SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 5
Download to read offline
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
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
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.
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.
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

More Related Content

What's hot

Report & Recommendation Denying Preliminary Injunction - MDFL
Report & Recommendation Denying Preliminary Injunction - MDFLReport & Recommendation Denying Preliminary Injunction - MDFL
Report & Recommendation Denying Preliminary Injunction - MDFLPollard PLLC
 
ABI Journal Article 7-2014
ABI Journal Article 7-2014ABI Journal Article 7-2014
ABI Journal Article 7-2014Janine Lee
 
Real time Attorney advice memo priviledged and confidential
Real time  Attorney advice memo priviledged and confidentialReal time  Attorney advice memo priviledged and confidential
Real time Attorney advice memo priviledged and confidentialnicemanin
 
Gov.uscourts.nyed.427196.52.0 (1)
Gov.uscourts.nyed.427196.52.0 (1)Gov.uscourts.nyed.427196.52.0 (1)
Gov.uscourts.nyed.427196.52.0 (1)Daniel Alouidor
 
Dickson_Davis_Deborah_Sample_Writing_Order_060716
Dickson_Davis_Deborah_Sample_Writing_Order_060716Dickson_Davis_Deborah_Sample_Writing_Order_060716
Dickson_Davis_Deborah_Sample_Writing_Order_060716Deborah Dickson
 
FindLaw | Marc Cuban Insider Trading Charges Dismissed
FindLaw | Marc Cuban Insider Trading Charges DismissedFindLaw | Marc Cuban Insider Trading Charges Dismissed
FindLaw | Marc Cuban Insider Trading Charges DismissedLegalDocs
 
James Walters Kellogg & Andelson - declaration 8.4.93
James Walters   Kellogg & Andelson - declaration 8.4.93James Walters   Kellogg & Andelson - declaration 8.4.93
James Walters Kellogg & Andelson - declaration 8.4.93jamesmaredmond
 
First Natl Acceptance Co. v. City of Utica_12-cv-01622-0[1]
First Natl Acceptance Co. v. City of Utica_12-cv-01622-0[1]First Natl Acceptance Co. v. City of Utica_12-cv-01622-0[1]
First Natl Acceptance Co. v. City of Utica_12-cv-01622-0[1]James Evans
 
Robert McCaughtry, et al. vs. City of Red Wing
Robert McCaughtry, et al. vs. City of Red WingRobert McCaughtry, et al. vs. City of Red Wing
Robert McCaughtry, et al. vs. City of Red WingPost-Bulletin Co.
 
Cases for Indefeasibility of Title
Cases for Indefeasibility of TitleCases for Indefeasibility of Title
Cases for Indefeasibility of TitleAzrin Hafiz
 
Contract02-OuditN_LARWIII
Contract02-OuditN_LARWIIIContract02-OuditN_LARWIII
Contract02-OuditN_LARWIIINivv Oudit
 
Saud_Summary_Experience__2016
Saud_Summary_Experience__2016Saud_Summary_Experience__2016
Saud_Summary_Experience__2016Saud A.H. Khokhar
 
Beneficial Motion to Dismiss Based on SB 814
Beneficial Motion to Dismiss Based on SB 814Beneficial Motion to Dismiss Based on SB 814
Beneficial Motion to Dismiss Based on SB 814Seth Row
 
The Cost of Litigation: A Case Study, Business Law, Plymouth State University...
The Cost of Litigation: A Case Study, Business Law, Plymouth State University...The Cost of Litigation: A Case Study, Business Law, Plymouth State University...
The Cost of Litigation: A Case Study, Business Law, Plymouth State University...Kevin O'Shea
 

What's hot (19)

2003 4
2003 42003 4
2003 4
 
10000000010
1000000001010000000010
10000000010
 
Report & Recommendation Denying Preliminary Injunction - MDFL
Report & Recommendation Denying Preliminary Injunction - MDFLReport & Recommendation Denying Preliminary Injunction - MDFL
Report & Recommendation Denying Preliminary Injunction - MDFL
 
ABI Journal Article 7-2014
ABI Journal Article 7-2014ABI Journal Article 7-2014
ABI Journal Article 7-2014
 
B204839
B204839B204839
B204839
 
Real time Attorney advice memo priviledged and confidential
Real time  Attorney advice memo priviledged and confidentialReal time  Attorney advice memo priviledged and confidential
Real time Attorney advice memo priviledged and confidential
 
Gov.uscourts.nyed.427196.52.0 (1)
Gov.uscourts.nyed.427196.52.0 (1)Gov.uscourts.nyed.427196.52.0 (1)
Gov.uscourts.nyed.427196.52.0 (1)
 
Dickson_Davis_Deborah_Sample_Writing_Order_060716
Dickson_Davis_Deborah_Sample_Writing_Order_060716Dickson_Davis_Deborah_Sample_Writing_Order_060716
Dickson_Davis_Deborah_Sample_Writing_Order_060716
 
Order Dismissing RICO Darren Chaker
Order Dismissing RICO Darren ChakerOrder Dismissing RICO Darren Chaker
Order Dismissing RICO Darren Chaker
 
FindLaw | Marc Cuban Insider Trading Charges Dismissed
FindLaw | Marc Cuban Insider Trading Charges DismissedFindLaw | Marc Cuban Insider Trading Charges Dismissed
FindLaw | Marc Cuban Insider Trading Charges Dismissed
 
James Walters Kellogg & Andelson - declaration 8.4.93
James Walters   Kellogg & Andelson - declaration 8.4.93James Walters   Kellogg & Andelson - declaration 8.4.93
James Walters Kellogg & Andelson - declaration 8.4.93
 
First Natl Acceptance Co. v. City of Utica_12-cv-01622-0[1]
First Natl Acceptance Co. v. City of Utica_12-cv-01622-0[1]First Natl Acceptance Co. v. City of Utica_12-cv-01622-0[1]
First Natl Acceptance Co. v. City of Utica_12-cv-01622-0[1]
 
Robert McCaughtry, et al. vs. City of Red Wing
Robert McCaughtry, et al. vs. City of Red WingRobert McCaughtry, et al. vs. City of Red Wing
Robert McCaughtry, et al. vs. City of Red Wing
 
Cases for Indefeasibility of Title
Cases for Indefeasibility of TitleCases for Indefeasibility of Title
Cases for Indefeasibility of Title
 
Contract02-OuditN_LARWIII
Contract02-OuditN_LARWIIIContract02-OuditN_LARWIII
Contract02-OuditN_LARWIII
 
Cpc moot 2017
Cpc moot 2017Cpc moot 2017
Cpc moot 2017
 
Saud_Summary_Experience__2016
Saud_Summary_Experience__2016Saud_Summary_Experience__2016
Saud_Summary_Experience__2016
 
Beneficial Motion to Dismiss Based on SB 814
Beneficial Motion to Dismiss Based on SB 814Beneficial Motion to Dismiss Based on SB 814
Beneficial Motion to Dismiss Based on SB 814
 
The Cost of Litigation: A Case Study, Business Law, Plymouth State University...
The Cost of Litigation: A Case Study, Business Law, Plymouth State University...The Cost of Litigation: A Case Study, Business Law, Plymouth State University...
The Cost of Litigation: A Case Study, Business Law, Plymouth State University...
 

Similar to Blockchain Terminal summons and complaint

Sample ex parte application for TRO and preliminary injunction in United Stat...
Sample ex parte application for TRO and preliminary injunction in United Stat...Sample ex parte application for TRO and preliminary injunction in United Stat...
Sample ex parte application for TRO and preliminary injunction in United Stat...LegalDocsPro
 
National union v. redbox order on msj august 7 2014 wd wa
National union v. redbox order on msj august 7 2014 wd waNational union v. redbox order on msj august 7 2014 wd wa
National union v. redbox order on msj august 7 2014 wd waSeth Row
 
Letter Decision Resolving Defendants' Second Discovery Motion.pdf
Letter Decision Resolving Defendants' Second Discovery Motion.pdfLetter Decision Resolving Defendants' Second Discovery Motion.pdf
Letter Decision Resolving Defendants' Second Discovery Motion.pdfHindenburg Research
 
New Kmart Data Breach lawsuit spotlights PCI DSS
 New Kmart Data Breach lawsuit spotlights PCI DSS New Kmart Data Breach lawsuit spotlights PCI DSS
New Kmart Data Breach lawsuit spotlights PCI DSSDavid Sweigert
 
AMENDED MOTION TO STRIKE OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
AMENDED MOTION TO STRIKE OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARIAMENDED MOTION TO STRIKE OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
AMENDED MOTION TO STRIKE OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARIFinni Rice
 
MDFL - Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Trade Secret & Fraud Claims
MDFL - Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Trade Secret & Fraud ClaimsMDFL - Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Trade Secret & Fraud Claims
MDFL - Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Trade Secret & Fraud ClaimsPollard PLLC
 
Legal News Presentation Contract&Tort(Feb08)
Legal News Presentation Contract&Tort(Feb08)Legal News Presentation Contract&Tort(Feb08)
Legal News Presentation Contract&Tort(Feb08)legalnewsblog
 
FORECLOSURE Response to JP Morgan Chase Foreclosure
FORECLOSURE Response to JP Morgan Chase ForeclosureFORECLOSURE Response to JP Morgan Chase Foreclosure
FORECLOSURE Response to JP Morgan Chase Foreclosurelauren tratar
 
Trial Order Ash Grove v. Travelers et al
Trial Order Ash Grove v. Travelers et alTrial Order Ash Grove v. Travelers et al
Trial Order Ash Grove v. Travelers et alSeth Row
 
Sample complaint for rescission of contract in California
Sample complaint for rescission of contract in CaliforniaSample complaint for rescission of contract in California
Sample complaint for rescission of contract in CaliforniaLegalDocsPro
 
Brayshaw v. Annette Garrett, Unconstitutional Internet Posting Removals
Brayshaw v. Annette Garrett, Unconstitutional Internet Posting RemovalsBrayshaw v. Annette Garrett, Unconstitutional Internet Posting Removals
Brayshaw v. Annette Garrett, Unconstitutional Internet Posting RemovalsTerry81
 
2013 0609 - complaint5 (f w exhibits)
2013   0609 - complaint5 (f w exhibits)2013   0609 - complaint5 (f w exhibits)
2013 0609 - complaint5 (f w exhibits)Zenar 2000
 
NVIDIA Countersues Samsung
NVIDIA Countersues SamsungNVIDIA Countersues Samsung
NVIDIA Countersues SamsungNVIDIA
 
1. For the short essay questions write your answers in the space pro.docx
1. For the short essay questions write your answers in the space pro.docx1. For the short essay questions write your answers in the space pro.docx
1. For the short essay questions write your answers in the space pro.docxSONU61709
 
Sample opposition to motion to vacate in California with an attorney affidavi...
Sample opposition to motion to vacate in California with an attorney affidavi...Sample opposition to motion to vacate in California with an attorney affidavi...
Sample opposition to motion to vacate in California with an attorney affidavi...LegalDocsPro
 
Writing Sample Goldman Motion to Quash Pleading
Writing Sample Goldman Motion to Quash PleadingWriting Sample Goldman Motion to Quash Pleading
Writing Sample Goldman Motion to Quash PleadingDavida Goldman
 
Mock Trail Case.
Mock Trail Case.Mock Trail Case.
Mock Trail Case.bbzex
 
Deferred indefeasibility and mortgage priorities
Deferred indefeasibility and mortgage prioritiesDeferred indefeasibility and mortgage priorities
Deferred indefeasibility and mortgage prioritiesRichard Saad
 
CDLA Case law Update February 2012
CDLA Case law Update February 2012CDLA Case law Update February 2012
CDLA Case law Update February 2012Bo Donegan, CPA
 

Similar to Blockchain Terminal summons and complaint (20)

Sample ex parte application for TRO and preliminary injunction in United Stat...
Sample ex parte application for TRO and preliminary injunction in United Stat...Sample ex parte application for TRO and preliminary injunction in United Stat...
Sample ex parte application for TRO and preliminary injunction in United Stat...
 
National union v. redbox order on msj august 7 2014 wd wa
National union v. redbox order on msj august 7 2014 wd waNational union v. redbox order on msj august 7 2014 wd wa
National union v. redbox order on msj august 7 2014 wd wa
 
Letter Decision Resolving Defendants' Second Discovery Motion.pdf
Letter Decision Resolving Defendants' Second Discovery Motion.pdfLetter Decision Resolving Defendants' Second Discovery Motion.pdf
Letter Decision Resolving Defendants' Second Discovery Motion.pdf
 
New Kmart Data Breach lawsuit spotlights PCI DSS
 New Kmart Data Breach lawsuit spotlights PCI DSS New Kmart Data Breach lawsuit spotlights PCI DSS
New Kmart Data Breach lawsuit spotlights PCI DSS
 
AMENDED MOTION TO STRIKE OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
AMENDED MOTION TO STRIKE OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARIAMENDED MOTION TO STRIKE OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
AMENDED MOTION TO STRIKE OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
 
MDFL - Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Trade Secret & Fraud Claims
MDFL - Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Trade Secret & Fraud ClaimsMDFL - Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Trade Secret & Fraud Claims
MDFL - Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Trade Secret & Fraud Claims
 
Legal News Presentation Contract&Tort(Feb08)
Legal News Presentation Contract&Tort(Feb08)Legal News Presentation Contract&Tort(Feb08)
Legal News Presentation Contract&Tort(Feb08)
 
FORECLOSURE Response to JP Morgan Chase Foreclosure
FORECLOSURE Response to JP Morgan Chase ForeclosureFORECLOSURE Response to JP Morgan Chase Foreclosure
FORECLOSURE Response to JP Morgan Chase Foreclosure
 
Trial Order Ash Grove v. Travelers et al
Trial Order Ash Grove v. Travelers et alTrial Order Ash Grove v. Travelers et al
Trial Order Ash Grove v. Travelers et al
 
Sample complaint for rescission of contract in California
Sample complaint for rescission of contract in CaliforniaSample complaint for rescission of contract in California
Sample complaint for rescission of contract in California
 
Brayshaw v. Annette Garrett, Unconstitutional Internet Posting Removals
Brayshaw v. Annette Garrett, Unconstitutional Internet Posting RemovalsBrayshaw v. Annette Garrett, Unconstitutional Internet Posting Removals
Brayshaw v. Annette Garrett, Unconstitutional Internet Posting Removals
 
2013 0609 - complaint5 (f w exhibits)
2013   0609 - complaint5 (f w exhibits)2013   0609 - complaint5 (f w exhibits)
2013 0609 - complaint5 (f w exhibits)
 
NVIDIA Countersues Samsung
NVIDIA Countersues SamsungNVIDIA Countersues Samsung
NVIDIA Countersues Samsung
 
1. For the short essay questions write your answers in the space pro.docx
1. For the short essay questions write your answers in the space pro.docx1. For the short essay questions write your answers in the space pro.docx
1. For the short essay questions write your answers in the space pro.docx
 
Sample opposition to motion to vacate in California with an attorney affidavi...
Sample opposition to motion to vacate in California with an attorney affidavi...Sample opposition to motion to vacate in California with an attorney affidavi...
Sample opposition to motion to vacate in California with an attorney affidavi...
 
Writing Sample Goldman Motion to Quash Pleading
Writing Sample Goldman Motion to Quash PleadingWriting Sample Goldman Motion to Quash Pleading
Writing Sample Goldman Motion to Quash Pleading
 
Mock Trail Case.
Mock Trail Case.Mock Trail Case.
Mock Trail Case.
 
Deferred indefeasibility and mortgage priorities
Deferred indefeasibility and mortgage prioritiesDeferred indefeasibility and mortgage priorities
Deferred indefeasibility and mortgage priorities
 
Yura court orders
Yura  court ordersYura  court orders
Yura court orders
 
CDLA Case law Update February 2012
CDLA Case law Update February 2012CDLA Case law Update February 2012
CDLA Case law Update February 2012
 

Recently uploaded

Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...
Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...
Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...SHRADDHA PANDIT
 
An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha Pandit
An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha PanditAn introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha Pandit
An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha PanditSHRADDHA PANDIT
 
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...Dr. Oliver Massmann
 
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.mike689707
 
The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a Template
The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a TemplateThe Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a Template
The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a TemplateBTL Law P.C.
 
Islamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdf
Islamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdfIslamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdf
Islamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdfNo One
 
Classification of Contracts in Business Regulations
Classification of Contracts in Business RegulationsClassification of Contracts in Business Regulations
Classification of Contracts in Business RegulationsSyedaAyeshaTabassum1
 
ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...
ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...
ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...Anadi Tewari
 
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future Solutions
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future SolutionsPatents and AI: Current Tools, Future Solutions
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future SolutionsAurora Consulting
 

Recently uploaded (10)

Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...
Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...
Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...
 
An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha Pandit
An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha PanditAn introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha Pandit
An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha Pandit
 
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...
 
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.
 
The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a Template
The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a TemplateThe Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a Template
The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a Template
 
Islamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdf
Islamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdfIslamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdf
Islamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdf
 
Criminalizing Disabilities & False Confessions
Criminalizing Disabilities & False ConfessionsCriminalizing Disabilities & False Confessions
Criminalizing Disabilities & False Confessions
 
Classification of Contracts in Business Regulations
Classification of Contracts in Business RegulationsClassification of Contracts in Business Regulations
Classification of Contracts in Business Regulations
 
ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...
ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...
ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...
 
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future Solutions
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future SolutionsPatents and AI: Current Tools, Future Solutions
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future Solutions
 

Blockchain Terminal summons and complaint

  • 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. 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. 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. 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. 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