Está en la página 1de 42

Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 1 of 41

Reed R. Kathrein (State Bar No. 139304)
1 Peter E. Borkon (State Bar No. 212596)
2 Danielle Charles (State Bar No. 291237)
3 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
4 Tel: 510-725-3000
Fax: 510-725-3001

8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
[Additional counsel listed on signature page]

12 BRUCE MACDONALD, Individually and on Case No.
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
14 Plaintiff,
15 v.
Delaware corporation, TEZOS
17 STIFTUNG, a Swiss Foundation, (2) UNFAIR COMPETITION IN
Individual, ARTHUR BREITMAN, PROF. CODE §§ 17200, ET SEQ.
19 an Individual, TIMOTHY COOK DRAPER, an

23 Defendant.





1001464 V1

Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 2 of 41


2 Page
I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................2
II. NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING AND RELIEF SOUGHT ..............................................5
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ..............................................................................................6
IV. PARTIES .................................................................................................................................7
V. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS .......................................................................................11
A. Background on Distributed Ledger or Blockchain-Enabled Means For Capital Raising
8 (aka “ICOs”) ..............................................................................................................11
9 B. The Tezos ICO ..........................................................................................................13
10 C. The Tezos Tokens Are Securities ..............................................................................21
11 a. Investors in the Tezos ICO Invested Money .....................................22
12 b. Investors Had a Reasonable Expectation of Profits ..........................22
13 c. Investors Expect Those Profits to Be Derived from the Managerial
Efforts of Others ................................................................................28
D. Tezos Defendants Were Required to Qualify Offers and Sales of Securities Unless a
15 Valid Exemption Applies ..........................................................................................29
16 E. Infighting, Governance Problems, and Delays Emerge ............................................30
17 F. Defendants Are Selling, Converting and Dissipating the Consideration Collected
From the Class ...........................................................................................................31
VI. CLASS ALLEGATIONS ......................................................................................................33
20 (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) .......................................................................................35
17200, ET SEQ. (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) ...........................................................36
PRAYER FOR RELIEF ....................................................................................................................37
JURY TRIAL DEMAND ..................................................................................................................38



Case No.:

1001464 V1

Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 3 of 41

1 Plaintiff Bruce MacDonald, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

2 ("Plaintiff"), by Plaintiff’s undersigned counsel, for Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendants, alleges

3 the following based upon personal knowledge as to himself and his own acts, and based upon

4 information and belief as to all other matters, based on the investigations conducted by and through

5 Plaintiff’s attorneys, which included among other things, a review of public statements issued by

6 Defendants, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filings and reports, media reports,

7 interviews, social media information, as well as other commentary, analysis, and information

8 concerning Defendants Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc. (DLS), Tezos Stiftung (aka the “Tezos

9 Foundation”), Kathleen Breitman, Arthur Breitman, Timothy Cook Draper, Draper Associates,

10 Johann Gevers, Diego Ponz, Guido Schmitz-Krummacher, Bitcoin Suisse AG, and Niklas

11 Nikolajsen, the blockhain and digital currency/cryptocurrency landscape, and the securities laws.

13 “[Initial Coin Offerings] represent the most pervasive, open, and notorious
violation of the federal securities laws since the Code of Hammurabi.”

15 - Former SEC Commissioner Joseph Grundfest

1. This is a class action brought on behalf of all persons who purchased Tezos tokens
(aka “XTZ”, “Tezzies” or “tez”) by contributing fiat currency (e.g., U.S. Dollars) or other
consideration (including the blockchain-based digital currencies bitcoin (BTC) and/or Ethereum
(“ETC” or “ether”)) to the Tezos “Initial Coin Offering” (“ICO”) in July 2017.
2. Tezos tokens are securities within the meaning of the California Corporations Code §
25019. As such, any offering or sale of such securities are required to be qualified under Cal. Corp
Code §§ 25111, 25112 or 25113. But in violation of California Corporations Code § 25110 and
California’s Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.), Defendants engaged
in an illegal sale of unqualified securities by offering and selling Tezos tokens without qualifying the
securities pursuant to the California Corporations Code.

Case No.:

1001464 V1

Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 4 of 41

1 3. In sum, Defendants capitalized on the recent enthusiasm for blockchain technology

2 and cryptocurrencies to raise funds through the ICO, illegally sold unqualified and unregistered

3 securities, used a Swiss-based entity in an unsuccessful attempt to evade U.S. securities laws, and are

4 now admittedly engaged in the conversion, selling, and possible dissipation of the proceeds that they

5 collected from the Class through their unregistered offering.1

6 4. Purportedly to raise money for the implementation of the Tezos Blockchain —

7 described by Defendants as a “self-amending crypto-ledger”2 — Defendants held an ICO, which is

8 similar in economic substance to a traditional Initial Public Offering (“IPO”). Through the ICO,

9 Defendants issued Tezos tokens to investors, in exchange for digital cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin

10 and/or Ethereum. Investors participated in the ICO with the reasonable expectation that the Tezos

11 tokens would appreciate in value as a result of the efforts of Defendants, including Arthur and

12 Kathleen Breitman—enabling investors to exchange their Tezzies for other tokens, digital currencies,

13 and/or government-issued fiat currency (such as U.S. dollars).

14 5. The Tezos ICO has been widely reported as the largest ICO to date,3 with 65,627

15 Bitcoin and 361,122 Ethereum collected. At the time of the Tezos ICO, the digital currencies paid by

16 investors were valued at an estimated $232 million U.S. dollars. Today, the digital currencies

17 invested in the Tezos ICO are worth an estimated $1.2 billion U.S. Dollars as of December 11,

18 2017).
19 6. Defendants have profited, or stand to profit, significantly from the ICO. The

20 shareholders of Defendant Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc. (DLS) include Defendants Kathleen

21 Breitman, Arthur Breitman, Timothy Cook Draper, and Draper Associates. According to a

22 “Transparency Memo” published on the Tezos website, once the Tezos blockchain is launched and

Diversifying the portfolio of the Tezos Foundation <
24 portfolio-of-the-tezos-foundation.html> [as of Dec. 1, 2017].
Goodman, L.M., Tezos — a self-amending crypto-ledger. (Sept. 2, 2014)
<> [as of Dec. 1, 2017].
26 3
Higgins, Stan, $232 Million: Tezos Blockchain Project Finishes Record-Setting Token Sale
27 (July 13, 2017) coindesk <
token-sale/> [as of Dec. 1, 2017].
Case No.:

1001464 V1

ch/diversifying-the- 20 portfolio-of-the-tezos-foundation.e. as of August 2017. 2017]. 5 Diversifying the portfolio of the Tezos Foundation <https://www. Augsicht (Supervision). The Tezos tokens were not. Defendants. <https://www. 1. upstart/> [as of Dec. 7 23 Diversifying the portfolio of the Tezos Foundation <https://www.> [as of Dec. Defendants have even called the Tezos tokens the equivalent of “tote bags” received in 14 exchange for donating to a charity. and precious metals” in order to 9 “diversify” its assets.7 10 8. in all 15 material respects. a Swiss company seeking non-profit status. 22 However. 12 as well as the characterization of the sale of the Tezos interests as charitable contributions or 13 donations. Defendant Tezos Foundation. and describes itself as simply “an 6 organization dedicated to promoting the Tezos protocol. a new blockchain upstart. 6 21 Under Schweizerisches Zivilgesetzbuch (Swiss Civil Code). a supervisory authority shall ensure that a foundation’s assets are used for its designated portfolio-of-the-tezos-foundation.: 1001464 V1 . the supposed “contributions” or “donations” are.6 and has admitted to gradually converting ICO 8 proceeds into more traditional assets such as “cash.html> [as of Dec.tezos. currently 5 holds the digital currencies paid by Plaintiff and other investors. (Jul 12. keenly aware of the registration requirements of the federal and state 11 securities laws. 2017) 27 TechCrunch <https://techcrunch.tezos.9 In reality. Behind the scenes with Tezos. no supervision authority was designated for the Foundation. 2017] 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . 9 George. Alice Lloyd. 2017]. 17 18 4 19 Transparency Memo.”5 The Foundation has no apparent legal 7 oversight or compulsion to do anything at all.5% of the contributions made during the fundraiser” and “a 10% allocation of the tokens” issued 3 over a period of 48 months. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 5 of 41 1 operational. and Draper Associates] will receive 2 8. the Breitmans. identical to the attributes of the sale and purchase of an ownership interest in the 16 purported Tezos tokens. 1. Art. and are still not subject to an 26 exemption from qualification.8 have attempted to skirt these laws through use of the Swiss-based Tezos Foundation. 1.. 2017].html> [as of Dec.4 4 7.4 Case No. 24 8 Sales of unqualified securities by both issuers and nonissuers are prohibited by the Corporate Securities Law of 1968 [California Corporations Code §§ 25110 and 25130] unless they are subject 25 to an exemption from qualification. which are securities within the meaning of the securities laws. 84 C. bonds. stocks. “DLS’ shareholders [i.tezos.

Plaintiffs also seek a final judgment: (a) certifying the proposed Class. The ICO was a generalized solicitation made using statements posted on the Internet and 4 distributed throughout the world. a temporary restraining order and a 21 preliminary injunction against Defendants: (a) freezing Defendants’ assets collected as. or using such funds in any further 24 purchases or transactions. 875 12 (2011). dissipations 23 or conversions of the investments raised during the Tezos ICO. proceeds of the ICO. unless the Defendants are permanently restrained and enjoined from 14 dissipating the proceeds of the ICO. 13 11. Corp 10 Code § 25504 and 25504. 25 13. NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING AND RELIEF SOUGHT 18 12. and seek. the conversion.5 Case No. or the 8 equivalent in monetary damages plus interest at the legal rate from the date of purchase.). 6 10. including. & 20 Prof. and the securities were offered and 5 sold to Plaintiff and the general public.4th 860.App. Corp Code § 25503.” Moss v. Corp Code §§ 25110 and 25503) and California’s Unfair Competition Law (Cal. practices. including in the United States. Code § 17200 et seq. and as to which no exemption from qualification was sought or 3 available. 17 II. Kroner 197 Cal. including 26 appointment of Plaintiffs’ counsel as Class Counsel and Plaintiff as class representative. or derived 22 from. Moreover. In short. as immediate relief. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to the California Corporate Securities Law of 19 1968 (Cal. and courses of 15 business set forth in this Complaint. To the 9 extent that there are others who participated in the violation(s) in the specific roles listed in Cal. under Cal. but not limited to. and 16 dissipation of ICO proceeds collected from the Class. Therefore. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 6 of 41 1 9. (b) 27 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . they will continue to engage in the acts. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to 7 recover the consideration paid for the Tezos tokens with interest thereon at the legal rate. Bus. those persons are additionally liable “without any further need for privity 11 between these secondarily liable actors and the plaintiff.: 1001464 V1 .1. selling. the ICO for the Tezos tokens was an illegal offer and sale of securities for 2 which no qualification was in effect. and (b) enjoining Defendants from making further transfers.

expert fees. § 12 1332 as this is a class action where the controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5.S. present.000. Mountain View.6 Case No. Defendant Dynamic Ledger Solutions. 10 III. 25 17. or the equivalent in monetary damages plus interest at the legal rate 4 from the date of purchase pursuant to Cal. San Mateo. 2 (c) awarding Plaintiff and the members of the Class the consideration paid for the Tezos tokens.: 1001464 V1 . 3rd Avenue. § 1391 in that a substantial part of the events or 17 omissions giving rise to the claims set forth herein occurred in this judicial district. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.C. Defendant Arthur Breitman and Defendant Kathleen Breitman (together. California in Santa Clara County at the Breitmans’ 22 home. at least 13 one of the members of the class is a citizen of a State different from a Defendant. Defendant Timothy Draper and/or Draper Associates’ operations are based in this District at 23 55 E. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 7 of 41 1 imposing a constructive trust over the funds and assets rightfully belonging to Plaintiff and the Class. the 19 “Breitmans”) lived at their home at 111 North Rengstorff Ave #78. including interest thereon. California 20 94043. CA 94401 and many of the acts and transactions giving rise to the 24 violations of law complained of herein occurred in this District.C. 16 15. with 3 interest thereon at the legal rate. 18 16. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because at least one Defendant 26 is operating. witness fees and electronic 8 discovery fees as permitted by law.000. and Defendants solicited and/or 27 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . Code § 25503 against all Defendants. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11 14. including counsel fees. jointly and 5 severally. and (e) granting such other and further relief as this Court may 9 deem just and proper. in an amount to be 6 proven at trial. Inc. in Santa Clara County during the relevant period. Corp. and at least one of 14 the members of the class is a citizen of a State and one or more Defendants are citizens or subjects of 15 a foreign state. and/ or doing business within this District. for all damages sustained as a result of Defendants’ wrongdoing.S. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U. 21 (“DLS”) is operated out of Mountain View. (d) awarding Plaintiff and the Class their reasonable costs 7 and expenses incurred in this action.

including but not limited to mail. logos. interstate travel. 10 Defendants. PARTIES 15 20. Defendants have therefore 3 purposefully availed themselves of the benefits of operating both in the United States and in this 4 jurisdiction. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 8 of 41 1 contracted with investors in this website. to participate in the Tezos 2 ICO. 94043). Mountain View. 5 18. and Draper Associates. (“DLS”) is a Delaware corporation with 19 its principal place of business in Mountain View. directly or indirectly. states that DLS “owns all of the Tezos- 23 related intellectual property (IP). Draper. conduct and other wrongs alleged in this Complaint.462. and offered and sold Tezos tokens to residents of this District. 13 offering and selling Tezos tokens through the ICO complained of herein. electronic mail. used the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce to 11 offer and/or sell Tezos tokens through the ICO. or has otherwise 6 purposefully availed themselves of benefits from this District. 14 IV. 18 21.26 Tezos tokens. and goodwill arising 25 26 27 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . or has property in this District. including the source code of the Tezos cryptographic ledger. 12 interstate phone communications. Plaintiff Bruce MacDonald is a California resident and a citizen of the United States. In connection with the acts. 22 The Tezos. including Plaintiff and the Class. which is based in the United States. 24 and trademark applications associated with the name Tezos. California. and/or internet service providers.: 1001464 V1 .145 Ethereum in the Tezos ICO from a computer within the 17 United States to purchase 12. Each Defendant has sufficient contacts within this District. Kathleen Breitman. at the home of Defendants Arthur and 20 Kathleen Breitman (at 111 North Rengstorff Ave #78. in promoting. so as to 7 render the exercise of jurisdiction over each by this court consistent with traditional notions of fair 8 play and substantial justice. DLS is owned 21 and controlled by Defendants Arthur Breitman. domain names. 9 19. Inc.7 Case No. CA. 16 Plaintiff invested approximately 18. Defendant Dynamic Ledger Solutions.

”11 The Foundation and DLS have negotiated a contractual agreement in which the 10 Foundation will acquire DLS. along with its IP. Switzerland. according to Foundation President Johann Gevers. and Guido Schmitz-Krummacher as its directors.k. 11 23 Irrera. 2017). Defendant Tezos Stiftung (a. the Foundation has shared funds with DLS.”10 3 22. Defendant Arthur Breitman is the developer behind the Tezos cryptographic ledger. 2017]. attorneys. 1.tezos. Anna. “they [DLS] control the Foundation's 8 domains. but has not yet been 5 granted such under Swiss law. Steve Stecklow. California 94043 during the relevant 16 period. the “Tezos Foundation” or the “Foundation”) is a 4 Swiss foundation based in> [as of Dec. Arthur Breitman lived with his wife. 13 26 Id. 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . 1. 17 24. Defendant Kathleen Breitman. and the Tezos marketing group.: 1001464 V1 . 2017) Business Insider 24 <http://www. so the Foundation has no control or confidentiality in its own 9 communications. Breitman 18 has stated that she handles the operational aspects of the Tezos Blockchain and manages 19 relationships with business partners. 14 On information and belief. 14 27 Fintech Podcast. <https://www. 7 In> [as of Dec. Episode 138: Interview with Kathleen Breitman. Startup Tezos raised $232 million issuing a new digital currency — now key players are fighting (Oct. websites and email servers. 2017]. 25 12 Transparency Memo. that is seeking not-for-profit status. 19.13 13 23. Defendant Kathleen Breitman is the Chief Executive Officer of DLS. CEO of Tezos. at 15 their home at 111 North Rengstorff Ave #78. Since the ICO. 2017]. Defendant Tezos Foundation was created to store the consideration 6 raised from investors in the Tezos ICO.14 20 21 10 22 Transparency Memo. and Brenna Hughes as well as its trademark applications and domain names.12 The Foundation has 12 named Defendants Johann Gevers.tezos.8 Case No. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 9 of 41 1 from a set of a relationships with several contractors and potential customers in the financial 2 technology market. (June 16. Diego Ponz. <https://www. existing business relationships with contractors and 11 potential customers. Mrs. Mountain cryptocurrency-venture-2017-10?r=UK&IR=T> [as of Dec.

6 26. Brenna Hughes. 16 Neghaiwi. 2017) SWI <https://www. 12. Schmitz-Krummacher is currently resident in Zug. Gevers can cast an overriding vote. Switzerland. 2017]. for-tezos-contributors-cryptocurrency-broker-says-idUSKBN1DF2JQ> [as of Dec. Defendant Guido Schmitz-Krummacher is (or was) a director of the Foundation. Bitcoin Suisse AG was involved in the promotion and/or offer 19 and sale of tokens in the Tezos ICO and is a controlling signatory to the funds collected as part of 20 Tezos ICO. 2017) Reuters https://www. Upon information and belief. 2017] (stating: “Bitcoin Suisse has broken its silence to reveal 27 that it has the responsibility of counter-signing every transaction that the foundation makes.16 21 15 22 Stecklow. sowing more uncertainty at crypto startup. (Nov. Switzerland and is a citizen of unknown nationality. Matthew. Reuters reported that Schmitz-Krummacher 14 resigned from his position as a director and that “[u]nder the foundation’s bylaws. 25 See also.”) 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . 2017. 2017]. Defendant Timothy Cook Draper is a venture capitalist who owns. On December 12. Defendant Johann Gevers is the President of the Foundation. If the third board member votes against the 16 candidate. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 10 of 41 1 25. (Dec. 11. In other 23 more-uncertainty-at-crypto-startup-idUSKBN1E62KN [as of Dec. 12. et al.. 15.reuters. Upon information and 7 belief. 12 Upon information and investors/43674622> [as of Dec. 26 14. and 5 continues to hold an interest.: 1001464 V1 . Allen.’ Tezos broker tells investors (Nov. 11 28. Defendant Bitcoin Suisse AG is a crypto financial broker. Switzerland and is a citizen of South Africa and/or 8 Switzerland. No refund for Tezos contributors. had an ownership interest in Defendant DLS during the Tezos ICO. the foundation cannot spend a cent unless Bitcoin Suisse agrees.”15 17 29. and/or 2 controls Draper Associates. operates. cryptocurrency broker 24 says. 9 27. or through his firm Defendant Draper 4 Associates. Steve.9 Case No. 2017) Reuters <https://www. Gevers gets to 15 nominate Schmitz-Krummacher’s replacement. Defendant Draper either personally. Switzerland and is a 13 citizen of unknown nationality. Gevers is currently resident in Zug. NO REFUND: ‘Your money is safe. a venture capital firm operating out of Menlo Park. asset manager and service 18 provider based in Zug.swissinfo. California within San 3 Mateo County. Defendant Diego Ponz is a director of the Foundation. or both. Tezos director resigns.reuters. 10 Ponz is currently resident in Zug.

At all times mentioned herein. Arthur Breitman. other Defendants in the violations alleged in this Complaint and 18 performed acts or made statements in furtherance thereof. 1. including DOES 5 1 through 100 were the co-conspirators.10 Case No.html> [as of Dec. or alter egos of. an unknown combination of Defendants Tezos Stiftung. and/or joint 6 venturers of the other defendants. Kathleen Breitman. were 16 individuals.: 1001464 V1 . employers. each of the defendants named herein. 15 33. 9 website that “requires access to a secure location for spending and several security 14 checks”17 or otherwise controls the assets through other means. permission. service. corporations. agents. or other business entities. representatives. 10 DLS. DOES 1-100 were co- 17 conspirators with. Ponz is currently resident in Zug. Diego portfolio-of-the-tezos-foundation. and authority of said agency. alter egos. Johann Gevers. Timothy Cook Draper and/or Draper Associates. and Niklas 12 Nikolajsen controls the Foundation’s assets through either a “multisignature procedure” described on 13 the Tezos. 2017]. companies. 4 31.tezos. Guido Schmitz- 11 Krummacher. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 11 of 41 1 30. 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . scope. 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 27 Diversifying the portfolio of the Tezos Foundation <https://www. and. Defendant Niklas Nikolajsen is Bitcoin Suisse’s Chief Executive Officer. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that DOES 1-100. Plaintiffs are presently unaware of the true 19 names and identities of DOES 1-100. were acting within 7 the course. Switzerland and is a citizen of unknown 3 nationality. On information and belief. inclusive. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege the true names of 20 the DOE defendants when they are able to ascertain them. partnerships. Upon 2 information and belief. Bitcoin Suisse AG. in doing the acts and things herein alleged. or employment with knowledge. 8 and consent of the other defendants and each of them.

including in California and 24 25 18 See S.: 1001464 V1 .62% in one year. such as U. 2017) U. an ICO is a fundraising event in which an entity offers participants a 7 unique “coin” or “token” in exchange for consideration (often in the form of virtual currency—most 8 commonly Bitcoin and Ethereum—or fiat currency. 2017. Securities and Exchange 27 Commission <https://www. 1:17-cv-05725-RJD-RER).S.11 Case No. 26 19 Investor Bulletin: Initial Coin Offerings (July 25.701 USD. Background on Distributed Ledger or Blockchain-Enabled Means For Capital 2 Raising (aka “ICOs”) 3 34. “tokens” or “coins” are issued on a “blockchain. v. LLC.N. as 4 well as in an Investor Bulletin. Ether has appreciated 6. in most cases—including this one— “tokens” or “coins” 19 sold in an ICO will be securities and may not be lawfully sold without registration with the SEC or 20 pursuant to an exemption from registration. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS 1 A.360.” which is an electronic 22 distributed ledger or list of entries – much like a stock ledger – that is maintained by various 23 participants in a network of computers located around the world. a/k/a Diamond Reserve Club.19 21> [as of Dec. 6 35. REcoin Group Foundation.S.18 9 36. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 12 of 41 V. Dollars). and token 5 distribution process. One unit of Ethereum (“ether”) traded at 13 $455. virtual “tokens” or “coins” sold 16 in an ICO may represent other rights. 2017. 3. is a digital representation of 10 value that can be digitally traded and functions as a medium of exchange. Rather than serving as a currency or unit of exchange. 2017]. In a recent complaint and injunction against the founders of the “REcoin” ICO.Y Sept. These virtual currencies have seen tremendous appreciation: Bitcoin has appreciated 14 1446% in one year. No. As of December 5. unit of account. In almost every ICO—including the Tezos ICO—investors 17 purchase the tokens with a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the entrepreneurial or 18 managerial efforts of others. the SEC aptly summarized the blockchain. After an ICO. 15 37. DRC World Inc. Fractional Bitcoins can also be purchased.81 USD. Essentially. and Maksim Zaslavskiy (E.D. ICOs.C. a Bitcoin could be purchased on an exchange for approximately 12 $11. 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . 29.E.sec.” such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. A “virtual currency. Accordingly. or store of 11 value.

com/faq> [as of Dec. A blockchain can be shared and accessed by anyone with appropriate permissions. tokens may also be traded. REcoin.”21 13 41.. In an FAQ. 2017].22 18 42.C.: 1001464 V1 . the people operating the issuer whose efforts will impact the value of those 23 tokens on the secondary market). Tezos stated that “Bitcoin. Tezos tokens (also called tez. such as rights to profits. allowing a greater range of application to 10 be developed.20 5 40. 27 22 S. Ethereum 9 followed suit by including smart-contracts in its platform. respectively. A “token” sold in an ICO may entitle its holders to certain rights related to a venture 19 underlying the ICO. linking the blocks 16 together in a chain. v. 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . 2. Each block contains a batch of records 15 of transactions. providing comfort to users of the blockchain that entries are secure. and/or voting rights. Blockchains use cryptography to process and verify transactions on the 2 ledger. In almost all cases. tezzies. rights to use certain services provided 20 by the issuer. 7 Ethereum and Tezos are all decentralized ledgers powered by a blockchain. Tokens are frequently listed on online platforms. digitally-recorded data packages called blocks. The Bitcoin and Ethereum virtual currencies also use blockchains to create and track 4 transactions in bitcoin and ether. 3 39.E. The system relies on cryptographic techniques for secure recording of 17 transactions. including a timestamp and a reference to the previous block. thereby giving 21 investors a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial 22 efforts of others (i. supra at n. Tezos takes this concept one step further by letting participants directly control the 11 rules of the network. It is designed to evolve. shares of assets.tezos. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 13 of 41 1 throughout the United States. All transactions on a blockchain are recorded in the network in theoretically 14 unchangeable. often called 24 25 20 26 Id. or XTZ) were positioned by Tezos and its 6 promoters as being an improvement on Bitcoin or Ethereum.e.12 Case No. 21 FAQ <https://www. so that the next generation of ideas doesn’t have to start 12 over as a new blockchain. Bitcoin was the first 8 public blockchain and introduced the first truly decentralized form of electronic cash. 11.

. 2.27 DLS has been 18 principally operated out of the home of Defendants Arthur and Kathleen Breitman (at 111 North 19 20 21 23 Id. 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . 27 27 Id. and the budget called for paying 15 Breitman $212. 6 online wallet. Special Report: Backroom battle imperils $230 million cryptocurrency venture. Tezos: A Self-Amending Crypto-Ledger Position Paper (August 3. Issuers 4 usually release a “whitepaper” describing the project and the terms of the ICO. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 14 of 41 1 virtual currency exchanges. In August 2015. Goodman. 11. 7.M. After the completion of the 2017]. at p. 24 Goodman.. The Tezos ICO 9 <https://www.g. 2014) Tezos. 25 Goodman. 2017]. under the pseudonym 10 “L. 2014) 23 Tezos.M. 24 22 Id.M. The plan projected that if the company survived 14 15 years.13 Case No. where they are tradable for virtual (e. Tezos — a self-amending crypto-ledger White Paper (Sept. Dollars). it would be worth between $2 billion and $20 billion. (Oct.tezos. at p.: 1001464 V1 . or other account.g.pdf> [as of Dec.S.. 1.. Breitman created and registered Dynamic Ledger Solutions Inc. In August and September 2014. in 13 which he listed himself as chief executive of Tezos.” released a Position Paper and White Paper. the “tokens” sold in an ICO are immediately tradable. 25 26 Irrera. touting Tezos as a “self-amending 11 crypto-ledger.180 in salary by year three. Defendant Arthur Breitman also authored a “Tezos Business Plan” in early 2015. To participate. ICOs are typically announced and promoted through public online channels.26 16 46. He listed himself as chief executive. 2. Defendant Arthur Breitman. <https://www. Often. et 26 specialreport/special-report-backroom-battle-imperils-230-million-cryptocurrency-venture- idUSKBN1CN35K> [as of Dec. 2017].reuters. the issuer will distribute its unique 7 “tokens” to the participants’ unique address on the blockchain. L.23 3 43. L.tezos.pdf> [as of Dec.24 8 B. 7-8. 17 (DLS) in Delaware to develop Tezos. 5 investors are generally required to transfer funds (often virtual currency) to the issuer’s address. Bitcoin or Ethereum) or fiat 2 currencies (e. U. 2017) Reuters <https://www.” 25 12 45. 18.

Special Report: Backroom battle imperils $230 million cryptocurrency venture. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 15 of 41 1 Rengstorff Ave #78. this was the place. the Foundation was formed as a Swiss nonprofit 11 (Stiftungen) in Zug.. Draper Associates also took a 9 minority stake in DLS. and 17 he made it the center of no-questions-asked trading.14 Case No. 29 26 Irrera. Draper Associates. In a pre-sale. CA. and Defendant 7 Kathleen Breitman reached out to Defendant Tim Draper. Tax records are confidential. and to be the recipient of ICO funds. even for Switzerland. who invested $ 27 specialreport/special-report-backroom-battle-imperils-230-million-cryptocurrency-venture- idUSKBN1CN35K> [as of Dec.48% discount). … At Zug's documentation center. 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT .29 10 49. (Oct.77 in 5 contributions (corresponding to a 31.: 1001464 V1 . including hedge funds and high net-worth individuals. archivists track Zug-registered companies by 23 24 28 Tezos Overview. and continues to be owned and controlled by 2 Defendants Arthur Breitman. 2017]. ten early backers.28 6 48. Switzerland. 2017.200.reuters.5 million into Tezos 8 through his firm. 4 provided the Breitmans with $612. 3 47. As Time magazine wrote in a 2010 story: “Rich 16 the outlaw removed himself to Zug to take advantage of the anonymity and light taxes it offered. the company that controls the Tezos source 2017].000 in exchange for XTZ tokens equivalent to $893.tezos. and Draper Associates. 2017) Reuters <https://www. the Tezos project started running out of cash. Anna. … Should taxes increase in Zug. purportedly to promote the development and use of the Tezos 12 blockchain. 18. Kathleen Breitman. 22 funded by local groups critical of Zug's tax system. Tezos. the town has another draw: secrecy. … In 2007 the 19 European Commission in Brussels accused Swiss cantons like Zug of giving illegal state aid through 20 giant corporate tax breaks. be they with 18 oil-rich-if-bloodstained despots or run-of-the-mill democracies. On or about April 24. Mountain View. et al. Marc Rich—the billionaire commodities trader who fled the United States in 1983 (and 14 was later featured on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted List) after being indicted on tax evasion and 15 racketeering charges—famously took refuge in Zug. Zug is a notorious haven for white collar 13 miscreants. 94043). Zug 21 is <https://www.pdf> [as 25 of Dec. 2. 3. Draper. Around May 2017. As a result of the investment. For anyone wanting to do deals.

33 The façade of the Tezos Foundation being a completely separate and 20 30 Walt. Stecklow. In a public statement. A contract between DLS and the foundation was signed in June 2017. Anna. Defendant 6 Kathleen Breitman stated that they chose Switzerland because Switzerland has “a regulatory 7 authority that had a sufficient amount of oversight but not like anything too crazy. Defendants admitted that they chose to use a foundation in Zug.reuters. 3.00. a flexible and less strict regulatory environment was a 12 deciding factor in where and how Defendants chose to operate the Tezos ICO..2040142.g. When questioned later about the regulatory framework for the implementation of the 9 ICO and/or Tezos blockchain. This approval has never taken 18 place. 4 Switzerland (the Tezos Foundation) to conduct the ICO and collect investor funds because they 5 perceived Switzerland’s regulatory oversight to be weaker than that of the United 23 specialreport/special-report-backroom-battle-imperils-230-million-cryptocurrency-venture- idUSKBN1CN35K> [as of Dec. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 16 of 41 1 scouring newspapers because many public records are closed. The agreement. Defendant Kathleen Breitman mentioned the countries of Gibraltar.reuters.9171.: 1001464 V1 . 15 which is not public. That privacy can make it difficult to 2 figure out a company's real activities or even who owns it. 2010) Time 21 <http://content. Flux Podcast 14: Kathleen Breitman — Tezos Unleashed (July 12.. 33 26 See e. 1.rre. 2017) Reuters <https://www. (Oct. 2017) < Special Report: Backroom battle imperils $230 million cryptocurrency venture. and documents provided to participants in the fundraiser did not mention the required approval 19 by the Swiss authority. 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . 10 Estonia and Singapore as additional examples of “accommodating usually small nations that are 11 willing to work with you”. 2017]. 18. et al. 11. 11..html> [as of Dec. et al. Exclusive: Tezos founders push for legal bailout from Swiss foundation (Dec.32 In other words. Zug's Secrets: Switzerland's Corporate Hideaway (Jan. 2017]. 2017]. 11.15 Case No. It also 17 indicates the approval was required before the fundraiser took place. 2017]. governs the sale of DLS and its intellectual property to the Foundation and states 16 that the Swiss federal supervisory authority for foundations must approve the agreement. 3. 24 32 Transcript. 2017) RRE Ventures Perspectives Blog <https://blog.time. 31 22 Irrera. Steve. and where they will 13 choose to operate it in the 27 exclusive/exclusive-tezos-founders-push-for-legal-bailout-from-swiss-foundation- idUSKBN1DV4K0> [as of Dec. 25 d0921294ec91> [as of Dec.”31 8 51.”30 3 50. 14 52.

16 Case No.: 1001464 V1 . As the SEC has explained.”38 20 34 Id.e. 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . He became. may also be liable for potential violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal 18 securities laws. stating that “The best thing I can do is lead by example.”37 16 55. “Over time. Coin Offerings Are New Road to Startup Riches (July 7. 2017) Reuters <http://www. and his public pledge to buy into the initial coin offering. 2017]. Gertrude. 2017 story in the Wall 12 Street Journal noted that Tezos was “helped by having one prominent backer: Tim Draper. Draper promoted the ICO. 6 according to statement/statement-potentially-unlawful-promotion-icos> [as of Dec. 36 24 Id. 37 Vigna. blockchain-draper/exclusive-billionaire-investor-draper-to-participate-in-blockchain-token-sale-for- 23 first-time-idUSKBN181250> [as of Dec.” 9 implying that he was standing in the same position as any other ICO participant. 26 38 SEC Public Statement. I 10 actually feel that some of these tokens are going to improve the world. Draper’s small undisclosed 14 personal investment in the firm. 2017]. the ICO proceeds) to fund legal costs in connection with the illegal 3 offering. On May 5. “[Individuals] who promote[] a virtual token or coin that is 17 a security . and for acting as 19 unregistered brokers. Forget an IPO.34 4 53. 11. Statement on Potentially Unlawful Promotion of Initial Coin Offerings 27 and Other Investments by Celebrities and Others (Nov.. Defendant 5 Timothy Draper promoted the Tezos ICO by announcing his investment in Tezos. 1. Mr. 2017. and I want to make sure those 11 tokens get promoted as startup-riches-1499425200?mg=prod/accounts-wsj> [as of Dec. 2017].wsj. 15 significantly raised Tezos’s profile. 5. less than two months before the start of the Tezos ICO. 2017) <https://www. I think Tezos is one of those tokens. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 17 of 41 1 distinct entity is further weakened by the fact that DLS and the Breitmans have now turned to the 2 Tezos Foundation’s funds (i. 21 35 Chavez-Dreyfuss.”36 A July 7. for participating in an unregistered offer and sale of securities.”35 8 54. Exclusive: Billionaire investor Draper to participate in 22 blockchain token sale for first time (May 5. a founder 13 of the Silicon Valley venture-capital firm Draper Fisher Jurvetson. the “first prominent venture capitalist to openly embrace initial coin 7 offerings. Paul. 2017) 25 The Wall Street Jounal <https://www. .sec. .

28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 18 of 41 1 56. 2017].com and it also redirect me to”). ICO participants posting online on the day the ICO began were 5 commenting that https://crowdfund. Prominently featured on the 1. and the 9 “problems” with Bitcoin and Ethereum that it will was redirecting them to tezos. Re: Tezos discussion (Jul.40 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 See e.39 7 58. and technology.tezos.640> [as of Dec. 3. 2017] (commenter stating.17 Case No. 40 27 Tezos Overview. Investor interest and enthusiasm exploded after Draper’s announcement. goals.tezos. The website also contained links to the Tezos Position Paper and White Paper. The Tezos website encouraged investors to “contribute” to the ICO throughout the 11 website and through links to marketing materials such as the Tezos Overview “static paper”.com (which has since been taken down).pdf> [as of Dec. “Is 26 tezos. the site? I went to https://crowdfund. Tezos. 10 59.php?topic=1775132. the website through which investors 4 bought Tezos tokens during the <https://www. 2017) Bitcoin Talk <https://bitcointalk.tezos. 8 explaining details about the Tezos project. 2 – the website for the 6 Swiss-based Tezos Foundation – which they had never seen before.g.: 1001464 V1 . including its website are links to 3 https://crowdfund.

in another section entitled “Are there bonus periods?” Defendants 24 describe a common ICO bonus scheme. On the same page.: 1001464 V1 . On the “Help” page of Tezos. 27 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . 3. Tezos.tezos.41 23 62. how to submit bitcoin or 3 Ethereum to purchase Tezos tokens: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 61.18 Case No. where the sooner ICO investors made their purchases. this section states that: 26 41 Help. “How exactly do I contribute 2 to the fundraiser?” containing nine steps describing. 2017].com <https://www. Specifically. the 25 greater the bonus of additional tokens they stood to gain. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 19 of 41 1 60. Investors were also told they could submit fiat currency via Defendant Bitcoin Suisse 22 is a section> [as of Dec. in plain English.

43 The Tezos ICO 6 was “uncapped” which meant that there was no limit on the amount of contributions that were 7 accepted.tezos. Indeed.42 4 5 63. 11 that Defendants have no obligation to ever provide Plaintiff and the Class with Tezos tokens.19 Case No. 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . stating “Just a 16 reminder. and 0%) lasting 400 Bitcoin blocks each. The Tezos ICO began on July 1.5. 43 Help. 14 65. meaning that a contribution of 1 BTC will yield a 1 recommended allocation of <https://www. 10%. In a public chat room run by website. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 20 of 41 The bonus starts at 20%. 2017 and lasted about two weeks. thus the fundraiser is expected to last about two weeks. 3. at Section 3. 2. From 20% at the outset 2 the bonuses will decrease progressively to 0% over four additional periods (15%.’ The foundation 17 will recommend allocation of tokens in the genesis block based on contributions. Tezos. 13 Defendants have yet to provide any class member with their promised Tezzie 5%.44 8 64.tezos. The average time between Bitcoin 3 blocks is approximately 10 minutes. contributions to the Tezos’ foundation’s fundraiser are not ‘investments.pdf> [as of Dec.: 1001464 V1 . 2017] (referencing Defendants’ “uncapped fundraising structure”). 26 44 Tezos Overview. 9 attempting to disclaim any obligations whatsoever to Plaintiff and the Class.” 18 66. and each bonus period of 400 blocks roughly two days and eighteen hours. Investors recognized this for the transparent fiction it was: 19 20 21 22 23 24 42 25 Id. “Early Backers” Tezos. and 12 that the project “could be fully or partially abandoned” without recourse whatsoever. Defendants posted a document called “Contribution Terms” on the tezos. This document stated 10 that invested bitcoin and Ethereum constitute “a non-refundable donation” and not an “investment”.com 27 <https://www. an automated bot would send a message each 15 time someone in the chat room referred to an “investment” in the Tezos ICO.000 XTZ (a 1000 XTZ bonus).com/help> [as of Dec. 2017].

Anna. Cal. As explained in detail below. Uber Techs.. Tex. 4:14-0941. 46 See. 3d 1067. Startup Tezos raised $232 million issuing a new digital currency — now key players are fighting (Oct. at *17 (S. Inc. in connection with an 16 October 22. The idea of idea of labeling payments as “contributions” in an attempt to evade 19 regulatory schemes is not a new one in Silicon Valley. Draper himself has admitted as much on multiple occasions. v. 2017) Business Insider 24 <http://www. ‘You mean how much I bought? A lot. 1080 (N.D.businessinsider. 60 F. first 20 began offering its 25 cryptocurrency-venture-2017-10?r=UK&IR=T> [as of Dec. 10... 19. CIV. Defendants’ representations to the market and the Class 14 made clear that contributors to the Tezos ICO were investors. 2015).: 1001464 V1 . 11. Steve Stecklow. Regulators and courts saw through the scheme. 2015 WL 1034254. When.D.A.’”45 18 68.46 23 45 Irrera. Supp. Lyft. e. Co.. he replied via email. not benefactors of a non-profit 15 enterprise. When the ridesharing company. 27 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . 2017]. 2017 story. Mar. Lyft. 2015).20 Case No. Inc. and Brenna Hughes Neghaiwi. Greater Houston 26 Transp.g. a Reuters reporter asked Draper “how much he donated during the Tezos 17 fundraiser. Cotter v. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 21 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 67. No. it attempted to characterize the payments made by riders to drivers as 21 voluntary “donations” in an attempt to evade state and federal labor laws and municipal taxi 22 regulations.

” As the SEC made clear. 293. 421 U. Knight. 332.S.: 1001464 V1 .”48 The test “permits the fulfillment of the statutory 11 purpose of compelling full and fair disclosure relative to the issuance of ‘the many types of 12 instruments that in our commercial world fall within the ordinary concept of a security. 298-299.. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 22 of 41 C. An investment contract is an investment of money in a common enterprise with a 7 reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of 8 others. 6 70. 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . The Tezos tokens are securities under both California and federal law. 389. “form should be disregarded for substance. one that is capable of 9 adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the 10 money of others on the promise of profits. at 849. 336 (1967).’” Id. 293 (1946) in 5 determining whether a transaction is an investment contract. 393.S. Edwards (2004) 540 U.S. 328 U. 26 49 Tcherepnin v.S. 48 Howey.S. that virtual coins similar to those 17 offered in the Tezos ICO—sold by an organization called the “DAO”—were “securities and 18 therefore subject to the federal securities laws.”50 16 71. 852-53 (The 24 “touchstone” of an investment contract “is the presence of an investment in a common venture premised on a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial 25 efforts of others. in a Report of Investigation. 837. 328 U. v. W. “[I]ssuers of distributed 19 20 21 22 47 23 See SEC v. United Housing Found. 389 U. 27 50 United Housing Found. The Tezos Tokens Are Securities 1 2 69. 301. The SEC concluded. In 13 analyzing whether something is a security. Forman (1975) 421 U.47 This definition embodies a “flexible rather than a static principle.S. Under 3 California Corporations Code § 25019.J. Howey Co. Howey Co. (1946) 328 U.S. Inc. and not on the name appended 15 thereto.f.”49 “and the 14 emphasis should be on economic realities underlying a transaction. see also SEC v.” California 4 courts have applied the federal test described in SEC v. at 299 (emphasis added).21 Case No.”). a security includes “an investment contract. W.

It is widely understood that investors in the Tezos ICO participated with the 21 reasonable expectation that they would make a profit. Investors in the Tezos ICO Invested Money 3 4 72.: 1001464 V1 . 2017] (emphasis added). CEO of Tezos. Defendant Kathleen Breitman recognized that many unaccredited investors don’t take 14 the same precautions taken by accredited investors when making investments when she stated: An ICO. 4. at 13:40 https://www. 2017) <https://www. Episode 138: Interview with Kathleen Breitman. and Tezos Tokens were received in exchange for this consideration. which sounds like an IPO. rather the Foundation is recommending an allocation of 10 tokens to the genesis block based on donations to a Swiss non-profit. 12 rather have them up for donation over the course of two Investors in the Tezos ICO used Bitcoin.”52 13 74. 22 23 51 Press Release. And that’s not something everyone has 26 53 E759: Tezos Kathleen Breitman raises $232m top ICO for new self-governing smart contract 27 blockchain (Sept”51 a. (June 16. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 23 of 41 1 ledger or blockchain technology-based securities must register offers and sales of such securities 2 unless a valid exemption applies. [as of> (at 37:40) [as of Dec. And there’s a suggested 11 allocation amount. 2017). sort of leads into this other 15 attitude where people act as though there is some sort of other 16 obligation that doesn’t necessarily exist with these structures. SEC Issues Investigative Report Concluding DAO Tokens. a Digital Asset. 5. 8 73. 52 25 Fintech Podcast. accredited investors 17 act a certain way.22 Case No. and they take certain precautions. SEC. Investors Had a Reasonable Expectation of Profits 19 20 75. 24 2017]. 2017) https://www. 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . and cash to make their 5 investments. And were going to sell them over the course of. 53 18 b. Such investment is 6 the type of contribution of value that can create an investment contract under California Corporations 7 Code § 25019. Defendant Kathleen Breitman has represented that Defendants were “selling” the 9 Tezos tokens by stating: “we’re selling. Were Securities (Jul. So one bitcoin for 5000 tokens.sec. And I think that’s very poisonous because investors.

M. 1. But in the spirit of clarity.. by the 3 prospect of profits on their investment in the Tezos project. If the purpose of a token is 12 to raise money for a <https://www. Tezos — a self-amending crypto-ledger White Paper (Sept. Section 3.reuters. 2017) 23 Reuters < https://www. I recommend the following: 1.: 1001464 V1 . Thus.”56 18 80. and the money is used to support the company. it must register with 13 the SEC. Defendant Kathleen Breitman has 17 stated: “ultimately we’re appealing to people’s rational” Draper went on to suggest that “Any tokens issued before October 30. 16 79. 2017. 8 implicitly acknowledging that tokens are securities). describes the financial incentive (described as a “pecuniary reward”) provided to miners to 20 validate blocks and maintain and operate the Tezos network. and characterized acquiring Tezzies as a purchase rather than a donation. entitled “Mining and signing 19 rewards”. 2017]. … 3. on July 26. 24 55 https://www.2 of the Tezos White Paper. In addition. Defendant Draper told Reuters that cryptocurrencies are commodities like pork 5 bellies.pdf> [as of Dec. 2017].facebook.54 6 78.” betraying a recognition that.e. it must register with the SEC. Anna. 4 77. 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . 2017 should be 14 grandfathered in. and encouraging 10 innovation with this new vehicle that has so much potential. L. Flux Podcast 14: Kathleen Breitman — Tezos Unleashed (July 12.”57 22 54 Irrera.tezos. the Tezos tokens 15 should have been registered. Additionally. If the 11 purpose of a token is for investment. 27 57 Goodman. 18.rre. Backroom battle imperils $230 million cryptocurrency venture (> [as of Dec. Draper published an open letter to the SEC on 7 Facebook. a reasonable investor would have been motivated. 2017) RRE Ventures Perspectives Blog <https://blog. Draper wrote “I agree that some (light) 9 regulation might be in order with regard to ICOs. 2014) Tezos. even under the test he proposed. In reference to investors who are seeking profit. 3. Tezos token holders stood to share in potential profits from the successful launch of 2 the Tezos token..55 in which he acknowledged the SEC’s statutory authority to regulate ICOs ( 26 d0921294ec91> [as of Dec. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 24 of 41 1 76. 2. 2017]. at least in Case No. and states that “[m]ining and signing 21 both offer a small reward.draper/posts/10155685679894235?pnref=story 25 56 Transcript. 3.

59 Diversifying the portfolio of the Tezos Foundation <https://www. In Tezos.60 23 58 24 Id. 10 After a year (cycle). 2017].2 of the Tezos White Paper. 3. 17. 1. 2017].html> [as of Dec.tezos. 60 26 25 portfolio-of-the-tezos-foundation. which gives token-holders a dividend-like reward for mining tokens and 3 maintaining the Tezos blockchain: We conjecture that the security of any decentralised currency requires to 4 incentivize the participants with a pecuniary reward (we are in the process of 5 finalizing the rewards schedule at the moment). 16 83. the miners (and endorsers) receive a reward along with their bond to compensate for their opportunity cost. The statement on February 17. Tezos Receives Funding for Smart Contact System from Polychain Capital's Digital Currency Fund (Feb. relying on transaction costs alone suffers from a tragedy of the commons.58 12 13 82.nasdaq.24 Case No. these bonds are forfeited. Defendants go on to describe Tezo’s “proof- 2 of-stake” concept. Rebecca.: 1001464 V1 . The Tezos Foundation’s website acknowledges that the depression of prices “is 14 obviously not in the best interest of contributors or the foundation”. given the high opportunity cost and little benefit to security of extending the bonding period past one 8 cycle) security deposits purchased by miners (endorsers will also be required to 9 purchase bonds). 6 we rely on the combination of a bond and a reward. 2017 by Defendant Kathleen Breitman in 19 reference to the Polychain VC investment and the ICO process that “[w]e 20 created a product that was purchased by VC investors without the traditional 21 equity investment model because of the anticipated appreciation of our 22 token. the following: 18 a. In the event of a double signing. As explained in the position paper. 2017) Nasdaq <http://www. The security is primarily being 11 provided by the value of the bond and the reward need only be a small percentage of that 27 receives-investment-in-smart-contact-system-from-polychain-capitals-digital-currency-fund- cm749875> [as of Dec.” (emphasis added). Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 25 of 41 1 81. 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT .59 This is because investors are 15 clearly interested in seeing a return on their investment. inter alia. 7 Bonds are one year (bonds will now only last a single cycle. In Section 3. Other factors that support the conclusion that Tezos investors invested their money for 17 Tezos tokens with the reasonable expectation of profits include.

experience “inflation”.64 20 f. 27 64 Id. they might just transform society.63 17 e.” (emphasis added). 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT .1. foundation salaries.” going on to say “All 3 tokens we hope to receive that we didn’t buy in the Pre-sale (alongside with all 4 the other investors who participated) will vest over time with the founders’ 5 tokens. 26 63 Tezos Overview. and we will 8 all be better off as a our-purchase-of-tezos/> [as of Dec.bitcoinisle. Draper said: “If 6 [Defendants Arthur Breitman and Kathleen Breitman] are successful [in 7 developing the Tezos tokens].com/faq> [as of Dec. 2017].tezos. “The Principles of the Tezos Blockchain”: Governance <https://www.pdf> [as of Dec.” (emphasis added). The statement on the Tezos Overview document that long-term governance 18 goals include “favoring decisions that tend toward increasing the value of the 19 tokens (emphasis added).tezos. 2. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 26 of 41 1 b. 2017].25 Case No. tokens are “minted”. “Long-Term Goals”: Community Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQ”) 11 webpage that “token holders can receive rewards for participating in the 12 proof-of-stake consensus mechanism” (emphasis added). has stated: “We invested for 2 ownership in [DLS]” and “participated in the Pre-sale. or work for 16 Internet fame alone” (emphasis added). a billionaire venture capitalist. 25 62 FAQ <https://www. 2017]. and the receipt of 22 23 61 Tim Draper: There Was Nothing Secretive About Our Purchase of Tezos (Oct. maybe 5 or ten years down the road.61 10 c. at 6. 9 my investors and I might get rich. 23. and then.: 1001464 V1 . Defendant Draper. The statement on the Tezos Overview document that developers will be 14 “compensate[d]” with Tezos tokens that “have immediate value rather than 15 forcing them to seek corporate sponsorships. at 2. 2. The statement on the Tezos. In the same statement.62 13 d. The language used by Defendants to describe the Tezos tokens: According to 21 Defendants.1. 2017) 24 Bitcoin Isle <https://www.

68 Id. Goodman. 67 25 Id. and not simply “contributors” or “donors”. Anna.. co-founder of the cryptocurrency 14 trading fund Galois Capital. Similarly. Plaintiff and the Class view their financial contributions as investments that 17 were made dependent upon Defendants' representations and efforts. 2014) 2017) 27 Reuters < https://www.. The question posed in the Tezos position paper.3. For instance. and said: “For me and for a lot of 15 people this is an investment. and prevent the dilution of the 9 token’s value.65 The Tezos position paper even 2 describes Tezos miners and/or token holders as “stakeholders”.M. at p. 2017] (describing a former stakeholder as one who has “since cashed out”). one investor. and may actually 8 take actions to raise the value of Tezos tokens. Statements in the Tezos position paper suggesting that stakeholders (i.reuters. 18 19 20 21 22 65 See Id. 2017]. 3. at p.tezos. We are looking for a return. 26 69 Irrera. at 2. 23 66 See e.26 Case No.”69 16 <https://www.: 1001464 V1 .com/investigates/special-report/bitcoin-funding-tezos/> [as of Dec. invested about five bitcoins in Tezos. Kevin Zhou. Tezos: A Self-Amending Crypto-Ledger Position Paper. and that they expect 12 a return on their investments. 13 (August 3.pdf> [as of Dec.g. L. “The Principles Of The Tezos Blockchain”: Proof of Stake. 7 Tezos miners and/or token holders) will be incentivized to. 13 85.e.66 3 g. while analogizing Bitcoin 4 mining with Tezos mining: “why would a dominant miner destroy the value 5 of their investments by compromising the currency?”67 and 6 h.68 10 84. Public statements by investors themselves also suggest that many investors in 11 Tezos consider themselves investors. 24 2. at p. Backroom battle imperils $230 million cryptocurrency venture (Oct. 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . 6. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 27 of 41 1 more tokens are described as “profits”.. 18. 16.

2017]. 2017) Medium 27 <https://medium.29 as of Dec. 26 72 See e. 3. 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . Matt.27 Case No. 11. 22 70 ROI Since ICO (> [as of Dec.72 driving investors to seek similar (or greater 21 returns). Ethereum’s ICO price was $0. 3. For instance. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 88. and it now trades at 18 $476. according to the site. Dibb. 71 See e.: 1001464 V1 .. 2017] ( Tezos ICO: Is this really the next Ethereum? (July 4. Moreover.g. members of the online crypto-investment sphere regularly keep track of the 2 return on investment (ROI) they could potentially gain from investing in an ICO through websites 3 such as icostats. Tezos Overview. 23 2017].”).com/roi-since-ico> [as of Dec.71 Defendants’ statements 20 fueled speculation that Tezos was the “next Ethereum”.311. 11.tezos. decentralized applications and smart contracts while avoiding 25 some of the political and technological problems which earlier efforts such as Bitcoin and Ethereum have faced.70 Defendants have consistently represented Tezos as being a 19 technologically improved version of the Bitcoin and Ethereum blockchains. “Executive Summary” 24 <https://www.pdf> [as of Dec. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 28 of 41 1 87. 11. “The Tezos blockchain will underpin secure. 2017) ICO Stats <https://icostats.

Defendants. and the Tezos 5 development team. especially the Breitmans. . The expertise of Defendants was critical in monitoring the operation of e5> [as of Dec. . 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . The Tezos investors relied 4 on the managerial and entrepreneurial efforts of Tezos and its co-founders. for instance: 25 26 73 2017-12-01 dev update (Dec. 4.: 1001464 V1 .” Breitman responded by stating: 21 “Maybe the issue is your trolling. 6 90. and safeguarding investor funds. 15 93. Investors Expect Those Profits to Be Derived from the Managerial Efforts 1 of Others 2 89. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 29 of 41 c. and told investors on 8 multiple occasions that they were in the process of hiring additional developers. 2017) Reddit 27 <https://www. Investors’ profits were to be derived from the managerial efforts of others— 3 specifically. [or] you are [an] incompetent 20 developer and your entire team [is] too. Defendant Arthur Breitman has even recently mocked investors for not being as 16 knowledgeable as he is regarding the development of Tezos.reddit. the blockchain protocol on which Tezos operated (or will operate). 2017]. Investors had little choice but to rely on their 13 expertise. 12 promoting Tezos. held themselves out to investors as experts in 7 Ethereum. Investors in Tezos reasonably expected the Tezos co-founders and the Tezos 10 development team to provide significant managerial efforts after Tezos’s launch.”73 23 94. to manage and develop the Tezos project. stating “Maybe the issue is you 18 first of all? Maybe the issue is your absolute incompetence in terms of writing a code? Eitehr you 19 lied [to] us about three years of development prior to [the] ICO . 11 92. etc. 2. After a developer challenged him 17 because of the lack of news and delay in the development of Tezos. and the Tezos development team. Writing "a" code? You have zero 22 understanding of what such a project entails. 9 91. Tezos and its co-founders. The Tezos blockchain protocol and governing structure were predetermined long before 14 the ICO was launched.28 Case No. Defendant Arthur Breitman has also put forth public statements admitting that the 24 progress of the Tezos project is dependant on his own personal efforts by stating.

19 unless a valid exemption from such registration applied. Tezos Defendants Were Required to Qualify Offers and Sales of Securities Unless a 6 Valid Exemption Applies 7 96. Because Tezos Tokens were 18 securities. Corp Code § 25008. Corp Code § 25010). Moreover. actively 4 oversee the Tezos project. Those who participate in an unqualified offer and sale of securities not subject to a 21 valid exemption are liable for violating Section 25110 of the California Corporations Code. a limited liability company. and “person” 10 includes “an individual. or a 12 political subdivision of a government. Defendants were required to qualify them pursuant to the California Corporations Code. a joint stock company.” Cal. 17 including to individuals in California and throughout the United States. which was publicly-accessible. a partnership. Corp Code § 25010. Corp Code § 25013. an 11 association. Defendants were issuers of or participants in issuances of securities under the 8 meaning of Cal. an unincorporated> [as of Dec. The Path Forward: A letter from Arthur & Kathleen Breitman to the Tezos 27 community (Oct. and fiat currency through the Tezos Website. 5 D.29 Case No. 18. Defendants offered and sold Tezos Tokens in exchange 16 for Ethereum. During the Offering Period. 2017) <https://medium. 22 23 24 25 26 74 Breitman. 13 97. a trust. Arthur. 20 99. 15 98. The definition of “issuer” is broadly defined to include “any 9 person who issues or proposes to issue any security” (Cal.: 1001464 V1 . Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 30 of 41 Some development has continued and we have personally been 1 working to create strong relationships with successful entrepreneurs 2 looking to build with Tezos. a joint venture. Defendants “offered and sold” the securities “within the state” of 14 California within the meaning of Cal. 2017]. 11. Bitcoin. a government. And Defendants have represented that they did in fact. 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . a corporation.74 3 95. and continue to.

calling for Gevers’ prompt removal and seeking to 14 give the couple a “substantial role” in a new structure that would limit the foundation’s 15 responsibilities. The Path Forward: A letter from Arthur & Kathleen Breitman to the Tezos community (Oct. Defendants 13 Diego Ponz and Guido Schmitz-Krummacher).”75 11> [as of Dec. Johann Gevers. 5 101. self-promotion and conflicts of 16 interest. and likely also at the time. Defendants provided investors with few updates 6 on the Tezos project. 76 Irrera. Backroom battle imperils $230 million cryptocurrency venture (Oct. 18. 2017].com stating: “In early September we became aware that the president of the Tezos 9 Foundation. 2017) <https://medium.76 18 104. Arthur.: 1001464 V1 . Between August and October 2017.reuters. Defendant Arthur Breitman published a blog post on 8 medium. The document accuses Gevers of “self-dealing. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 31 of 41 E. 2017]. Their interference has resulted in 21 costly delays in developing and launching the Tezos network and new currency (which Tezos 22 promised to have launched by now).com/@arthurb/the-path-forward-eb2e6f63be67> [as of 25 Dec. The same day. 2017) 26 Reuters < https://www. 11. and the proceeds from the 4 ICO. the Breitmans later suggested via email that he step aside for a month 17 while they investigate. 18. and Delays Emerge 1 2 100. On or around October 18. The Breitman Defendants have recently been engaged in a very public ongoing power 3 struggle with Gevers regarding control over Defendant Tezos Foundation.” According to Gevers. 2017. 7 102. Gevers responded that he is not stepping down and that the Breitmans have been 19 trying to control the foundation as if it were their own private entity by bypassing the foundation’s 20 legal structure and interfering with management and operations. engaged in an attempt at self-dealing. 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT .77 Gevers accused the Breitmans of 23 75 24 Breitman.30 Case No. misrepresenting to the council the 10 value of a bonus he attempted to grant himself. 3. 27 77 Id. Anna. an attorney for the Breitmans sent a 46-page letter to the two other 12 members of the foundation’s three-person board (currently. Governance Problems. according to Gevers. Infighting.

587 ether at a price of $163. 2017 13 when they “sold 1. 27 82 Id. Defendants Are Selling.html> [as of 24 portfolio-of-the-tezos-foundation.82 23 78 Diversifying the portfolio of the Tezos Foundation <https://www. 2017. 10 and precious metals.”81 18 108.” which created a new form of cryptocurrency called Bitcoin Cash for every holder of Bitcoin. 21 the Foundation now additionally holds a new ‘BCH’ token” and plans to gradually convert and sell 22 these assets as well. 2017]. 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . Moreover.” and accused 2 Defendants Ponz and Schmitz-Krummacher of an “illegal coup. 2017].000 CHF for the Tezos 14 Foundation. and bad times. 26 81 August Update. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 32 of 41 1 “character Defendants admitted that “for every Bitcoin held by the Tezos Foundation. Converting and Dissipating the Consideration Collected From the Class 4 5 105.” 3 F.78 On July 18. stocks. Defendants also admitted that they were holding Bitcoin at the time of a so-called 19 “fork.31 Case No.”80 15 107.html#august-update> [as of Dec.82.tezos. Defendants’ first conversion of the ICO proceeds was completed on July 17. Defendants confirmed that they were still 16 converting these assets by stating that they “have been slowly converting these assets into cash at a 17 pace of roughly CHF 500. This will ensure that our organization is resilient in good times. 1. Defendants posted the 7 following on the Tezos. 20 As a result of the fork. 1.79 11 12 106. The Tezos Foundation has been liquidating the Bitcoin and Ethereum invested by 6 investors since July 17.: 1001464 V1 .ch website: 8 The Tezos Foundation currently holds over $220M worth of bitcoins and ethers. in an August 2017 update. 79 Id. To best serve the interests of the Tezos community. 25 80 Id. bonds.tezos. shortly after the ICO ended.000 per day.” and of making “misleading statements and outright lies. 2017. <https://www. we intend to gradually 9 diversify our position by slowly selling some (but not all) of these holdings over the coming months and purchasing a conservative portfolio of cash. netting about 250.

2017]. Defendants Niklas Nikolajsen and Bitcoin Suisse AG have now 2 publicly revealed themselves to be controlling counter-signatories to the ICO proceeds. NO REFUND: ‘Your money is safe. the Breitmans are also seeking to spend the Foundation’s 18 assets on their legal bills. 2017.88 19 83 Allen.. stating: “The terms for contribution in the Tezos Crowd Contribution to which 5 each contributor agreed in order to participate […] specified that refunds 6 post-contribution and after the close of crowd contribution would not be possible. 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT .community <https://forums. et al. 14.’ Tezos broker tells investors (Nov.: 1001464 V1 . 87 https://www. founders-push-for-legal-bailout-from-swiss-foundation-idUSKBN1DV4K0> [as of Dec.reddit. On August 10. 20 2017) SWI <https://www. the Tezos Foundation also announced its commitment to use $50 9 million in ICO proceeds “through venture capital partners to be announced” and “a direct venture 10 arm” for “companies looking to build on the Tezos platform. Exclusive: Tezos founders push for legal bailout from Swiss foundation 27 (Dec. 3. In addition. 11. Defendant Arthur Breitman has stated via a post on reddit. including a $60. there are reports that the Foundation just fired its auditors. Steve. no explanation for the firm’s termination has been 16 provided by Defendants. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 33 of 41 1 109.”85 11 111. A document 14 filed with the Swiss Commercial Register indicated that the auditing firm Lufida Revision AG had 15 been terminated. due to both regulatory reasons as well as practical reasons. investors/43674622> [as of Dec.”86 13 112. 1. 21 84 Id. 17 113. 2017) < 25 u&sh=11f66b73> [as of Dec.shab. 2017) tezos. 2017) Reddit <https://www.87 As of December 11th. as mentioned. At the same time. 22 85 What is the Tezos Foundation doing with their Funds? (Aug.reuters. 26 88 Stecklow.tezos.> [as of 23 Dec. 2017].83 While 3 issuing a public statement claiming that their control over the funds was put into place “to protect 4 contributors” Bitcoin Suisse AG also claimed that investors will not receive “refunds”.32 Case No. 2. despite their promise to provide an audit to the public in November 2017.000 payment “a few months ago. 2017].swissinfo. 86 24 Reasons why Gevers should resign (Dec.”84 7 8 110. that the 12 Foundation has given funds to DLS. 2017]. 2017. Moreover.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS 16 17 116. R. The precise number of Class members is to Plaintiff at this time but it is believed to be 89 27 Diversifying the portfolio of the Tezos Foundation <https://www.html> [as of Dec. accusations of self-dealing. Civ. Johann Gevers. and fees all threaten 12 the proceeds collected from the Class. Defendants will have 13 managed to completely consume the illegally-obtained ICO proceeds. 2017].33 Case No. XTZ. Excluded from the Class are Defendants. On information and portfolio-of-the-tezos-foundation. a lack of regulatory oversight. Bitcoin Suisse AG. Timothy 4 Cook Draper and/or Draper Associates. a refusal 11 to acknowledge investor concerns or claims.tezos. who control the 5 Foundation’s assets through a “multisignature procedure” described as follows on the Tezos. 23 and seek 18 certification of the following Class: all persons who purchased Tezos tokens. or otherwise modified. a lack of transparency.: 1001464 V1 . Kathleen Breitman. sale.89 9 115. and Niklas Nikolajsen. heirs. 6 website: The multisignature procedure we use requires access to a secure location 7 for spending and several security checks which make it a non trivial 8 affair. Arthur 3 Breitman. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 34 of 41 1 114. Guido Schmitz-Krummacher. leaving Plaintiff and the Class 14 with no remedy. successors or assigns and any entity in 22 which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. expanded. and members of 21 their immediate families or their legal representatives. 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. 15 VI. 25 119. Diego Ponz. Without immediate judicial intervention. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the Class definition if further investigation and/or 24 discovery indicate that the Class definition should be narrowed. the ongoing conversion. bonuses. and/or Tezzies 19 during the ICO conducted by Defendants in July 2017. DLS. The facts above demonstrate that an ongoing combination of the conversion of ICO 10 proceeds. and possible dissipation of 2 the ICO proceeds are controlled by some combination of Defendants Tezos Stiftung. and unreported payments. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is 26 impracticable. 20 117. 23 118. 1. their officers and directors.

Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Class members and predominate 13 over any questions solely affecting individual members of the Class. Members of the Class may be identified by publicly-accessible blockchain 2 ledger information and records maintained by Defendants or its agents.34 Case No. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 35 of 41 1 in the tens of thousands. Among the questions of law and 14 fact common to the Class are: 15 a) Whether the Tezos tokens are “securities” within the meaning of the California Corporate 16 Securities Law of 1968. 12 122. Code § 25504. They may be notified of the 3 pendency of this action by electronic mail using a form of notice customarily used in securities class 4 actions. Corp. Corp. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class members as all Class members 6 are similarly affected by the Defendants' respective wrongful conduct in violation of the laws 7 complained of herein. 9 121. 17 b) Whether Defendants offered or sold Tezos securities through the ICO. 24 Code § 25503. 23 f) Whether Defendants controlled or were controlled by persons liable under Cal.: 1001464 V1 .1. Code § 25110 pursuant 25 to Cal. 27 h) The type and measure of damages suffered by Plaintiff and the Class. 20 d) Whether the Tezos ICO violated the qualification provisions of the California Corporate 21 Securities Law of 1968. Plaintiff has and will continue to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the 10 members of the Class and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class actions and 11 securities litigation. Plaintiff additionally does not have any interest that is in conflict with the 8 interests of the members of the Class. 5 120. 22 e) Whether Defendants are “issuers” in the Tezos securities offering. or materially assisted in a violation of Cal. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to or in conflict with those of the Class. and 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . 26 g) Whether the conduct of Defendants violated the Unfair Competition Law. 18 c) Whether Defendants were required to qualify Tezos tokens pursuant to the California 19 Corporate Securities Law of 1968 for the Tezos ICO. Corp.

The Tezos tokens Plaintiff purchased from Defendants were securities. non-exempt securities (i. 20 127. as the 7 damages suffered by individual Class members may be relatively small.: 1001464 V1 . Corp Code § 25008. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the preceding 14 paragraphs of this Complaint. There will be no difficulty in the management of this action as a class action.. because they are “investment contract[s]”. 10 FIRST COUNT 11 VIOLATION OF CAL. 19 including Plaintiffs and investors. except any allegation of fraud. Defendants offered and sold. or the equivalent in monetary 3 damages plus interest at the legal rate from the date of purchase. the expense and burden of 8 individual litigation makes it impossible for members of the Class to individually redress the wrongs 9 done to them. and each of them.e. in violation of California state law. as defined by 16 California Corporations Code § 25019. the sale 26 was subject to qualification. and if so. the Tezos tokens) to thousands of individuals.35 Case No. CORPORATIONS CODE § 25110 12 (Against All Defendants) 13 124. or otherwise participated in the offer and sale of over 18 600 million unregistered. "offered and sold" the securities "within the state" of 21 California within the meaning of Cal. 15 125. 25 129. Furthermore. The sales constituted issuer transactions in that it was part of an initial offering of 23 Tezos tokens and the issuers directly benefitted from Plaintiffs' investments and received a portion of 24 the investments as the issuer of the security. 27 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 36 of 41 1 i) Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to recover the consideration paid for the 2 Tezos tokens. and to the date of this Complaint. with interest thereon at the legal rate. 17 126. the proper 4 calculation and amount of those damages. 22 128. At the time of the sale of the Tezos tokens. recklessness or intentional misconduct. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient 6 adjudication of this controversy since joinder of all members is impracticable. 5 123. Defendants.

Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 37 of 41 1 130. 8 or alternatively. and the 4 securities or transactions were not exempted or subject to qualification under Cal. 25112 or 25113.5. Corp. Code § 25110 and Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 27 1933 (15 U. Defendants and each of them. no order under Section 3 25140 or subdivision (a) of Section 25143 was in effect with respect to such qualification.36 Case No. 17 SECOND COUNT 18 UNFAIR COMPETITION IN VIOLATION OF CAL. Code § 25503. then Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants damages equal to 12 the value of the consideration plus interest at the legal rate from the date of purchase. controlled persons and entities 14 (including other Defendants) liable under § 25503 as set forth in this Complaint and are liable jointly 15 and severally with and to the same extent as such persons under their control pursuant to Cal. rescind the above-described purchases pursuant to § Corp. and to the date of this Complaint. Corp Code §§ 25111. As a result of the above-described acts. with interest thereon at the legal rate. ET SEQ. Cal. Corp Code § 25503. BUS. 10 132. §§ 77e(a) and 77e(c)). At the time of the sale of the Tezos tokens.S. directly and indirectly. Corp Code §§ 5 25100-25105. who are 7 entitled to and hereby do. 22 135. constitutes an unlawful 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . & PROF. § 25501. Corp 16 Code § 25504. and who each may sue to recover the consideration paid for the Tezos 9 tokens.C. if Defendants are incapable of returning the 11 consideration to Plaintiffs. 13 133. 6 131. CODE §§ 17200. Pursuant to Cal. and consequently.: 1001464 V1 . 19 (Against all Defendants) 20 134. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the preceding 21 paragraphs of this Complaint. Defendants engaged in unlawful business practices in violation of the Unfair 23 Competition Law in each of the following respects: 24 a) Defendants' failure to register Tezos tokens as a security with the SEC prior to 25 offering them to the public in the Tezos ICO violates the Corporate Securities Law of 26 1968. the sale 2 had not been qualified under Cal. Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs.

23 138. Plaintiff and the Class pray for relief and judgment as follows: 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 38 of 41 1 business act or practice within the meaning of Business and Professions Code section 2 17200 et seq. Plaintiff and class members have lost money 19 or property and suffered injury in fact.: 1001464 V1 . As a result of the aforementioned acts.37 Case No. 3 b) Defendants engaged in unfair business practices in violation of the Unfair 4 Competition Law because their business practices were immoral. For 8 instance. because 24 that investment was obtained through unlawful and unfair business practices. 5 oppressive. Plaintiffs are entitled to restitution in the amount of their Tezos investment. consequently. and unscrupulous. unethical. 25 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 26 27 WHEREFORE. 15 e) Defendants' conduct violates the policy or spirit of the securities laws. 6 c) Defendants’ business practices violate public policy because they directly implicate 7 the public interest by impacting matters of great importance to the public. 11 d) The harm to Plaintiff and members of the Class outweighs the utility of Defendants' 12 policy/practice and. Defendants received and continue to hold money and property 20 belonging to Plaintiff and class members. 18 136. Defendants' practice constitutes an unfair business 13 act of practice within the meaning of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et 14 seq. Plaintiff and class members have no adequate remedy at law for the injuries which 22 they have suffered and will continue to suffer in the future. the qualification requirements in securities laws like California’s Corporate 9 Securities Law of 1968 were enacted to protect the public from harm in transactions 10 involving securities. 21 137. including but 16 not limited to those laws referenced in subparagraph (a) above or otherwise 17 significantly threatens or harms competition. like the investments at issue here.

21 JURY TRIAL DEMAND 22 23 Plaintiff demands a trial by jury for all of the claims asserted in this Complaint so triable.: 1001464 V1 . Corp. jointly and severally. proceeds of the ICO. and 20 (e) Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Kathrein 26 Reed R. Borkon (212596) 27 Danielle Charles (291237) 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction: 2 (a) Freezing Defendants’ assets collected as.38 Case No. including counsel fees. or using such funds in any further 5 purchases or transactions. and 3 (b) Enjoining Defendants from making further transfers. or derived from. including 16 interest thereon. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 39 of 41 1 As immediate relief. 17 (d) Awarding Plaintiff and the Class their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this 18 action. including appointment of Plaintiffs’ counsel as Class 8 Counsel and Plaintiff as class representative. dissipations or conversions of 4 the investments raised during the Tezos ICO. 24 DATED: December 13. or the equivalent in monetary damages 13 plus interest at the legal rate from the date of purchase pursuant to Cal. 9 (b) Imposing a constructive trust over the funds and assets rightfully belonging to 10 Plaintiff and the Class. Kathrein (139304) Peter E. 6 And for a Final Judgment: 7 (a) Certifying the proposed Class. in an amount to be proven at trial. with interest thereon at the legal rate. for all damages sustained as a 15 result of Defendants’ wrongdoing. 2017 HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 25 By: /s/ Reed R. witness fees and electronic discovery fees 19 as permitted by law. expert fees. 11 (c) Awarding Plaintiff and the members of the Class the consideration paid for the Tezos 12 tokens. Code § 14 25503 against all Defendants.

Berman 6 HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 40 of 41 715 Hearst 4 daniellec@hbsslaw. MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 13 Email: 14 jake@blockesq.39 Case No. Suite 400 12 Boston. CA 94710 2 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 3 Email: joel@blockesq. Leviton. Walker (271217) 11 BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street.: 1001464 V1 .com 15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . Suite 3300 7 Seattle. Suite 202 1 Berkeley. Fleming (281264) Jacob 9 Jason 5 Steve W.. WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 8 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 peterb@hbsslaw. pro hac vice to be submitted 10 Joel A.

Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 41 of 41 .

and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known) Reed R. This form. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 3-2) (Place an “X” in One Box Only) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND SAN JOSE EUREKA-MCKINLEYVILLE DATE 12/13/2017 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD /s/ Reed R. Fed. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure of 422 Appeal 28 USC § 158 375 False Claims Act 120 Marine Property 21 USC § 881 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury – Product 130 Miller Act Liability 690 Other § 157 § 3729(a)) 315 Airplane Product Liability 140 Negotiable Instrument 367 Health Care/ LABOR PROPERTY RIGHTS 400 State Reapportionment 320 Assault. (c) Attorneys (Firm Name. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only) 1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District (specify) Litigation–Transfer Litigation–Direct File VI. is required for the Clerk of Court to initiate the civil docket sheet.S. P. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): 28 U.S. et al. and 3:17-cv-06829-RS IF ANY (See instructions): Hon. JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER 3:17-cv-06779-RS. 139304) HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP. 715 Hearst Avenue. Code 1332(d)(2) ACTION Brief description of cause: Violation of California’s Corporate Securities Law of 1968 and California’s Unfair Competition Law VII. Government Not a Party) of Business In This State Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5 2 U. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) PTF DEF PTF DEF 1 U. Government Plaintiff 3 Federal Question Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4 (U.S.S. Government Defendant 4 Diversity of Business In Another State (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6 Foreign Country IV. Plaintiff or REAL PROPERTY 442 Employment Defendant) Act 510 Motions to Vacate 210 Land Condemnation 443 Housing/ Sentence 896 Arbitration 871 IRS–Third Party 26 USC 220 Foreclosure Accommodations 530 General § 7609 899 Administrative Procedure 445 Amer. R. REQUESTED IN ✔ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23. Tel: 510-725-3000 / Fax: 510-725-3001 II.S. w/Disabilities–Other 540 Mandamus & Other Statutes 290 All Other Real Property 448 Education 550 Civil Rights 555 Prison Condition 560 Civil Detainee– Conditions of Confinement V. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. Libel & Slander 150 Recovery of Pharmaceutical Personal 410 Antitrust 330 Federal Employers’ 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 820 Copyrights Overpayment Of Injury Product Liability 430 Banks and Banking Liability 720 Labor/Management 830 Patent Veteran’s Benefits 368 Asbestos Personal Injury 450 Commerce 340 Marine Relations 835 PatentAbbreviated New 151 Medicare Act Product Liability 345 Marine Product Liability 740 Railway Labor Act Drug Application 460 Deportation 152 Recovery of Defaulted PERSONAL PROPERTY 470 Racketeer Influenced & 350 Motor Vehicle 751 Family and Medical 840 Trademark Student Loans (Excludes 370 Other Fraud Corrupt Organizations 355 Motor Vehicle Product Leave Act Veterans) 371 Truth in Lending SOCIAL SECURITY 480 Consumer Credit Liability 790 Other Labor Litigation 153 Recovery of 380 Other Personal Property 861 HIA (1395ff) 360 Other Personal Injury 791 Employee Retirement 490 Cable/Sat TV Overpayment Damage Income Security Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/ of Veteran’s Benefits 362 Personal Injury -Medical Malpractice 385 Property Damage Product 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange 160 Stockholders’ Suits Liability IMMIGRATION 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions 190 Other Contract 462 Naturalization CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts 195 Contract Product Liability Application 440 Other Civil Rights HABEAS CORPUS FEDERAL TAX SUITS 893 Environmental Matters 196 Franchise 465 Other Immigration 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Actions 895 Freedom of Information 870 Taxes (U. except as provided by local rules of court.S. a Delaware corporation. Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated DYNAMIC LEDGER SOLUTIONS. 06/17) The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law.S. RELATED CASE(S). (b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff San Diego County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Santa Clara (EXCEPT IN U. JURY DEMAND: Yes No VIII. Suite 202. Berkeley. Address.) I. Civ. Case 3:17-cv-07095-RS Document 1-1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 1 of 1 CIVIL COVER SHEET JS-CAND 44 (Rev. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.. Kathrein (State Bar No. w/Disabilities– Act/Review or Appeal of 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 535 Death Penalty Employment Agency Decision 240 Torts to Land OTHER 950 Constitutionality of State 245 Tort Product Liability 446 Amer.S. CAUSE OF Cite the U. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS BRUCE MACDONALD. USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. 3:17-cv-06850-RS. INC. Kathrein . approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES. CA 94710. Richard Seeborg IX.