieved since early 2018. Although Ripple has since suffered in the wake of market-wide drawbacks, both XRP and DOGE alike have shown their meme-coin credentials, and stand to be key beneficiaries should a future bear market draw similar levels of investor enthusiasm. While Ripple’s future may rest on the outcome of its day in court, social media networks appear to be infatuated with the ailing coin. The coming months may be even more erratic for XRP, but this is likely to be seen as a good thing for investors looking to turn their holdings into big short-term profits.

Inside the Turbulent World of Ripple: How Lawsuits and Social Media Pumps Turned XRP Chaotic

Dentro del turbulento mundo de Ripple: cómo las demandas y las bombas de las redes sociales convirtieron el XRP en un caos

À l'intérieur du monde turbulent de Ripple : comment les poursuites judiciaires et les pompes des médias sociaux ont rendu le XRP chaotique

लहर की अशांत दुनिया के अंदर: कैसे मुकदमे और सोशल मीडिया पंप ने एक्सआरपी को अराजक बना दिया

Ripple の激動の世界の内部: 訴訟とソーシャル メディアの勢いが XRP を混沌に変えた経緯

Dentro do mundo turbulento da Ripple: como processos judiciais e bombas de mídia social tornaram o XRP caótico

Bên trong thế giới đầy sóng gió của Ripple: Cách các vụ kiện và phương tiện truyền thông xã hội bơm tiền đã biến XRP trở nên kỳ lạ như thế nào

在动荡的瑞波世界内部：诉讼和社交媒体泵如何使 XRP 变得混乱

A plethora of people across the world trade XRP with no difficulty, this is not the case in the United States, where Ripple is fighting the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In December 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a lawsuit against Ripple, saying that the selling of XRP constituted an unregistered securities offering worth over . As a result, several exchanges, mainly in the United States, have delisted XRP. Many overseas exchanges have put trading constraints on American traders or have blacklisted American IP addresses entirely outside of the United States. $1.38 billion Ripple has submitted a new filing on the deliberative process privilege (DPP). Before decisions are taken, the DPP protects third-party information, such as recommendations and analyses. To go through with the DPP, the SEC must establish a link between the files and data it seeks to retain privately. Proponents and observers alike are optimistic as a result of Ripple's response. Analysts believe Ripple is on course to win the SEC lawsuit. The price of XRP is projected to rise as a result of . Gregg Kidd says, Ripple's win “I am looking for some form of a resolution from the Ripple case, and the SEC is more on trial than Ripple is.” XRP is Skyrocketing by Leaps and Bounds John Deaton, attorney for the approximately 65,000 XRP holders who were selected as Amicus Curiae in  SEC v. Ripple's lawsuit has brought his thoughts forward on what might happen next for the coin. The importance of certain decisions and a bull market in making XRP  the only cryptocurrency with regulatory certainty in the United States. Due to last-minute revisions in DPP surrounding laws, ripple and dry have recently been allowed to with new topics on the subject.  Judge Sarah Netburn is doing an in-camera assessment of the papers that the SEC believes are privileged information to determine if they may be given to Ripple as part of the fact discovery process. re-brief to the court John Deaton discusses the possible scope of Ripple in the event of a future XRP bull run, which might exceed the likes of Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, as well as the significance of a Ripple success. Deaton began by pointing out that Ripple owns more than 50 billion XRP; a $5 XRP is worth $250 billion, making Ripple far more valuable than MorganStanley or Goldman Sachs. Crucial Settlement of This Era John Deaton stated "GaryGensler and the SEC probably be facing a very critical precedent-setting loss with tremendous repercussions if Judge Torres dismisses the SEC's petition to strike the Fair Notice Defense and Judge Netburn overrules the SEC's assertion that the Bitcoin, Ethereum, and XRP papers are confidential." Such implications could lead the SEC to seek trial or summary judgment. If XRP reaches $5, Ripple may sell 10% of the monthly unlocked escrow and pay a settlement/fine of up to $500 million, giving Gensler a major public triumph and bragging rights. It would be one of the most significant settlements in the history of the SEC. XRP is relisted and clarity is gained if the agreement includes a statement that current sales of XRP are not securities. The money might be used by the SEC to set up a fund to support who have been affected. XRP holders What’s Coming Ahead? "Gensler deserves credit for having increased his political possibilities. The ripple goes public and is quickly becoming one of the world's most valuable FinTech assets, displaying SWIFT. XRP is back in a battle with  Ether for second place. XRP holders will finally be able to observe which technology succeeds." Both the SEC and Ripple gain in the above scenario, but "only Bitcoin and XRP would be protected," according to John Deaton, who is concerned that ethereum might be next in line for an SEC suit. "Does everyone win in the scenario above?" The SEC succeeds. Ripple succeeds. In my opinion, XRP holders who never sell are the winners. But what about other digital currencies? Ironically, only Bitcoin and XRP would be protected if the above scenario occurs. Can Etherium and ADA investors honestly claim to be unconcerned?” According to Fox Business writer Gasparino, the SEC's Gensler is awaiting the result of the Ripple case before pursuing Ether. In my opinion, Gensler won't say whether or not he thinks Ether is secure. It's because he wants to be able to drive them away. The lawsuit would offer Ripple and XRP an edge in the future. My Verdict Talking of my verdict, only Bitcoin and XRP would be secure following the above-mentioned settlement, according to Ripple executives, who indicated that they filed the action to safeguard their interests as well as those of the cryptocurrency industry. I believe that the lawsuit could ultimately provide XRP and ripple an opportunity to move forward. Needless to say, the crypto acquisition is becoming the new normal in this ever-evolving world, and like other digital cryptos, we can , fiat cash, Bitcoin, or other cryptocurrencies on a variety of online exchanges effortlessly. buy XRP with PayPal

Only XRP and Bitcoin will be Safe if Ripple Wins SEC lawsuit

In 2018, Nintendo filed a lawsuit against a California man accused of selling pirated Nintendo games, modding devices, and modding services. As part of a stipulated judgment, a California court has now handed down a permanent injunction restraining the man from circumventing Nintendo's technical measures or offering any unauthorized copies of Nintendo's copyright works. In January 2018, hacking group Team-Xecuter a Nintendo Switch hack that presented the opportunity for people to run pirated games on the console. announced This type of exploit is nothing new for hardware manufacturers like Nintendo but given its aggressive stance towards its intellectual property rights, the company wasn’t likely to sit back and watch the development and distribution that followed. Indeed, during December 2018, Nintendo took against a California resident alleged to have sold Nintendo Switch mod devices produced by Team-Xecuter, memory cards containing pirated copies of Nintendo titles, plus a modified version of the NES Classic accompanied by 800 pirated games. legal action The main defendant in the case, initially identified as ‘Mikel Euskaldunak’ by Nintendo, was later named as Sergio Mojarro Moreno. In September 2019 there were signs that the parties had agreed to settle the case and on December 30, 2019, that agreement was detailed by a California court. Stating that Nintendo is a world-famous video gaming brand whose status is underpinned by substantial investment in intellectual property, the consent judgment and injunction begins with the main defendant (Does 1-10 were dismissed) agreeing that Nintendo’s copyrights and trademarks are “valid and enforceable in all respects” while acknowledging that the company’s technical protection measures are “valid”. The judgment then goes on to restrain the defendant and anyone acting in concert with him from circumventing, offering services, and/or offering technologies, devices or components that circumvent Nintendo’s technical protection measures. Moreno is also restrained from selling, renting, offering or distributing unauthorized copies of Nintendo’s copyrighted works, infringing its trademarks, or using the Internet “or any digital network” to provide services to the public that enable copyright infringement of Nintendo’s works. The consent judgment requires the defendant to refrain from several types of additional conduct such as challenging the validity or enforceability of any Nintendo intellectual property right or technological protection method “in any forum in the future”, hacking, modifying or circumventing Nintendo’s technical measures, or reverse engineering any computer program or software developed by Nintendo or its affiliates. The defendant is further required to provide written certification to Nintendo that no circumvention software or devices, including but not limited to SX Pro or Trinket M0 chips, and/or illegal copies of games were in his or his agents’ possession at the date of the stipulated judgment and injunction or, if they were, have been destroyed. Entering judgment in favor of Nintendo on each and every claim for relief in its amended complaint, the court ordered the parties to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees while standing by to enforce the terms of the order in the event of any further dispute. Obtained by TorrentFreak, the stipulated judgment and permanent injunction can be viewed here ( pdf ) Originally published as “ Nintendo Wins Injunction Against Switch Mod & Pirate Game Seller " with the Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC 3.0) license

Nintendo Files Lawsuit and Wins Injunction Against Switch Mod & Pirate Game Seller

LawVu News on
HackerNoon and Around the Web

Winner for Best Startup in Tauranga, Oceania!

lawvu.com

-- employees

Since n.d.

LawVu Story Mentions

Articles Around the Web

Read More Tech Stories Related to #LawVu

LawVu News on HackerNoon and Around the Web