Processing your request

please wait...

Case Page


Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 02/19/2019 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: March 29, 2018

According to the Complaint, Plaintiffs first came to know Defendant during the Class Period when Defendant sought to promote his alleged new cryptocurrency - "Dark Ripple" ("DRIP"). Playing off the successful cryptocurrency known simply as “Ripple,” Defendant is alleged to have claimed to the be developer of Dark Ripple and fashioned DRIP to be better, more transparent, alternative to the mainstream cryptocurrency Ripple.

Using common means of cryptocurrency promotion, such as social media, online chat platforms such as Telegram and popular forums such as, Defendant set about a scheme to defraud Plaintiffs through the sale of DRIP tokens. This included using the Ripple logo as to indicate a formal relationship with the cryptocurrency. It was through those mediums that Defendant allegedly solicited for sale and ultimately sold the illusory and economically worthless DRIP digital currency.

On September 27, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for Order of Default against the individual Defendant in this case. On February 14, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for Order of Default against another individual Defendant.


Sector: Financial
Industry: Consumer Financial Services
Headquarters: United States


Ticker Symbol: N/A
Company Market: N/A
Market Status: N/A

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. Illinois
DOCKET #: 18-CV-02288
JUDGE: Hon. Jorge L. Alonso
DATE FILED: 03/29/2018
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/31/2017
  1. The Tracy Firm, Ltd.
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available