FOLLOW US

Andreessen Horowitz, an affiliate of Bain Capital, and several other venture capital firms have petitioned a California federal judge to reevaluate his decision not to dismiss a proposed class action. The lawsuit alleges they assisted a decentralized crypto organization in selling unregistered securities. They argue that the plaintiffs previously informed the court that they no longer intend to pursue what are known as "direct liability" claims against the firms.

In December 2022, two individual investors filed a lawsuit asserting that they had acquired unregistered securities from an entity known as the Compound Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO). They claim that this entity, allegedly funded by the venture capital firm defendants, sold them these securities. In September, U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick rejected the firms' motion to dismiss the lawsuit, citing a failure to demonstrate that they were not actively involved in promoting the sale of the DAO's assets.

Five investment firms, including the venture capital division of private equity giant Bain Capital, and investment firms Polychain Alchemy LLC, AH Capital Management LLC, Paradigm Operations LP, and Gauntlet Networks Inc., have filed motions on Friday and Monday, contending that since the investors have abandoned their direct liability claims, the court should revisit its decision.

"Courts cannot consider claims that are no longer extant, and thus seeks reconsideration of the portion of the order finding that each of the Partner Defendants are liable under a direct theory," stated Gauntlet in its motion for reconsideration on Monday.

In August, the investors responded to the defendants' motion to dismiss, stating that they "do not presently allege that the partner defendants are directly liable" under Section 12 of the Securities Act. Instead, the investors argue that the firms are liable because the Compound DAO is liable under Section 12. As the DAO is a general partnership without limited liability protections, the partner defendants are responsible for its liabilities, according to the investors.

The venture capital firms, collectively referred to as the partner defendants, argued in their motions for reconsideration that the court's decision to not dismiss the lawsuit was based on the incorrect assumption that the abandoned claims had been revived. Even taking into account the abandoned theory of liability, the partner defendants are not liable, they contend.

The partner defendants had initially sought to dismiss the investors' amended complaint in May. They contended that the investors failed to identify specific acts in which the partner defendants had solicited investments within the year before the complaint was filed in December 2022. Judge Orrick, however, ruled that the investors' claims were appropriately targeted and not time-barred.