Can Investors Themselves Be Liable For A Failure To Register The Offer And Sale Of Securities?

Allen Matkins
Contact

Allen Matkins

Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 imposes liability on sellers of securities who violate that Act's registration and prospectus delivery requirements.  Because the statute refers to sellers, it seems unlikely that investors themselves might have liability under Section 12(a)(1).  Things are not as they seem, however. 

Samuels v. Lido Dao, 2024 WL 4815022 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2024), motion to certify appeal denied, 2025 WL 371797 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2025) involved a suit by an investor who bought cryptocurrency tokens on an exchange. The tokens were originally issued by an entity called Lido DAO.  After losing money, the investor sued, alleging that the tokens were offered and sold without registration under the Securities Act.  The defendants included four large institutional investors in Lido—Paradigm Operations, Andreessen Horowitz, Dragonfly Digital Management, and Robot Ventures.  The plaintiff's theory was that Lido was a partnership and the institutional investors were liable under California law for the activities of the partnership—including for Lido's failure to register its crypto tokens as securities.  U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria concluded:

It's true that a partner cannot be directly liable for a violation of Section 12 simply by virtue of their being a partner in an entity that violates that provision (as they could be for a violation of Section 11). But the Act clearly defines “person” to include “a partnership.” 15 U.S.C. § 77b(a)(2). And under California law, general partners are jointly and severally liable for the obligations of the partnership. Cal. Corp. Code § 16306(a). So even though a partner cannot be directly liable for a partnership's violation of Section 12, the partnership can still be a co-obligor, under state law, for the partnership's liability.
 

He therefore denied all of the defendants' motions to dismiss, except Robot's.  He granted Robot Venture's motion because the plaintiff failed to allege that Robot Ventures was a member of the Lido general partnership. 

[View source.]

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations. Attorney Advertising.

© Allen Matkins

Written by:

Allen Matkins
Contact
more
less

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA NOW

  • Increased visibility
  • Actionable analytics
  • Ongoing guidance

Allen Matkins on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide