Anotek Pursued Legal Actions Against Venture Exchange, Including Contract Details about Generating Fake Interest
As regulatory measures have been established throughout the world, more lawsuits are growing from investors that believe that they’ve been wronged. In a recent case, it looks like Anotek has accused Venture Exchange of breaching an agreement, wherein Anotek was supposed to provide services for a token sale “associated with cryptocurrency,” according to reports from The Block.
Unfortunately, Anotek is alleging that the defendant did not follow through with their end of the bargain, which was to provide Anotek with:
- 2.25% of the revenue from the rounds of token sales that Venture Exchange benefited from
- 0.25% of the revenue, in the event that Venture Exchange secured Alexander Ivanov or someone similar were to become an advisor
- 0.5% of the total “token supply,” if Venture Exchange managed to establish any relationships with the top 100 cryptocurrencies
In the complaint, Anotek explains that Venture did not proceed with any actions that would push along the token sale, even though they were happy with the work performed by Anotek. Furthermore, Anotek states that they introduced the platform to Sasha Ivanov (Waves) and Brendan Blumer (Block.One), while turning away other business opportunities that could have made their own revenue. The company also alleges that they did not distribute or sell the software that Venture was planning to use for the tokenization of their assets.
Despite claiming that Venture never went through with the token sale, the platform later alleges that Venture managed to make $3 million in a sale of tokens and that they should be awarded the commission promised in their contract. The company established three counts against Venture – breaching the contract, breaching implied good faith and fair dealing, and “unjust enrichment.” Unjust enrichment is the type of claim with an associated contract, just in case, a contract claim will not work.
The Block writes that the strangest circumstance surrounding the case is the contract itself.
Apart from the fact that this contract gives the plaintiff rights to future proceeds, the contract also includes information about the company’s services. Those services include creating “automatic bots” to be used on social media, which would “potentially increase the project’s attractiveness to investors.” If social media platforms were to not allow bots, then Anotek said that they would send the bots to Telegram instead. Essentially, the conflict is that the plaintiff allegedly wasn’t paid for the false interest in a token sale that they elicited to con people.
It is possible that the actions taken to create false interest were done in a place that allows for this type of misleading tactic. There’s very little information about either of the companies online, but the United States sees those kinds of methods to get investors involved as a major problem. Considering that the contract stated that the company was going to take exactly these actions, it is surprising to see a court case filed in the US.