throbber
Case 1:20-cv-03739-SCJ Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 1 of 54
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`FLIK,
`COINSPARK,
`RYAN S. FELTON,
`WILLIAM Q. SPARKS, JR.,
`OWEN B. SMITH, and
`CHANCE B. WHITE,
`
`Defendants,
`And
`HYPERION HOLDINGS LLC,
`STEPHANIE L. BROWN,
`DALE W. FELTON, and
`JENNIFER FELTON,
` Relief Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), for its
`
`Complaint against Defendants FLiK, CoinSpark, Ryan S. Felton (“Felton”),
`
`William Q. Sparks (“Sparks”), Owen B. Smith (“Smith”), Chance B. White
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03739-SCJ Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 2 of 54
`
`(“White”) (collectively, “Defendants”), and Relief Defendants Hyperion Holdings,
`
`LLC (“Hyperion Holdings”), Stephanie L. Brown (“Brown”), Dale W. Felton
`
`(“Dale Felton”), and Jennifer Felton (collectively, “Relief Defendants”), alleges as
`
`follows:
`
`SUMMARY
`
`Between August 2017 and June 2018, Defendants FLiK, CoinSpark
`
`1.
`
`and Felton engaged in fraudulent and unregistered offerings of digital asset
`
`securities, collectively reaping over $3 million in illegal profits from investors.
`
`Shortly after each entity’s offering concluded, Felton misappropriated the funds
`
`raised in that offering and then moved on to his next venture. Despite promising to
`
`use the funds raised from investors to build the FLiK and CoinSpark online
`
`platforms, Felton instead used the funds to buy a Ferrari, a million-dollar home,
`
`diamond jewelry, and other luxury items for himself. None of the proceeds were
`
`used for any of the purposes described in the offering materials.
`
`2.
`
`From approximately August 20, 2017 to September 20, 2017, Felton
`
`and FLiK, a purported video streaming platform promoted by Felton as “Netflix on
`
`the blockchain,” conducted a so-called “Initial Coin Offering” (“ICO”), through
`
`which they raised approximately 539 ether (“ETH”), a digital asset worth
`
`approximately $164,665 as of September 20, 2017, in exchange for FLiK “tokens,”
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03739-SCJ Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 3 of 54
`
`which were digital assets offered as investment contracts, and therefore securities
`
`(the “FLiK ICO”). Defendant Sparks worked with Felton on the FLiK ICO and,
`
`with Felton and others, directly or indirectly offered and sold FLiK tokens through
`
`the FLiK ICO.
`
`3.
`
`On August 17, 2017, prior to the start of the FLiK ICO, Felton
`
`transferred 60 million FLiK tokens to an ethereum blockchain address that he
`
`controlled. Over the next two months, Felton fraudulently promoted FLiK,
`
`including by publishing materially false and misleading statements on various
`
`social media platforms and on the FLiK website. During this same time period,
`
`Felton offered and sold FLiK tokens to investors located all over the world and in
`
`the United States through his account at a digital asset trading platform. (These
`
`offers and sales, as well as offers and sales during the FLiK ICO and Felton’s
`
`subsequent offers and sales of FLiK tokens through June 2018, are referred to
`
`herein collectively as the “FLiK Offering.”) Felton made these sales anonymously
`
`and transferred the proceeds to financial accounts in his own name or under his
`
`control. Felton also diverted the proceeds of the FLiK ICO to his own personal
`
`accounts.
`
`4.
`
`In addition to using the proceeds to purchase a house, cars, jewelry,
`
`and high-end home furnishings. Felton also transferred portions of the proceeds to
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03739-SCJ Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 4 of 54
`
`the Relief Defendants, Jennifer Felton (his wife), Brown (his sister), and Dale
`
`Felton (his father).
`
`5.
`
`In October 2017, Felton began working with White and Smith on a
`
`second offering, this time for a purported digital asset exchange called
`
`“CoinSpark.”
`
`6.
`
`From February 14 through March 14, 2018, Felton and CoinSpark
`
`raised approximately 460 ETH (worth approximately $282,418 as of March 14,
`
`2018) in an unregistered offering of digital assets called “SPARK tokens”
`
`(“CoinSpark ICO” or “CoinSpark Offering”), which were offered and sold as
`
`investment contracts, and therefore securities. Defendants White and Smith
`
`worked on the CoinSpark ICO and, with Felton and others, directly or indirectly
`
`offered and sold SPARK tokens in the CoinSpark ICO.
`
`7. White and Smith promoted the SPARK ICO under false names,
`
`without disclosing that Felton had promised them full-time employment in
`
`connection with CoinSpark, if CoinSpark raised sufficient funds.
`
`8.
`
`On March 20, 2018, Felton transferred the ETH raised in the
`
`CoinSpark ICO to an ethereum blockchain address that he controlled. Felton
`
`subsequently transferred the ETH to other blockchain addresses he controlled, and
`
`converted the ETH to other digital assets and U.S. dollars, before transferring the
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03739-SCJ Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 5 of 54
`
`funds to financial accounts in his own name or under his control, including
`
`accounts of Relief Defendants Jennifer Felton and Hyperion Holdings. Felton also
`
`transferred all unsold SPARK tokens to a blockchain address under his control his
`
`own personal account, for his personal use.
`
`9.
`
`In early April 2018, Felton engaged in manipulative matched trades
`
`intended to create the false appearance of trading activity in SPARK tokens in
`
`order to artificially increase the trading price of SPARK tokens and to induce
`
`others to purchase SPARK tokens.
`
`10.
`
`In offering and selling FLiK and SPARK tokens, Felton, FLiK, and
`
`CoinSpark knowingly, recklessly, or negligently made and disseminated numerous
`
`materially false and misleading statements and engaged in other deceptive acts,
`
`including manipulative trading by Felton.
`
`11. The FLiK and CoinSpark Offerings were illegal offerings of securities
`
`for which no registration statements were filed or in effect, and as to which no
`
`exemption from registration was available.
`
`VIOLATIONS
`
`12. By virtue of the foregoing conduct and as alleged further herein,
`
`a.
`
`Defendants Felton, FLiK, and CoinSpark violated Section 5(a)
`
`and 5(c) of the Securities Act, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03739-SCJ Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 6 of 54
`
`1933 (“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. §§ 77(e)(a), 77(e)(c), 77q(a)], and
`
`Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ( “Exchange Act”) [15
`
`U.S.C. § 78j(b)], and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5].
`
`b.
`
`Defendant Felton aided and abetted FLiK’s and CoinSpark’s
`
`violations of Section 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act, Section 17(a) of the
`
`Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
`
`thereunder.
`
`c.
`
`Defendants Sparks, White and Smith violated Sections 5(a) and
`
`5(c) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a), 77e(c)].
`
`d.
`
`Defendant Felton violated Section 9(a)(1) of the Exchange Act
`
`[15 U.S.C. §78i(a)].
`
`e.
`
`Defendants White and Smith violated Section 17(b) of the
`
`Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(b)].
`
`f.
`
`Relief Defendants Hyperion Holdings, Brown, Dale Felton, and
`
`Jennifer Felton received funds from Defendant Felton for which they gave
`
`no consideration and to which they have no right or legitimate claim.
`
`g.
`
`Defendants, unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, will
`
`continue to engage in the acts, practices, transactions, and courses of
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03739-SCJ Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 7 of 54
`
`business alleged in this Complaint or in acts, practices, transactions, and
`
`courses of business of similar type and object.
`
`NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING AND RELIEF SOUGHT
`
`13. The Commission brings this action pursuant to the authority conferred
`
`upon it by Section 20(b) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(b)] and Sections
`
`21(d)(1) & (d)(5) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(1) & (d)(5)].
`
`14. The Commission seeks a final judgment: (a) permanently enjoining
`
`Defendants from engaging in acts, practices and courses of business alleged herein;
`
`(b) ordering Felton, FLiK, and CoinSpark, joint and severally, and Sparks
`
`separately, to disgorge their ill-gotten gains and to pay prejudgment interest
`
`thereon; (c) prohibiting Felton, pursuant to Section 20(e) of the Securities Act [15
`
`U.S.C. § 77t(e)] and Section 21(d)(2) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(2)],
`
`from acting as an officer or director of any public company; (d) imposing civil
`
`money penalties on Defendants pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act [15
`
`U.S.C § 77t(d)] and Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)];
`
`(e) ordering Relief Defendants jointly and severally with Felton, FLiK, and
`
`CoinSpark to disgorge or return their ill-gotten gains and to pay prejudgment
`
`interest thereon; (f) prohibiting Defendants from participating, directly or
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03739-SCJ Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 8 of 54
`
`indirectly, in any issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of digital asset securities; and
`
`(g) ordering any other and further relief the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`15. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 20(b),
`
`20(d), and 22(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d), and 77v(a)] and
`
`Sections 21(d), 21(e), and 27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), 78u(e),
`
`and 78aa]. Defendants, directly or indirectly, have made use of the means or
`
`instruments of transportation or communication in, and the means or
`
`instrumentalities of, interstate commerce, or of the mails, in connection with the
`
`transactions, acts, practices, and courses of business alleged herein.
`
`16. Venue is proper because the transactions, acts, practices, and courses
`
`of business constituting violations of federal securities laws occurred in the
`
`Northern District of Georgia. Defendants Felton, Sparks, Smith, and White all
`
`reside in the District, and resided in this District at the time of the events alleged
`
`herein, and Defendants FLiK and CoinSpark have their principal place of business
`
`in this District. Relief Defendants Brown and Jennifer Felton reside in this
`
`District, and Relief Defendant Dale Felton traveled to the District during the time
`
`of the events alleged herein. Relief Defendant Hyperion Holdings has its principal
`
`place of business in this District.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03739-SCJ Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 9 of 54
`
`DEFENDANTS
`
`17. Ryan S. Felton, age 46, resides in Atlanta, Georgia. Felton is the
`
`founder, sole owner, and sole officer of FLiK, CoinSpark, and Hyperion Holdings,
`
`which all have their primary place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.
`
`18. FLiK is an unincorporated entity that had its principal place of
`
`business in Atlanta, Georgia in 2017-2018.
`
`19. CoinSpark is an unincorporated entity that had its principal place of
`
`business in Atlanta, Georgia in 2017-2018.
`
`20. William Q. Sparks, Jr., 35, is the social media manager for rapper,
`
`actor, and producer Clifford Joseph Harris, Jr. (“Harris”) and resides in Atlanta,
`
`Georgia.
`
`21. Chance B. White, 41, works in the film and film-editing industry and
`
`resides in Atlanta, Georgia.
`
`22. Owen B. Smith, 40, works in the film and film-editing industry and
`
`resides in Atlanta, Georgia.
`
`RELIEF DEFENDANTS
`
`23.
`
`Jennifer Felton, 46, is the wife of Felton and lives in Atlanta,
`
`Georgia. Jennifer Felton received approximately $32,000 in jewelry purchased
`
`using the proceeds of the FLiK Offering, and approximately $25,000 in checks and
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03739-SCJ Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 10 of 54
`
`transfers and $11,400 in prepaid Bitcoin debit cards using the proceeds of the
`
`CoinSpark Offering. Jennifer Felton also received, jointly with Felton, a home,
`
`cars, furniture, and other luxury goods purchased by Felton with the proceeds of
`
`the FLiK Offering. As described below, these proceeds constitute ill-gotten gains
`
`because Jennifer Felton does not have a legitimate interest in them.
`
`24. Dale W. Felton, 75, is the father of Felton and lives in Navasota,
`
`Texas. Dale Felton received approximately $100,000 from the proceeds of the
`
`FLiK Offering, which, as described below, constitute ill-gotten gains because Dale
`
`Felton does not have a legitimate interest in them.
`
`25. Stephanie L. Brown, 53, is the sister of Felton and lives in
`
`Cartersville, Georgia. Brown received approximately $18,500 from the proceeds
`
`of the FLiK Offering, which, as described below, constitute ill-gotten gains
`
`because Brown does not have a legitimate interest in them.
`
`26. Hyperion Holdings, LLC is a limited liability company formed
`
`under the laws of Georgia, with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.
`
`Hyperion Holdings received approximately $124,250 from the proceeds of the
`
`CoinSpark Offering, which, as described further below, constitute ill-gotten gains
`
`because Hyperion Holdings does not have a legitimate interest in them.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03739-SCJ Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 11 of 54
`
`OTHER RELATED INDIVIDUAL
`
`27. Clifford Joseph Harris, Jr., a.k.a. “T.I.” or “Tip,” 39, is an Atlanta-
`
`based rapper, actor, and producer.
`
`BACKGROUND ON DIGITAL ASSETS AND ICOS
`
`28. The term “digital asset” or “digital token” generally refers to an asset
`
`that is issued and transferred using distributed ledger or blockchain technology,
`
`including “cryptocurrencies,” “coins,” and “tokens.”1 Entities have offered and
`
`sold digital assets in fundraising events, called “initial coin offerings” or “ICOs,”
`
`in exchange for consideration, often other digital assets. FLiK and CoinSpark each
`
`offered and sold digital assets as securities through ICOs.
`
`29. Generally, digital assets may entitle holders to certain rights related to
`
`a venture underlying the ICO, such as rights to profits, shares of assets, rights to
`
`use certain services provided by the issuer, and/or voting rights. These digital
`
`tokens may also be listed on online digital asset trading platforms, where they can
`
`be traded for other digital assets or fiat currency. The digital tokens are often
`
`transferable immediately upon delivery to investors.
`
`
`1
`A blockchain or distributed ledger is a peer-to-peer database spread across a network, that
`records all transactions in theoretically unchangeable, digitally recorded data packages. The
`system relies on cryptographic techniques for secure recording of transactions. Blockchains or
`distributed ledgers can also record “smart contracts,” essentially computer programs designed to
`execute the terms of a contract when certain triggering conditions are met.
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03739-SCJ Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 12 of 54
`
`30.
`
`ICOs are typically announced and promoted through public online
`
`channels. The prospectus soliciting the public to acquire tokens in the ICO is
`
`usually in the form of a “white paper,” which constitutes marketing materials
`
`describing the project and the terms of the ICO. To participate, investors may
`
`transfer funds to a unique digital address set up by the issuer, and the issuer may
`
`deliver tokens to the participants’ unique digital address on a distributed ledger or
`
`blockchain. This process may be partially automated through the use of a smart
`
`contract, as it was for the FLiK and CoinSpark ICOs.
`
`31. On July 25, 2017, the Commission issued the DAO Report of
`
`Investigation, advising that digital tokens or coins may be securities, and thus,
`
`subject to the federal securities laws. Both the FLiK and CoinSpark ICOs occurred
`
`after the DAO Report was released.
`
`FACTS
`
`I. FLiK
`FLiK, Felton, and Sparks Engaged in the Unregistered Offer and
`A.
`Sale of Securities through the FLiK Offering.
`Felton Launches the FLiK ICO
`32. Felton was the owner of a small film production studio in Atlanta,
`
`which focused mainly on filming commercials. In July 2017, shortly after failing
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03739-SCJ Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 13 of 54
`
`to raise funds for a film project and facing financial obligations, Felton began
`
`planning the FLiK Offering.
`
`33. Felton created a FLiK website and various social media accounts and
`
`prepared a white paper and other marketing materials for the FLiK ICO, which he
`
`subsequently published on public online channels.
`
`34.
`
`In the white paper, the FLiK website, and through various social
`
`media accounts, Felton described FLiK as a video-streaming platform that would
`
`accept FLiK tokens issued in the FLiK ICO as payment for content on the
`
`platform. Felton’s offering and promotional materials for the FLiK ICO
`
`emphasized that FLiK tokens would appreciate in value with time, and highlighted
`
`the ability to trade them on digital asset trading platforms. In these materials, as
`
`well as in social media accounts, Felton also emphasized the potential profits from
`
`resale of the tokens, encouraging investors to wait until the FLiK token reached a
`
`sufficiently high resale price before selling.
`
`35. At the time of the FLiK Offering, the FLiK platform had not been
`
`built. Nonetheless, the white paper touted the film and entertainment industry
`
`experience of Felton and others on the FLiK team, including Harris, a well-known
`
`Atlanta-based rapper, actor, and producer, that gave them the skill set necessary to
`
`ensure FLiK’s success.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03739-SCJ Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 14 of 54
`
`36. The terms of the FLiK white paper and marketing materials further
`
`provided that the funds raised in the FLiK ICO would be pooled and that a
`
`significant portion would be used by the FLiK management team to develop
`
`FLiK’s online distribution platform to allow artists to sell or rent their work; to
`
`create a video streaming platform; to license content; and to generally market and
`
`promote the project.
`
` The FLiK ICO Solicited Investors Worldwide, Including in the United States
`
`37. Felton conducted the FLiK ICO from August 20, 2017 through
`
`September 20, 2017. During the FLiK ICO, investors could purchase FLiK tokens
`
`by sending ETH to the FLiK smart contract. The FLiK website and social media
`
`accounts, which were hosted or accessible in the United States, solicited potential
`
`investors from around the world, including in the United States.
`
`38. Felton paid for Facebook advertisement campaigns to promote the
`
`FLiK ICO worldwide, including in the United States. These ad campaigns, which
`
`ran from at least September 1, 2017 through September 11, 2017, specifically
`
`targeted male users, ages 18-50, located in the United States, among other places,
`
`whose interests included “ICO,” “Investment,” and “Investor.” The “text” of the
`
`ads, which appeared on these users’ Facebook News Feeds, included “Video
`
`Streaming Built on the Blockchain. Co-Owned by T.I. [Harris],” which reached
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03739-SCJ Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 15 of 54
`
`over 2,000 users in the United States, including at least 64 users in Georgia, and
`
`“FLIK ICO – Entertainment Revolution! 10 FLIK for Just .002 ETH!” which
`
`reached over 4,000 users in the United States, including 96 users in Georgia.
`
`39. Sparks, a social media manager for Harris, engaged in selling efforts
`
`for FLiK. Sparks announced the FLiK ICO, and that Harris was a co-owner of
`
`FLiK, on Harris’ social media accounts, including Twitter and Facebook. At the
`
`time of the FLiK ICO, Harris had more than 7 million followers on Twitter. The
`
`announcement of the FLiK ICO that Sparks posted on Harris’s social media
`
`accounts, and the assertion Sparks made in those posts that Harris was a co-owner
`
`of FLiK, substantially amplified the reach of FLiK’s marketing campaign for the
`
`FLiK ICO. Sparks made at least one post to Harris’s official Twitter and Facebook
`
`accounts that included the FLiK website address, where investors could purchase
`
`FLiK tokens during the ICO.
`
`40. At Felton’s request, Harris also arranged the FLiK ICO to be
`
`promoted on the Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook accounts of a well-known
`
`American actor, comedian, and producer (“Celebrity 1”), who, at the time of the
`
`FLiK ICO, had more than 34 million followers on Twitter. The announcement of
`
`the FLiK ICO on Celebrity 1’s social media accounts also substantially amplified
`
`the reach of FLiK’s marketing campaign for the FLiK ICO.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03739-SCJ Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 16 of 54
`
`41.
`
` Throughout the FLiK Offering, Felton also anonymously sold
`
`millions of FLiK tokens to investors through a so-called “decentralized digital
`
`asset trading platform”2 and through an Australia-based digital asset trading
`
`platform (the “Australian Trading Platform”), as discussed below.
`
`42. From September 1 through September 13, 2017, Felton transferred
`
`more than 11 million FLiK tokens to the “decentralized digital asset trading
`
`platform” where he began attempting to sell the tokens anonymously to
`
`unsuspecting investors.
`
`43. Also in September 2017, Felton arranged to have FLiK tokens listed
`
`for sale on the Australian Trading Platform. On the day that the FLiK token,
`
`which had no restrictions on resale to U.S. investors, was listed for sale on the
`
`Australian Trading Platform, Felton deposited more than 17.6 million FLiK tokens
`
`into his account at the Australian Trading Platform. In total, from October 6, 2017,
`
`through October 21, 2017, Felton deposited more than 34.7 million FLiK tokens
`
`into his account at the Australian Trading Platform.
`
`
`
`
`A “decentralized digital asset trading platform” typically refers to a trading platform
`2
`where smart contracts (i.e. computer code) are utilized to facilitate peer-to-peer trading of digital
`assets.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03739-SCJ Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 17 of 54
`
`FLiK’s Offer and Sale of FLiK Tokens Was an Offering of Securities
`
`44. Based upon the foregoing, the FLiK tokens offered and sold in the
`
`FLiK Offering were offered and sold as “investment contracts,” and thus securities,
`
`within the meaning of Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77b(a)(1)]
`
`and Section 3(a)(10) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78c(a)(10)].
`
`45. No registration statement was ever filed or in effect for the offers and
`
`sales of FLiK tokens, and no exemption from registration was available for the
`
`FLiK Offering.
`
`B.
`
`Felton and FLiK Engaged in Deceptive Conduct to Defraud FLiK
`Investors and Made and Disseminated Material
`Misrepresentations to Sell FLiK Tokens.
`46. Felton and FLiK knowingly, recklessly, or negligently engaged in
`
`deceptive conduct to defraud FLiK investors by, among other acts:
`
`a) making and disseminating material misstatements to promote
`
`FLiK tokens during the FLiK Offering;
`
`b)
`
`diverting 60 million FLiK tokens to Felton’s digital asset
`
`accounts without disclosing this in the FLiK white paper or on the FLiK
`
`website, and then anonymously selling them FLiK tokens on digital asset
`
`trading platforms;
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03739-SCJ Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 18 of 54
`
`c)
`
`continuing to issue materially false and misleading promotional
`
`statements to pump up the price and to generate a market to support Felton’s
`
`dumping of millions of FLiK tokens in sales subsequent to the ICO; and
`
`d)
`
`using the proceeds of the FLiK Offering for Felton’s personal
`
`use and to purchase luxury goods and gifts rather than for the purposes
`
`disclosed in the offering materials.
`
`47. FLiK and Felton raised approximately $250,000 from investors
`
`through the FLiK ICO and at least $2.2 million more through Felton’s subsequent
`
`FLiK offers and sales in the FLiK Offering.
`
`48. Felton, the sole owner of FLiK, personally made all the statements on
`
`the FLiK website, white paper, social media accounts, including Facebook,
`
`Instagram, Twitter, bitcointalk.org, and the Telegram Messaging App
`
`(“Telegram”), and other marketing materials.
`
`49. Felton made and disseminated numerous material misstatements, all
`
`of which were to create a false and misleading appearance to investors that FLiK
`
`and the FLiK Offering were financially viable or successful as well as financially
`
`rewarding for investors who would be able to acquire a purportedly limited supply
`
`of FLiK tokens in the FLiK Offering. These statement appeared on the FLiK
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03739-SCJ Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 19 of 54
`
`website, white paper, social media accounts, and other marketing materials,
`
`including the examples below.
`
`50. On August 17, 2017, before the FLiK ICO began, Felton transferred
`
`60 million FLiK tokens to himself. He did not disclose the existence of these
`
`tokens or this transfer in the FLiK white paper or otherwise on the FLiK website or
`
`social media posts. This omission was material, as it made other statements about
`
`FLiK token’s availability for allegedly limited sale and distribution, including the
`
`statement regarding the purported FLiK token “burn” (removal from circulation)
`
`that would also occur following the FLiK ICO, in the white paper false or
`
`misleading. Felton knew or was reckless in not knowing that his omission of this
`
`material fact made the other statements in the white paper false or misleading.
`
`51.
`
`In the marketing materials Felton created when the FLiK ICO began,
`
`Felton claimed that FLiK would be a streaming video platform, and that he was
`
`finalizing negotiations to license the digital film libraries of several major
`
`production studios. The marketing materials claimed that FLiK tokens would be
`
`used to rent or buy digital content on the FLiK platform.
`
`52. Felton never incorporated FLiK or formed any business entity for the
`
`FLiK Offering. No FLiK streaming platform ever existed. Felton has admitted
`
`that he had no discussions with the production studios with which he claimed to be
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03739-SCJ Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 20 of 54
`
`finalizing agreements. The misstatements that he made were material, and Felton
`
`knew or was reckless in not knowing that these statements were false when he
`
`made them.
`
`53. Also from the beginning of the FLiK Offering, Felton announced on
`
`the FLiK website and social media accounts that Harris was a co-owner of FLiK.
`
`In fact, Harris was never a co-owner of FLiK. These misstatements made by
`
`Felton were material, and Felton knew or was reckless in not knowing that these
`
`statements were false when he made them.
`
`54. On August 20, 2017, the first day of the FLiK ICO, Felton announced
`
`that “FLiK has another co-owner, but we can’t name him just yet,” and that the
`
`new co-owner “currently owns a large stake in another video stream platform (one
`
`you’ve heard of).” FLiK never had any co-owners; Felton was its only owner.
`
`Felton knew or was reckless in not knowing that these material statements he made
`
`were false when he made them.
`
`55. Within days of launching the FLiK ICO, Felton announced on the
`
`FLiK website and in an update to the white paper that “the company has secured a
`
`significant investment through a private placement offering in accordance with the
`
`Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 501 of Regulation D.” Felton
`
`knew or was reckless in not knowing that these material statements were false
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03739-SCJ Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 21 of 54
`
`when he made them. Felton has admitted that he never conducted any private
`
`offering of FLiK, or provided an equity position to anyone other than himself. No
`
`party made any filing with the Commission pursuant to Regulation D with respect
`
`to FLiK.
`
`56. Further, Felton made a series of additional material misrepresentations
`
`about FLiK, including misstatements on August 26 and on September 3, 16, and
`
`19, 2017, respectively, regarding a purported private investment in FLiK.
`
`57. On August 26, 2017, Felton announced on the Telegram messaging
`
`app that FLiK had “a big buyer making a move into FLiK this week . . . buying
`
`$500,000 worth of tokens.” This statement was material, as this would have been
`
`double the full amount raised in the ICO. Felton knew or was reckless in not
`
`knowing that this misstatement was false when he made it. No one purchased
`
`$500,000 worth of tokens.
`
`58. On August 26, 2017, Felton announced that “Yesterday, we received
`
`word that FLiK will be integrated into the new U.S. Military’s set-top box. This
`
`means we’ll have access to potentially 2,000,000 customers (1.2M active U.S.
`
`military and 800,000 reserve U.S. military) as soon as our platform is ready. This
`
`is HUGE news!” Neither the Department of Defense nor the defense contractor
`
`building the interface for the military’s set-top box had any communications with
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03739-SCJ Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 22 of 54
`
`Felton or any representative of FLiK about integrating FLiK into that interface.
`
`These misstatements by Felton were material, and Felton knew or was reckless in
`
`not knowing that these statements were false when he made them.
`
`59. On September 3, Felton announced on Telegram that the buyer who
`
`had purportedly purchased $500,000 worth of FLiK tokens actually “didn’t receive
`
`tokens” but instead “took a small equity position” in FLiK. He added that the
`
`investor had a “significant connection . . . at a large movie studio.” These
`
`statements were material, and Felton knew or was reckless in not knowing that
`
`these statements were false when he made them.
`
`60. On September 3, 2017, Felton announced that Individual A, the
`
`chairman of a well-known Bitcoin payment-processing company, was handling the
`
`listing of FLiK tokens on other trading platforms, and had been recruited to “get
`
`things done” for FLiK, including “talking with [another digital-asset payment-
`
`processing company] about integrating FLiK tokens into their app.” Felton has
`
`admitted that Individual A had no involvement with listing FLiK tokens on any
`
`trading platforms, nor was individual A involved in any communications with the
`
`other digital-asset payment-processing company about FLiK. These misstatements
`
`by Felton were material, and Felton knew these statements were false when he
`
`made them.
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03739-SCJ Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 23 of 54
`
`61. On or around September 16, Felton announced that FLiK had raised
`
`“over 450 ETH via the ICO and over $2.2M in private equity capital.” Felton’s
`
`statement regarding private equity was material, as $2.2 million in private equity
`
`would have been almost ten times the amount Felton actually had raised in the
`
`FLiK ICO. Felton knew or was reckless in not knowing that this statement was
`
`false when he made it. In fact, the Felton sales that occurred after the ICO phase of
`
`the FLiK Offering netted Felton personally approximately $2.2 million. Felton
`
`thus invented the private equity investment to mislead investors regarding his
`
`transfer of FLiK tokens to himself and his own massive sell-off of FLiK tokens,
`
`which were visible to investors on the blockchain, but not publicly traceable to
`
`him.
`
`62. On September 19, Felton announced that the “private equity”
`
`investors mentioned three days earlier had “wired funds and we reserved coins for
`
`them.” This misstatement was material, and Felton knew or was reckless in not
`
`knowing that this statement was false when he made it.
`
`63. Also on September 19, 2017, Felton responded to concerns investors
`
`raised about the significant volume of FLiK tokens being sold on the
`
`“decentralized digital asset platform” to which Felton had transferred more than 11
`
`million FLiK tokens. In a post on FLiK’s Telegram channel, Felton cast the blame
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03739-SCJ Document 1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 24 of 54
`
`on Harris and promised that Harris would rectify the problem by buying back the
`
`tokens. In fact, Felton has admitted that he never had any information about
`
`personal sales by Harris. This was yet another attempt by Felton to conceal his
`
`own massive sales o

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket