{"id":408808,"date":"2022-02-23T07:41:45","date_gmt":"2022-02-23T04:41:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/en.buradabiliyorum.com\/appellate-court-decision-allows-bitconnect-class-action-to-proceed\/"},"modified":"2022-02-23T07:41:45","modified_gmt":"2022-02-23T04:41:45","slug":"appellate-court-decision-allows-bitconnect-class-action-to-proceed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/appellate-court-decision-allows-bitconnect-class-action-to-proceed\/","title":{"rendered":"# Appellate court decision allows Bitconnect class action to proceed"},"content":{"rendered":"

“# App<\/a>ellate court decision allows Bitconnect class action to proceed <\/strong>”<\/p>\n

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that victims of the Bitconnect Ponzi scheme can proceed with a class action suit by reversing a previous ruling that prohibited such a case.<\/p>\n

Bitconnect is the endlessly memed ICO from 2017 that collapsed in January, 2018. Appellate courts are superior courts that are used to review previously tried cases so the ruling may be reversed or confirmed.<\/p>\n

The alleged victims may now move forward with a class action case against BitConnect (BCC) and its promoters Glenn Arcaro, Ryan Maasen, Trevon James, Ryan HiIdreth, and Craig Grant. There is no word yet on whether the complainants will proceed with the case.<\/p>\n

The original complainants filed suit in order to be compensated for damages from being defrauded by BitConnect and its promoters. The complaint<\/a> says promoters \u201cmade a mockery of state and federal securities laws.\u201d<\/p>\n

Law360 wrote<\/a> on Feb. 22 that the defendants claimed in the Southern District of Florida that since marketing for the project was done using online mass communications platforms, they could not be held liable for securities fraud. <\/p>\n

The defendants successfully argued that there could \u201conly be liability when a seller directs solicitations to particular prospective buyers.\u201d By using online social media<\/a> platforms, the promoters argued that they had not directly solicited the cryptocurrency to buyers. Without that direct solicitation, they argued there was no securities fraud.<\/p>\n

However, the Circuit Court decided to reverse the lower court\u2019s decision to accept that argument since there is no precedent of the Securities Act<\/a> of 1933 preventing online videos from being used in fraud charges.<\/p>\n

Judge Britt C. Grant wrote<\/a> for the court\u2019s panel on Feb. 18:<\/p>\n

“Because the Securities Act provides no free pass for online solicitations, we reverse the district court’s dismissal of the section 12 claim.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Circuit Court\u2019s panel called the lower court\u2019s reading of the Securities Act \u201ccramped\u201d and said that it \u201cmakes little sense\u201d as it would have held a person liable for soliciting a security in a personal letter, but not an internet video.<\/p>\n

David Silver, an attorney in the original case against BitConnect and its promoters tweeted<\/a> on Feb. 19 \u201cThis is an incredibly important decision that will reverberate for years to come.\u201d <\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n

This new precedent adds greater legal risks and responsibilities for crypto promoters who use YouTube, Twitter, and other online communications platforms to shill crypto. Judge Grant wrote, “A new means of solicitation is not any less of a solicitation.”\u00a0<\/p>\n

In recent years, YouTube has removed videos and shut down channels related to cryptocurrency it deems \u201charmful and dangerous.\u201d <\/p>\n

\n

11th Circuit Court of Appeals reverses trial court decision in Bitconnect case and holds that peddling shitcoins in a non-targeted way on the interwebs (YouTube, Twitter etc) exposes promoters to liability from purchasers of unregistered securities. pic.twitter.com\/Oh7BA4GGo2<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2014 Palley (@stephendpalley) February 18, 2022<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n