O slideshow foi denunciado.
Utilizamos seu perfil e dados de atividades no LinkedIn para personalizar e exibir anúncios mais relevantes. Altere suas preferências de anúncios quando desejar.

Blockchain Terminal summons and complaint

1.702 visualizações

Publicada em

Blockchain Terminal complaint by Edith Pardo

Publicada em: Direito
  • The 3 Secrets To Your Bulimia Recovery ▲▲▲ http://ishbv.com/bulimiarec/pdf
       Responder 
    Tem certeza que deseja  Sim  Não
    Insira sua mensagem aqui
  • Seja a primeira pessoa a gostar disto

Blockchain Terminal summons and complaint

  1. 1. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ______________________________________________ Index No.: Date Filed: BCT INC SECZ AND CG BLOCKCHAIN, INC SUMMONS Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs designate -against- New York County as the Place of Trial LARRY CERMAK The basis of venue is Defendant. the Defendant’s place of business and the place of business of CG Blockchain, Inc ________________________________________________ To the above-named defendant: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the Plaintiff’s attorney within twenty (20) days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the date of service (or within thirty (30) days after the service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief requested in the complaint. Dated: New York, NY December 13, 2018 Edith Pardo Mehler Esq. Attorney for the Plaintiff Address: 77 Water Street, Suite 700 New York, NY 10005 Tel: (212) 390-8368 Defendant address: Larry Cermak Head Of Analysis The Block 18 West 18th St New York, NY 10011 larry@theblockcrypto.com
  2. 2. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------x Index No.: Date Filed: BCT INC SEZC Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT -against- LARRY CERMAK Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------x Plaintiffs, BCT INC SECZ (“BCT”) AND CG BLOCKCHAIN, INC (“CG”), by their attorney, Edith Pardo Mehler, Esq., as and for their verified complaint against the defendant, LARRY CERMAK (“Cermak”), allege as follows: AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 1. At all relevant times hereinafter mentioned, BCT was and is a Cayman Islands exempted company, with an office address of Floor 4, Willow House, Cricket Square, Grand Cayman KY1-9010 Cayman Islands. 2. At all relevant times hereinafter mentioned, CG was and is a New York corporation, with an office address of 77 Water Street, Suite 700, New York, NY 10005. 3. Upon information and belief, and at all relevant times hereinafter mentioned, Cermak was and is a domestic resident, with an business address of 18 West 18th St, New York, NY 10011. 4. Upon information and belief, Cermak is the Head of Analysis at The Block, a cryptocurrency website. 5. On October 29, 2018, Cermak reached out via email to a former contractor of CG inquiring about the participation of an individual, Ran Neu-Ner (“Neu-Ner”), in the purchase of digital tokens issued by BCT (“BCT Tokens”). Information regarding purchasers of BCT Tokens
  3. 3. is considered private and confidential, and the Plaintiffs did not provide to Cermak any information about Neu-Ner’s alleged purchase of BCT Tokens. 6. On December 10, 2018, one day before Cermak published an article about the Plaintiffs, an associate of Cermak at The Block reached out to the Plaintiffs through indirect means, including LinkedIn and the general contact webform for Estey-Hoover, Inc, an affiliate of the Plaintiffs, in a veiled attempt to provide a record of contacting the Plaintiffs while avoiding direct contact with the CEO of BCT, Josh Dettman (“Dettman”), whose email address was publicly available, and who was available to assist Cermak and his associates with the pending article. 7. Dettman, however, came across the LinkedIn message and immediately responded to Cermak’s associate via email. In two emails Dettman advised Cermak’s associate that he was happy to speak about the pending article. 8. Dettman further advised Cermak’s associate in his second email that the publication of misinformation could cause the Plaintiffs irreparable harm and urged the associate not to publish anything until he could verify facts. 9. Dettman then sent an email to Cermak stating that the information alleging that Neu-Ner was an investor was false. Dettman further reiterated for Cermak that the publication of misinformation could cause the Plaintiffs irreparable harm and urged Cermak not to publish anything until he could verify facts. Dettman suggested a call between himself and Cermak to discuss the pending article and to address any questions. 10. Dettman further made multiple calls to Cermak, notifying Cermak that the Plaintiffs had reason to believe that Cermak was provided incorrect information, and requesting a meeting so he could help verify and confirm pertinent facts, to which Cermak agreed. A time for the meeting was set for the evening of December 10, 2018, which was prior to the scheduled publication of the article on the following day.
  4. 4. 11. Dettman further disclosed his intention to have the meeting in the presence of legal counsel, and to have the meeting recorded and provide both parties a copy of the meeting transcript so that there would be no misunderstanding regarding the meeting discussions. 12. Prior to the pre-arranged meeting, Cermak abruptly cancelled the meeting, and published his article on December 10, 2018, one day prior to the scheduled publication date. 13. Cermak had been informed by Dettman that some of his information proposed for the article was incorrect, and that Dettman was willing, even on short-notice, to provide feedback to correct the information proposed to be published by Cermak. 14. Cermak acting negligently and in opposition to journalistic standards and practices by not verifying the information in the article, even after being clearly notified that certain information was incorrect, and that the Plaintiffs were willing to assist Cermak in correcting false information. 15. Upon information and belief, Cermak used former contractors of the Plaintiffs who were disgruntled and unreliable sources. Cermak knew or should have known that such sources would be conflicted and untrustworthy. In fact, a reasonable due diligence effort would have revealed substantial evidence that many of these former contractors are part of a direct competitor of Plaintiffs that is (a) leading a private and public smear campaign against the Plaintiffs and (b) is illegally using the Plaintiffs’ intellectual property without authorization. 16. The incorrect information is now in the public domain and has caused irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs’ reputations, the launch of the BCT product, and its BCT Tokens. The BCT Tokens alone represented approximately $30,000,000 in contributions to develop the BCT product. 17. After Cermak had published the article, Dettman emailed an associate of Cermak at The Block, providing written evidence of the ill will and untrustworthiness of Neu-Ner, who was one of Cermak’s sources. Cermak nonetheless has refused to delete the article.
  5. 5. 18. The publication of the article with false information has defamed the Plaintiffs 19. The defamatory actions of Cermak have caused significant damage to the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are seeking damages from Cermak in the amount of $40,000,000. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 20. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs “1” through “19” hereof as if fully set forth at length herein. 21. The publication of the article with false information has libeled the Plaintiffs. 22. The libelous actions of Cermak have caused significant damage to the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are seeking damages from Cermak in the amount $40,000,000. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendant, Cermak, as follows: 23. On the first and second causes of action, judgment in the sum of $40,000,000. 24. The costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred by the Plaintiffs in connection with this action. 25. Immediate deletion and retraction of the Cermak article. 26. An Order requiring the Defendant to meet with the Plaintiff, take into account corrections and explanations (as applicable) as provided by the Plaintiff, and issue a public statement of correction. 25. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: New York, New York December 13, 2018 Edith Pardo Mehler, Esq. Attorney for the Plaintiff Address: 77 Water Street, Suite 700 New York, NY 10005 Tel: (212) 390-8368

×