XRPL COURT CASES 15-55: Owen v. Elastos Found. 1:19-cv-5462-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2021) Cited 2 times

 

Owen v. Elastos Found.

1:19-cv-5462-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2021)   Cited 2 times

Defendants argue that their actions are too far removed from the secondary market transactions to be considered to have sold or solicited the sale of the ELA Tokens. However, even indirect solicitation efforts are sufficient to state a claim under Section 12. See Capri v. Murphy, 856 F.2d 473, 478 (2d Cir. 1988) (“indirect solicitation can suffice to state a claim under Section 12(a)(2)” and “the language of sections 12(1) and 12(2) is identical in meaning”); see also In re Vivendi Universal, S.A., 381 F.Supp.2d 158, 186 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (finding adequate allegations that CEO was a statutory seller where he “regularly appeared before investors and financial news agencies to tour the financial vitality of [the company] and thereby encourage investors to purchase [the company's] securities”); In re WorldCom, Inc. Secs. Litig., 294 F.Supp.2d 392, 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (finding sufficient allegations that an underwriter was a statutory seller where the underwriter “participat[ed] in ‘road show' meetings”); Ripple Labs, 2020 WL 922815, at *12 (finding that defendants qualify as “sellers” were plaintiff alleged that “defendants ‘have earned over $1.1 billion through the sale of XRP'” and “that defendants published various tweets, interviews, and articles pushing the adoption of XRP” (a blockchain platform similar to Elastos)).