Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherBrowse by ChannelAbout the NetworkJoin the NetworkProductsSub-MenuProducts OverviewBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAbout UsContactSubscribeSupport
Book a Demo
Search
Close

Private Plaintiff Lawyers Are Actively Targeting ICOs

By Scott H. Kimpel & Mayme Beth Donohue on June 25, 2018
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

While ICO issuers have understandably been focused recently on the latest pronouncements from the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and other regulators, a second group of potential litigants has largely avoided notice. Seeing a potential bonanza, private plaintiffs law firms have become aggressive in soliciting disgruntled investors as clients and filing lawsuits against issuers of digital tokens.

Historically, early stage and venture-capital-backed companies have not been the subject of much private securities litigation. A number of factors contribute to the historic situation, but before the Initial Coin Offering (“ICO”) phenomenon, the investor base for the typical start-up had preexisting relationships with the founders, and venture capital firms resorted to litigation only as a very last resort. Further, the balance sheet for the typical development stage company did not present an attractive target for litigation.

The ICO phenomenon has changed all that. With tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars raised in individual offerings, plaintiff law firms assume that there is sufficient cash available to pay damages and, more importantly, to fund their own legal fees. Further, in an offering made to all-comers without careful scrutiny of the investor base, the close relationships that in the past have often mitigated against litigation are absent.

What claims do plaintiffs pursue against ICO companies? The federal securities laws allow for a private right of action, so in addition to asserting the unregistered offering of a security, antifraud claims are also typically asserted. Plaintiff firms will make their own Howey argument and are not bound by the SEC’s reasoning in the DAO Report, though when convenient, we have seen plaintiff firms cite it approvingly. Private plaintiffs may also assert traditional breach of contract, tort and common law fraud claims against token issuers.

In addition to traditional tort or contractual damages, another private remedy for an unregistered securities offering is rescission—the return of funds to investors. Many states require that the issuer pay interest on invested funds, so it is theoretically possible that an issuer in an unlawful securities offering would be required to return more than 100 percent of investor monies.

Private lawsuits proceed in parallel to any SEC or other governmental investigation. These factors should cause the prudent ICO issuer to seek the advice of experienced counsel before engaging in any offering of a token or other digital asset.

  • Posted in:
    Corporate & Commercial, Technology
  • Blog:
    Blockchain Legal Resource
  • Organization:
    Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • Resource Center
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center
  • Blogging 101

New to the Network

  • Tennessee Insurance Litigation Blog
  • Claims & Sustains
  • New Jersey Restraining Order Lawyers
  • New Jersey Gun Lawyers
  • Blog of Reason
Copyright © 2025, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo