Williams et al v. Block.One et al
Case Number: 1:2020cv02809
Filed: August 4, 2020
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
Nature of Suit: Securities/Commodities
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 77 Securities Fraud
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
February 20, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 201 ORDER denying (185) Motion to Approve ; denying (199) Motion for Attorney Fees in case 1:20-cv-02809-LAK; denying (71) Motion to Approve ; denying (85) Motion for Attorney Fees in case 1:20-cv-03829-LAK. Pending before me are motions to approve a proposed class action settlement and an award of attorneys' fees. By order dated November 13, 2023, I directed the parties to provide the Court by November 22, 2023 with certain information relevant to its consideration of the pending motio n. The parties have not done so. Nor have they sought any extension of time. In the circumstances, the pending motions (20-cv-2809 Dkts 185 199; 20-cv-3829 Dkts 71, 85) are denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 2/20/24) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-02809-LAK, 1:20-cv-03829-LAK (yv)
November 13, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 200 ORDER. On or before November 22, 2023, the parties jointly shall submit a letter to the Court providing, for each potential class member who has submitted a proof of claim form ("claimant"), assuming for the purpose of this exercise that the form is timely and valid as further set forth in this Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 11/13/23) (yv)
May 18, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 183 ORDER PROVIDING FOR NOTICE AND CERTIFYING CLASS: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Court finds that the Settlement has resulted from arms-length bargaining between the parties and as such may be submitted to the Class for consideratio n pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1)(B)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") shall be held before this Court on September 19, 2023 at 2:00pm, at the United States District Court for the Southern Dis trict of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, Room 21B, to determine whether the proposed Settlement of the Action on the terms and conditions provided for in the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class and shou ld be approved by the Court; as further set forth. 7. The Court also finds, pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that it will likely be able to certify Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative for the Class and app oint Lead Counsel as Class Counsel for the Class, pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as further set forth. 11. All fees, costs, and expenses incurred in identifying and notifying members of the Class shall be paid from th e Settlement Fund and in no event shall any of the Released Parties bear any responsibility for such fees, costs, or expenses, as further set forth. 18. Any member of the Class may appear and object if he, she, or it believes there is any reason why the proposed Settlement of the Action should not be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; why a judgment should not be entered thereon; why the Plan of Allocation should not be approved; why attorneys' fees and expenses should not be award ed to Lead Counsel for its service to the Class or why costs and expenses should not be awarded to Lead Plaintiff. No Class Member or any other Person shall be heard or entitled to contest the approval of the terms and conditions of the proposed Sett lement, or, if approved, the Judgment to be entered thereon approving the same, or the order approving the Plan of Allocation, or any attorneys' fees and expenses to be awarded to Lead Counsel, unless written objections and copies of any papers and briefs are received by Daniel L. Berger, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., 485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor, New York, NY 10017 and Neal Potischman, Davis Polk& Wardwell LLP, 1600 El Camino Real, Menlo Park, CA 94025, on or before August 29, 2023 (a date twenty-one (21) calendar days before the Settlement Hearing); and said objections, papers, and briefs are filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on or before August 29, 2023 (a date twenty-one (21) calendar days before the Settlement Hearing), as further set forth. 21. All papers in support of the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and any application by Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses and for costs and expenses for Lead P laintiff, shall be filed and served no later than 7/25/2023 (thirty-five (35) calendar days prior to the deadline for class members to object and any reply papers in support of final approval and in response to any written objections shallbe filed an d served no later than 9/12/2023 (seven (7) calendar days before the Settlement Hearing), as further set forth. 31. The Court retains jurisdiction to consider all further applications arising out of orconnected with the proposed Settlement. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Brief due by 8/23/2023. Motions due by 7/25/2023. Replies due by 9/12/2023. Settlement Conference set for 9/19/2023 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 21B, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.) (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 5/18/2023) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-02809-LAK, 1:20-cv-03829-LAK (mml)
August 15, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 146 MEMORANDUM OPINION re: (118 in 1:20-cv-02809-LAK, 118 in 1:20-cv-02809-LAK) MOTION to Approve Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement . MOTION to Certify Class and Class Representative, and Appointment of Lead Counsel as Class Counsel, and Approval of the Plan of Allocation of Settlement Funds. filed by Crypto Assets Opportunity Fund LLC, (122 in 1:20-cv-02809-LAK) MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses and Awards to Lead Plaintiff Pursuant to U.S.C. §78(U)-(4)(A)(4). filed by Crypto Assets Opportunity Fund LLC. This Court is entirely mindful of the adage that the law favors settlements. Indeed, it perhaps would blink reality to deny that the law sometimes may have a special place i n its metaphorical heart for settlements of complicated cases that otherwise would be costly, time consuming, and difficult to resolve. And class actions serve an important and useful purpose as Jong as the overriding principle of fairness and the r equirement of adequacy of representation are rigorously observed lest an individual class action become an instrument of inequity. That is why the burden of establishing the adequacy of representation in and overall fairness of a proposed class settlement is on the proponent. In this case, the Court has not been persuaded that the requirement of adequate representation has been satisfied. And it hastens to add that it implies no misconduct or criticism of the Lead Plaintiff or its experi enced and well regarded Lead Counsel. The problem, as the Court already has noted, is a structural problem having roots in the unusual market that the case concerns. For the foregoing reasons, Lead Plaintiffs' motions (a) for final approva l of the proposed settlement, to ce1tify the proposed settlement class, and to appoint Lead Plaintiff as class representative and Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. as class counsel (Dkt. 118), and (b) to award fees and costs to Lead Counsel and costs to Lead Plaintiff (Dkt. 122) are denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 8/13/2022) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-02809-LAK, 1:20-cv-03829-LAK (ks)
November 3, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 133 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Plaintiff's counsel shall provide the following on or before November 10, 2021: A consolidated summary lodestar spread sheet setting forth, for each individual for whom compensation is sought, (a) the number of hours at each hourly rate in effect for that individual at the time the hours were devoted and (b) a summary line reflecting the total hours and the individual's blended historical hourly rate over the course of the litigation. An analysis of the c ategories of work for which compensation is sought, the hours devoted to each category by each individual for whom compensation is sought, and the "lodestar" for that category of work by each individual based on historical rates. For the guidance of counsel, the Court found the categories used in In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Secur. Litig., 94 F. Supp.3d 517, 529 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), aff'd sub nom. De Valerio v. Glinski, 673 Fed. Appx. 87 (2d Cir. 2016), to have been helpful. Th e Court, however, recognizes that other sets of categories also might be helpful or more helpful as well as more easily employed. It is open to another approach. Counsel, however, would be well advised to inform the Court in advance of the manner in which they propose to supply this information. Counsel should address whether plaintiff Crypto Assets Opportunity Fund is typical of other putative class members with regard to the classification of its purchases as domestic or foreign and the basis for the assertion that it is an adequate class representative and as further set forth in this Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 11/3/21) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-02809-LAK, 1:20-cv-03829-LAK (yv)
June 23, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 115 ORDER PROVIDING FOR NOTICE AND CERTIFYING CLASS granting (110) Motion to Approve Approve form and manner of giving notice of proposed settlement to the proposed class; granting (110) Motion to Certify Class in case 1:20-cv-02809 LAK. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Court finds that the Settlement has resulted from arms-length bargaining between the parties and as such may be submitted to the Settlement Class for consideration pursuant to Rule 23(e)(l)(B)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedu re. A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") shall be held before this Court on November 17, 2021 at 9:30am.), at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, Room 21B, to determ ine whether the proposed Settlement of the Action on the terms and conditions provided for in the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class and should be approved by the Court; to determine whether, for purposes o f the proposed Settlement only, the Action should be certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, Lead Plaintiff should be certified as Class Representative for the Settlement Class, and Lead Counsel should be appointed as Class Co unsel for the Settlement Class; to determine whether a Judgment as provided in paragraph 1.15 of the Settlement Agreement should be entered; to determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved; to determine any amount of attorneys ' fees and expenses that should be awarded to Lead Counsel for their service to the Settlement Class; to hear any objections by Settlement Class Members to the Settlement Agreement or Plan of Allocation or any award of attorneys' fees and e xpenses to Lead Counsel and any award to the Lead Plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §77z-l(a)(4) and/or 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4); and to consider such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. The Court also finds, pursuant to Rule 23(e) (l)(B)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that it will likely be able to certify Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative for the Settlement Class and appoint Lead Counsel as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class, pursuant to Rule 23(g) of t he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court approves the form, substance, and requirements of the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice) and Proof of Claim and Release, substantially in the forms annexed hereto a s Exhibits A-1 and A-2, respectively. The Court approves the Summary Notice, substantially in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit A-3. The Court appoints the firm Epiq Global ("Claims Administrator") to supervise and administer the notice procedure as well as the processing of claims as more fully set forth below. The Court retains jurisdiction to consider all further applications arising out of or connected with the proposed Settlement. (as further set forth herein). The Clerk shall terminate Dkt. 113. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 6/23/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-02809-LAK, 1:20-cv-03829-LAK (kv)
February 22, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 106 ORDER GRANTING THE EX PARTE MOTION OF CRYPTO ASSETS OPPORTUNITY FUND LLC FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE OF PROCESS granting (102) EX PARTE MOTION for Alternative Service of Process . in case 1:20-cv-02809-LAK. THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOW S: The Motion is GRANTED; and Service of the Amended Complaint upon Blumer is authorized pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f) nunc pro tunc. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 2/22/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:20-cv-02809-LAK, 1:20-cv-03829-LAK (jca)
August 4, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 57 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 20 MOTION for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Co-Lead Counsel; granting 22 MOTION to Appoint Counsel; granting 22 MOTION to Consolidate Cases 1:20-cv-3829; granting 22 MOTION to Appoint Crypto Assets Opportunity Fund LLC and Johnny Hong to serve as lead plaintiff(s). For all these reasons, Crypto assets' motion [Dkt. 22] is granted and the Williams Group's motion [Dkt. 20] is denied. Accordingly, these cases are consolidated. Crypto Assets Opportunity Fund, LLC is appointed Lead plaintiff. The firm of Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. is appointed Lead Counsel. Unless otherwise ordered, this order shall apply to any securities fraud against Block. One that subsequently may be 1led in or transferred to this Court. (And as further set forth herein). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 8/4/2020) (jca)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Williams et al v. Block.One et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?