Source: https://ja.scribd.com/document/394382912/Blockvest-Ruling
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:33:31+00:00

Document:
Case 3:18-cv-02287-GPC-MSB Document 41 Filed 11/27/18 PageID.
10 DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.
26 owned by Michael Shepperd, and the remaining 20% is owned by Ringgold’s mother.
5 the form of virtual currency—most commonly Bitcoin and Ether—or fiat currency. (Dkt.
2 “registered” and “approved” by the SEC and using the SEC’s seal on the website. (Dkt.
3 No. 3-18, Wilner Decl., Ex. 41 at p. 416; Dkt. No. 3-23, Suppl. Wilner Decl., Ex. 1 at p.
17 statement that are nearly identical to the SEC’s seal, logo and mission statement. (Dkt.
27 The other half was used to pay transactional fees to unknown and unrelated third parties.
14 than the work-in-progress development of a cryptocurrency exchange of unknown value.
10 at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2015) (same).
27 895, 908 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Berckeley Inv. Group, Ltd. v. Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195, 212 (3d Cir.
13 operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.
14 15 U.S.C. § 77q.
4 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5.
14 definitions, however, are considered functional equivalents.”).
17 Defendants argue that the BLV tokens are not “securities” as defined under Howey.
22 the transaction.” United Hous. Fdn. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837, 838 (1975).
7 different variety of instrument”).
9 enterprise (3) with an expectation of profits produced by the efforts of others.” SEC v.
10 Rubera, 350 F.3d 1084, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted); SEC v.
23 In opposition, Defendants present a different rendering of facts than the SEC.
7 tokens do not represent an interest in or obligation of a corporation or other business.
13 relevant in determining whether the tokens are securities.
23 “investment of money” prong is “what the purchasers were offered or promised.” Id.
24 (courts frequently examine promotional material associated with the transaction); SEC v.
2 Hocking v. Dubois, 885 F.2d 1449, 1457 (9th Cir. 1989) (concerning sale of real estate).
7 product in virtually every relevant investment contract case.” Id. (quoting Aldrich v.
8 McCulloch Properties, Inc., 627 F.2d 1036, 1039-40 (10th Cir. 1980)).
2 demonstrated that “securities” were sold to the 17 individuals.
4 showing that there has been a previous violation of the federal securities laws.
8 Defendants and their violations. See SEC v. Murphy, 626 F.2d 633, 655 (9th Cir. 1980).
13 occur; and the sincerity of his assurances against future violations.” Id.
6 with the Complaint until October 10, 2018 and had not yet retained counsel in this matter.
17 injunction, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.
2 Federal Rules of Evidence do not strictly apply to preliminary injunction proceedings . . .
8 relief.” Barrera, 2018 WL 4599700, at 3 n.2.
24 Defendants filed an opposition and response to the supplemental declaration. (Dkt. No.
26 response, the Court strikes these documents from the docket.

References: v. 
 § 77
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.