Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 06/25/2018 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: January 30, 2018

According to the Complaint, from August 15, 2017 through September 15, 2017, Defendants ran the Paragon ICO
“presale” during which time they purportedly “sold out” of 70,000,000 ParagonCoins (“PRG Tokens”) priced between $0.75 and $0.90 per PRG Token. From September 15, 2017 through October 16, 2017, Defendants ran the Paragon ICO “crowd sale,” during which time PRG Tokens were offered and sold for $1 each on the first day and the price thereafter increased by $0.05 per day until the close of the Paragon ICO.

On November 2, 2017, Defendants emailed Paragon ICO investors an update which indicated that during the Paragon ICO “crowd sale” they had collected 533 BTC and 8,092 ETH— worth approximately $7.3 million and $10.2 million, respectively, as of January 12, 2018. In this update, Defendants also stated that these amounts did not include any of the cryptocurrencies they collected during the Paragon ICO “presale.” Given that Defendants have represented that the Paragon ICO “presale” sold 70,000,000 PRG Tokens at a minimum price of $0.75,3
and that the Paragon ICO “crowd sale” raised 533 BTC and 8,092 ETH, these representations indicate that Defendants collected at least $70 million during the Paragon ICO.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants marketed the Paragon ICO as offering a path towards legalization of cannabis and a way to solve nearly every issue facing the cannabis industry. As discussed herein, the Paragon ICO was in actuality a way for Defendants to raise capital to purchase real estate.

On May 10, 2018, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on June 22.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector:
Industry:
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol:
Company Market:
Market Status:

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 18-CV-00671
JUDGE: Hon. Jeffrey S. White
DATE FILED: 01/30/2018
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/15/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/16/2017
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Levi & Korsinsky (San Francisco)
    44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650, Levi & Korsinsky (San Francisco), CA 94104
    (415) 291-2420 (415) 484-1294 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 18-CV-00671
JUDGE: Hon. Jeffrey S. White
DATE FILED: 06/22/2018
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/15/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/16/2017
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Levi & Korsinsky LLP (DC)
    1101 30th Street, NW; Suite 115, Levi & Korsinsky LLP (DC), DC 20007
    ·
No Document Title Filing Date