Case 1:17-cv-24500-RNS Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2019 Page 1 of 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JACOB ZOWIE THOMAS RENSEL, WANG

YUN HE, CHI HAO POON, KING FUNG
POON, JAE J. LEE, MATEUSZ
GANCZAREK, and RODNEY WARREN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,

Plaintiffs, C.A. No. 1:17-cv-24500-RNS/Becerra

v.

CENTRA TECH, INC.,

Defendant

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF FINAL DEFAULT

JUDGEMENT: CALCULATION OF DAMAGES AND INCORPORATED
MEMORANDOM OF LAW

Page 1 of 15
Case 1:17-cv-24500-RNS Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2019 Page 2 of 15

Defendant, Centra Tech, Inc. (“Centra Tech”), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby
files this Motion for Reconsideration of Default Judgment: Calculation of Damages and
Memorandum of Law (“Motion”), and respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter an order
1) setting this matter for hearing so this Honorable Court may consider Defendant’s calculation of
damages; or 2) entering Final Judgment based on the damage calculations set forth herein and
states in support thereof:
BACKGROUND
On December 13, 2017, Co-Lead Plaintiff Rensel initiated this action by filing a complaint
against Centra Tech alleging that the Centra Tech’s Official Sale constituted an unlawful offer and
sale of unregistered securities (in the form of Centra Tokens) in violation of federal securities laws
thus entitling Rensel and the putative class to rescission of their investments and/or compensatory
damages (“Initial Complaint”) [ECF No. 1].
On February 2, 2018, Centra Tech filed a motion to compel arbitration or, in the alternative,
to dismiss the Initial Complaint. [ECF No. 26].
On April 9, 2018, the Court appointed Rensel and He as Co-Lead Plaintiffs pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. [ECF No. 59].
On May 29, 2018, Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to amend the Initial
Complaint so that Plaintiffs could support their claims with factual allegations arising from
information revealed in connection with government actions. [ECF No. 73].
On June 25, 2018, Magistrate Judge, Simonton issued the TRO R&R which determined
that Plaintiff Rensel lacked standing as he had made a profit from selling his Centra Tokens, and
thus, sustained no loss. [ECF No. 79]. On October 9, 2018, with the Court’s leave, Plaintiffs filed
their First Amended Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws. [ECF No. 97]. On
December 10, 2018, the Court granted Centra Tech’s counsel’s motion to withdraw from
representation. [ECF No. 127]. The Court’s December 10, 2018 Order directed Centra Tech to
retain new counsel on, or before, December 28, 2018. Id. On December 28, 2018, Sharma filed a
motion for an extension of time for Centra Tech to obtain new counsel. [ECF No. 147]. On January
3, 2019, the Court granted Sharma’s motion and ordered Centra Tech’s new counsel to enter an
appearance on or before January 17, 2019. [ECF No. 148].
On January 31, 2019, a Clerk’s Default pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) was entered
against Defendant Centra Tech. [ECF No. 172].

Page 2 of 15
Case 1:17-cv-24500-RNS Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2019 Page 3 of 15

On June 7, 2019, the Court issued an Order directing Plaintiffs to “move for Default
Judgment against Centra Tech on June 20, 2019. In response to the Court’s June 7 Order, on June
13, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification [ECF No. 212] (“Motion for Class
Certification”) and, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b), their motion for Default
Judgement against Defendant Centra Tech [ECF No. 211] (“Motion for Default Judgment”).
On September 17, 2019, this Honorable Court issued its Order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Class Certification. [ECF No. 235]. Shortly thereafter, on September 20, this Honorable Court
issued its Order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment as the Court had denied
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and it sought entry of a judgment that provided class-
wide damages and. [ECF No. 236]. Additionally, this Honorable Court ordered Plaintiffs to “file
a renewed motion for default judgment that provides damages calculations specific to their
individual claims” by October 11, 2019. Id.
On October 1, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their renewed and amended motion for class
certification [ECF No. 239] (“Renewed Motion”). On October 2, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their motion
for an extension of time to file their renewed motion for default judgment until such time that the
Court ruled on their Renewed Motion. [ECF No. 240]. On October 3, 2019, this Honorable Court
issued its Order granting Plaintiffs motion for an extension of time to file their renewed motion for
default judgment and Ordered that the renewed motion would be “due two weeks after the Court’s
ruling on the Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.” [ECF No. 241].
On November 20, 2019, this Honorable Court issued its Order denying Plaintiffs’ Renewed
Motion. [ECF No. 258]. On December 3, 2019 Plaintiff’s filed an order for Final Default
Judgement. [ECF No. 259].
On December 13, 2019 this Honorable Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion Default
Judgement. [ECF No. 263].
Defendant files this Motion for Reconsideration of Default Judgment based on the
calculation of damages.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
I. DISCUSSION
The entry of a default does not relinquish Centra Tech’s right to contest whether 1)
Plaintiffs’ claims are well-pleaded; and 2) contesting Plaintiffs’ alleged damages.

Page 3 of 15
Case 1:17-cv-24500-RNS Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2019 Page 4 of 15

Rule 10(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides in part: “A copy of a written
instrument that is an exhibit to a pleading is part of the pleading for all purposes.” A court’s
“…duty to accept the facts in the complaint as true does not require us to ignore specific factual
details of the pleading in favor of general or conclusory allegations.” Griffin Industries, Inc. v.
Irvin, 496 F.3d 1189, 1205-06 (11th Cir. 2007). “A default judgement, however, is a matter of
discretion for the court, not a matter of right to the moving party,” World Atlantic Airlines v.
Dynamic International Airways, LLC, 2017 WL 3107193 at *2 (S.D. FL. Mar. 22, 2019). See also,
Pitts ex rel. Pitts v. Seneca Sports, Inc., 321 F Supp.2d 1353, 1356 (S.D. Ga. 2004).
Centra Tech acknowledges Judge Simonton’s report and recommendation that this
Honorable Court should adopt which sets forth: “the existence of recoverable damages is required
to support a Section 12 claim. In re Mutual Funds Inv. Litig., 384 F. Supp. 2d 845, 866 (D. Md.
2005). Section 12(a) provides for two alternative remedies: (1) rescission upon plaintiff’s prompt
tender of shares in exchange for the original purchase price, or (2) damages if a plaintiff has sold
his shares. 15 U.S.C § 77/(a)(2) (2005); see also Eleventh Circuit Civil Pattern Jury Instructions §
6.6 (2013) (“To prove a claim under § 12(a)(1), [plaintiff] must prove each of the following facts
by a preponderance of the evidence:….[a]nd fourth, you must find that [plaintiff] suffered
damages”); In re Broderbund, 294 F.3d 1201, 1205 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating that “there can be no
recovery [of damages under Section 12] unless the purchaser has suffered a loss, and dismissing
Section 12 claims where the plaintiff sold his shares at a profit); In re Mutual Funds Inv. Litig.,
384 F. Supp. 2d. 845, 867 (D. Md. 2005) (“Because the existence of recoverable damages is an
element of a Section 11 claim, a plaintiff must plead facts demonstrating that he suffered the
particular type of injury contemplated by statue. Although the statutory language of Section
12(a)(2) is different, the effect is the same.”1 See [ECF No. 77]
Section 12(a) provides that any person who “offers or sells a security in violation of Section
5” may be sued “to recover the consideration paid for such security with interest thereon, less the

1
“Although Section 12(a)(1) is sometimes referred to as a “strict liability” provision, this
description refers primarily to the fact that a plaintiff is not required to prove scienter or negligence
on the part of the defendant. Lewis v. Walston & Co., 487 F.2d 617, 621 (5th Cir. 1973) (“Liability
for the sale of unregistered securities is absolute under § 12(1) of the Securities Act of 1933. A
purchaser may recover regardless of whether he can show any degree of fault, negligent or
intentional, on the seller's part.”). The fact that Section 12(a)(1) is a “strict liability” provision does
not release plaintiffs from their obligation to plead and prove they have suffered a loss.” See, ECF
No. 77 at 9.
Page 4 of 15
Case 1:17-cv-24500-RNS Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2019 Page 5 of 15

amount of income received thereon, upon the tender of such security, or for damages if he no
longer owns the security. The term “consideration” means “the money or property given by the
investor in exchange for the security.” Randall v. Loftsgaarden, 478 U.S. 647,659-60 (1986). If
the plaintiff still owns the security, he is entitled to a rescission, but not for damages; if he no
longer owns the security, he is entitled to damages only. Id. at 655. For over twenty years, courts
have held that a plaintiff fails to state a claim for damages under Section 12(a) of the Securities
Act where the plaintiff has already sold the alleged security at issue for a profit. The rationale, as
explained by the Ninth Circuit, is that “there can be no recovery unless the purchaser has suffered
a loss.” In re Broderbund/Learning Co. Sec. Litig. v. Mattell, Inc., 294 F.3d 1201, 1205 (9th Cir.
2001) (dismissing Section 12(a)(2) claim where plaintiff disposed of the security at issue for “an
amount greater than the purchase price”). Federal district courts around the country have
unanimously agreed. See Siemers v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. C 05-04518 WHA, 2007 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 39091, at *13–15 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2007) (dismissing Section 12(a)(2) claim where
plaintiffs sold the relevant securities for a profit of 16% to 19%); In re Mut. Funds Inv. Litig., 384
F. Supp. 2d 845, 866–67 (D. Md. 2005) (dismissing Section 12(a)(2) claim where plaintiffs sold
the relevant securities for a profit); PPM Am. v. Marriott Corp., 853 F. Supp. 860, 876 (D. Md.
1994) (dismissing Section 12(2) claim where plaintiffs sold the relevant securities for a profit).
Since Section 10(b) does not contain provisions for damages, Section 12(b) is the best
measurement of losses in this case in accordance with Section 28. “Although neither Section 10(b)
of the Act nor Rule 10b–5 contains explicit provisions for determining damages, courts have
applied the damages standard of Section 28 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 78bb(a), to Rule 10b–5 claims.” Ronald O. Pelletier v. Stuart-James Company, Inc., 863 F.2d
1550, (11th Cir. 1989), citing, Feldman v. Pioneer Petroleum, Inc., 813 F.2d 296, 301 (10th
Cir.1987). Section 28(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78bb(a), “limits
recovery in any private damages action brought under the 1934 Act to ‘actual damages.’”2 Blue
Chip Stamps, 421 U.S. at 734, 95 S.Ct. at 1925. See Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States,
406 U.S. 128, 92 S.Ct. 1456, 31 L.Ed.2d 741 (1972). In harmony with how losses are to be

2
“15 U.S.C. Sec. 78bb(a) states in part: The rights and remedies provided by this chapter shall be
in addition to any and all other rights and remedies that may exist at law or in equity; but no person
permitted to maintain a suit for damages under the provisions of this chapter shall recover, through
satisfaction of judgment in one or more actions, a total amount in excess of his actual damages on
account of the act complained of.” Ronald O. Pelletier, 863 F.2d at 1557 n. 11.
Page 5 of 15
Case 1:17-cv-24500-RNS Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2019 Page 6 of 15

calculated in a security fraud case, Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment amount which they suffer
actual damages, “In securities fraud cases, therefore, damages are determined in accordance with
the extent to which a plaintiff is actually damaged as a result of the defendant's fraudulent
conduct.” See Ronald O. Pelletier v. Stuart-James Company, Inc., 863 F.2d 1550, (11th Cir. 1989)
citing Harris v. Union Elec. Co., 787 F.2d 355 (8th Cir.1986). “Actual damages” has been
interpreted to mean some form of economic loss and does not include punitive damages. See Jones
v. Miles, 656 F.2d 103, 107 n. 8 (5th Cir. Unit B Aug. 1981). Generally, the appropriate measure
of actual damages in a Rule 10b–5 case is out-of-pocket loss. See Woods v. Barrett Bank of Ft.
Lauderdale, 765 F.2d 1004 (11th Cir.1985); Alna Capital Ass'n v. Wagner, 758 F.2d 562 (11th
Cir.1985); Hackbart v. Holmes, 675 F.2d 1114 (10th Cir.1983).
Here, Plaintiffs are attempting to obtain fully speculative damages, ones that actually
contradict their own position3, which ask for amounts that would have amounted to a value of BTC
and ETH at almost all-time highs, and ones that would give them a monetary loss in U.S. Dollar
value if they had those same positions sold at that very moment. “The measure of damages in a
Rule 10b–5 case is limited to actual pecuniary loss suffered by the defrauded party, and does not
include any speculative loss of profits,” See Ronald O. Pelletier v. Stuart-James Company, Inc.,
863 F.2d 1550, (11th Cir. 1989) citing, “Wolf v. Frank, 477 F.2d 467, 478 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
414 U.S. 975, 94 S.Ct. 287, 38 L.Ed.2d 218 (1973); see also Harris v. American Inv. Co., 523 F.2d
220 (8th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1054, 96 S.Ct. 784, 46 L.Ed.2d 643 (1976). The damages
here are actually computable in a very standard fashion, one that would be “substantial equivalent
of rescission” to which he is entitled, See Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622, 641, n.18 (1988), that
would be monetary damages based on the U.S. Dollar value they had paid in at the time of their
transactions or, in the alternative, damages measured in U.S. Dollar value at the time of their
purchases, and recession for those who did not sell.
II. ARGUMENT
A. PLAINTIFFS’ CALCULATION OF DAMAGES IS FLAWED

Plaintiffs, in their Motion for Final Default Judgement, submitted loss calculations that were
flawed. When Plaintiffs computed the damages, they did not state the U.S. Dollar value of their

3
Plaintiffs Rensel, He, Lee, Ganczarek, and Warren have stated in their almost identical
“templated” affidavits that they had no intentions of, “…to convert that BTC or ETH to U.S.
Dollars or any other fiat currency.” See, ECF No. 260, Exhibits A – E, Points 4, 5, and/or 6.
Page 6 of 15
Case 1:17-cv-24500-RNS Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2019 Page 7 of 15

purchases. However, in every other calculation, they have used U.S. Dollar calculations as it
warranted a much higher monetary amount, instead of informing this Honorable court on how
much Plaintiffs actually paid which would have provided this Honorable Court a full picture of
the losses. Thus, the Plaintiffs, having not providing this Court an accurate view of the matters as
Centra Tech has provided in the attached Defense Exhibits A-H. Centra Tech has provided a full
picture of the transactions and calculated the accurate amounts. Due to the massive differences
from what Plaintiffs’ have stated, a hearing is warranted to address these issues. “[a] final default
judgment is not possible against a party in default until the measure of recovery has been
ascertained,” which “typically requires a hearing, in which the defaulting party may participate.”
See World Atlantic Airlines, 2017 WL 3107193 at *3.
Like other financial instruments and commodities, many virtual currencies, like BTC and
ETH, as well as digital utility tokens, such as CTR, are broadly traded in substantial volume after
their sales on public, online secondary markets known as “digital asset exchanges.” Plaintiffs
Rensel and He are two purchasers who sold their CTR Tokens on these “digital asset exchanges,”
specifically on Binance.com. See, ECF 260, Exhibits A and B. Plaintiff’s Poon, Poon, Lee,
Ganczarek, and Warren have not sold any of their CTR tokens since receiving them. See, ECF
260, Exhibits C, D, and E. Additionally, Plaintiffs Rensel, He, and Ganczarek made other
purchases on secondary “digital asset exchanges” where the seller is unknown. Plaintiff Warren
had never given any form of consideration or payment to Centra Tech, and his purchase of CTR
Tokens were made on a secondary market “digital asset exchange” where the seller is unknown.
Centra Tech, through calculations consistent with this Court and Section 12(a), has
determined that the amounts due in this matter for all Plaintiffs is $49,335.29 and a recession of
430 Ether and 1.834 Bitcoin. In alternative, if this court determines that a recession is not
appropriate, due to the decline in monetary value of the virtual currencies upon recession,
specifically the 430 ETH and 1.834 BTC, the monetary damages measured in U.S. Dollars would
be an additional $133,860.46. This would be a total final default judgement of $183,195.75,
contrary to what the Plaintiffs are seeking under Section 12(a) and Section (10b).
Plaintiffs whom sold CTR Tokens, specifically Plaintiffs Rensel and He, are entitled to only
monetary damages measured in U.S. Dollars as previously ruled in this case,4 pursuant to Section

4
Judge Simonton cited in her Report & Recommendation that, “Plaintiff has cited SEC v. Shavers
for the proposition that Bitcoin, and by extension other cryptocurrencies, have already been
Page 7 of 15
Case 1:17-cv-24500-RNS Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2019 Page 8 of 15

12, because they no longer hold the alleged security. Plaintiffs who did not sell CTR Tokens,
specifically Plaintiff’s Poon, Poon, Lee, Ganczarek, and Warren are entitled to a rescission, but
not damages.5
Plaintiffs are asserting that Centra Tech, “realized tremendous profits through the
appreciation of the BTC and ETH it acquired from Plaintiffs through fraud,” See, ECF 260 at 17.
This argument is flawed. Centra Tech offered three core products during the Centra Tech official
sale; Centra Tokens (“CTR Tokens”), Centra Cards, and Centra Wallet. The CTR Tokens were
immediately received by all Plaintiffs upon completion of their purchases and the Centra Wallets
were delivered and/or made available to purchasers. Centra Cards operating on the MasterCard
network were shipped globally, including to Plaintiffs Poon and Poon, whom actually used their
Centra Cards to make purchases as exactly advertised, contrary to what is claimed. These facts
cannot be disputed.
Plaintiffs also allege in their claim for relief under Section 10(b) that, “Plaintiffs are entitled
to retain the benefit of that appreciation under both Section 12 of the Securities Act and Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act.” See, ECF 260 at 13. Centra Tech has never realized any of these
“profits” claimed by the Plaintiffs as these purchases made through the Centra Tech Official Sale.
The United States Government has seized in total of 91,000 and 9,000 (100,000 total) units of
Ether valued today at approximately $14,932,937.00 which is in excess of what the Plaintiffs are

determined to be money. Case No. 4:13-cv416, 2013 WL 4028182 (E.D. Tex. 2013); see ECF No.
[64] at p. 8-9. However, the court therein did not address the calculation of loss, but rather
concluded only that Bitcoin is a form of money such that the plaintiff’s investment of Bitcoin met
the definition of an investment contract and was a security subject to the Securities Acts of 1933
and 1934. Id. at *2. The Defendants have not disputed the characterization of Centra Tokens as
securities at this stage of the instant proceedings, although they intend to make such a challenge in
the future. ECF No. [26] at 2, n.1 (“Centra Tech’s unwavering position— which it will present at
an appropriate time in these proceedings, if necessary—has been and remains that because of
CTR’s significant utility and lack of other similarities to an investment contract, it is not a security
under the test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S.
293 (1946).”), See ECF- 77 Page 14.
5
15 U.S.C. 77l (“…or for damages if he no longer owns the security”); In re AOL Time Warner,
Inc. Sec. & "ERISA" Litig., 381 F. Supp. 2d 192, 246–47 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (“A plaintiff asserting
a claim under Section 12(a)(2) is entitled to two forms of relief: (1) damages or (2) rescission . . .
If the plaintiff still owns the security, he is entitled to rescission, but not damages; if he no longer
owns the security, damages, not rescission, are the appropriate remedy.”)

Page 8 of 15
Case 1:17-cv-24500-RNS Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2019 Page 9 of 15

claiming they have losses to. In fact, Centra Tech founders have already filed a motion within their
own respective case a “Motion to Return Ether” to give back the Ether units to court-approved
purchasers.6 This also includes funds that Plaintiffs provided to Centra Tech in Ether and in Bitcoin
that were converted to Ether.
Indeed, virtual currencies, such as BTC and ETH, are highly volatile and are not regulated
products such as stocks or securities. Virtual currencies are based on open-source technology and
have extreme price fluctuations with no underlying backing such as a company or commodity. As
such, at the time of the Plaintiffs’ purchases until now, these virtual currencies have fluctuated
several hundreds of percentiles measured in profits and losses. To calculate any hypothetical
scenarios based on the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgement is nonsensical. The Plaintiffs have
already asserted in their Affidavits they had no intention of selling their Bitcoin or Ethereum yet,
they are seeking to achieve monetary damages based on speculative values if they had sold Bitcoin
and Ethereum at their nearly all-time highs in December of 2017. Therefore, even if Plaintiffs’ had
not sold their Bitcoin or Ethereum, as they have declared in their affidavits, the value they would
have had retained today is substantially less than what Centra Tech has calculated in accordance
to Section 12(b).
1. PLAINTIFF RENSEL IS ENTITLED TO NO MONETARY JUDGEMENT AS
HE MADE A PROFIT OF OVER 100%.

Originally, Plaintiff Rensel was dismissed by Judge Simonton, See, ECF No. 77 at 11, due
to a lack of standing by earning a profit on his sales of CTR Tokens. Plaintiff Rensel sold all of
his CTR Tokens on the “digital asset exchange” Binance.com for $6,996.94. Plaintiff Rensel had
acquired his CTR tokens from the Centra Tech Official Sale and from unknown sellers on
Etherdelta, a digital asset exchange, for a total of $2,327.93. These figures are based on the U.S.
Dollar value of his purchase of CTR tokens, with units of Ether, at the exact time and date of the
transaction and the U.S. Dollar value of his sales of CTR tokens, for units of Bitcoin, at the exact
time and date of transaction. See, Def. Exhibit B. Since Plaintiff Rensel made a profit of $4,659.43,
which equates to over a 100% gain, Rensel is not entitled to any relief of damages under Section
12(a) and Section 10(a).

6
See United States v. Sharma et. al., 1:18-CR-00340, See ECF 193.
Page 9 of 15
Case 1:17-cv-24500-RNS Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2019 Page 10 of 15

2. PLAINTIFF HE IS ENTITLED TO A MONETARY JUDGEMENT OF $49,335.30.

Plaintiff He sold all of his CTR Tokens on the secondary market “digital asset exchange”
Binance.com for $1,032,332.89. Plaintiff He had acquired his CTR tokens from the Centra Tech
Official Sale and from unknown sellers on Binance.com, a digital asset exchange, for
$1,080,716.72. These figures are based on the U.S. Dollar value of his purchase of CTR tokens
with units of Ether and Bitcoin at the exact time and date of the transaction and the U.S. Dollar
value of his sales of CTR tokens for units of Bitcoin at the exact time and date of transaction as
well as transaction fees in BNB, another virtual currency, and CTR Tokens, in U.S Dollar amount
at the time these fees were paid. See, Def. Exhibit C. Assuming arguendo that Plaintiff He is
entitled to a default judgement against Centra Tech, He has sustained a monetary loss of
$49,335.30 and is entitled only to a judgement in this amount under Section 12(a) and Section
10(a).
3. PLAINTIFF CHI HAO POON IS ENTITLED TO A RECISSION OF 160 ETHER,
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, $45,604.20 BY RETURNING 68,000 CTR
TOKENS.

Plaintiff Chi Hao Poon purchased 68,000 CTR Tokens with 160 Ether from the Centra
Tech Official Sale. The U.S. Dollar value was $45,604.20 at the time the purchase was made.
Plaintiff Chi Hao Poon has not submitted an affidavit like the other Plaintiffs in this case. See, ECF
No. 260. Centra Tech believes that Plaintiff Chi Hao Poon did not submit an affidavit because
Plaintiff’s counsel has created a generic “template” affidavit which would of exposed Plaintiff
Poon to perjury as Plaintiff Poon had received a Centra Card that operated on the MasterCard
network where he used the card to make purchases in stores that accepted MasterCard globally
which enabled Poon to spend his cryptocurrencies. Assuming arguendo that Plaintiff Poon is
entitled to a default judgement against Centra Tech, Plaintiff Poon is entitled to a recession of his
purchase.
However, since the U.S. Dollar value of Ether today is $149,7 if Plaintiff Poon were to
receive a recession, he would be at a monetary loss of $21,764.20, which is what Plaintiff’s counsel
will subsequently argue. Therefore, in the alternative, if this Honorable Court does not agree that

7
See https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/ethereum based on the price of Ether on December
5, 2019.
Page 10 of 15
Case 1:17-cv-24500-RNS Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2019 Page 11 of 15

recession is appropriate here, and in order to meet the “substantial equivalent of rescission” to
which he is entitled, See Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622, 641, n.18 (1988), Plaintiff Chi Hao Poon is
entitled to a monetary judgement of $45,604.20 under Section 12(a) and Section 10(a) in return of
his 68,000 CTR Tokens. See Def. Exhibit D.

4. PLAINTIFF KING FUNG POON IS ENTITLED TO A RECISSION OF 100

ETHER, OR, IN THE ALTNERATIVE, $33,006 BY RETURNING 56,000 CTR
TOKENS.

Plaintiff King Fung Poon purchased 56,000 CTR Tokens with 160 Ether from the Centra
Tech Official Sale. The U.S. Dollar value was $33,006.00 at the time the purchase was made.
Plaintiff King Fung Poon has not submitted an affidavit like the other Plaintiffs in this case. See,
ECF No. 260. Centra Tech believes that Plaintiff King Fung Poon did not submit an affidavit
because Plaintiff’s counsel had created a generic “template” affidavit which would of exposed
Plaintiff King Fun Poon to perjury as Plaintiff Poon had received a Centra Card that operated on
the MasterCard network and had actually used the card to make purchases in stores that accepted
MasterCard globally which enabled Poon to spend his cryptocurrencies. Assuming arguendo that
Plaintiff King Fung Poon is entitled to a default judgement against the Defendant, Plaintiff King
Fung Poon is entitled only to a recession of his purchase.
However, since the U.S. Dollar value of Ether today is $149, if Plaintiff King Fun Poon
were to receive a recession, he would be at a monetary loss of $18,106.00 which is what Plaintiff’s
counsel will subsequently argue. Therefore, in the alternative, if this Honorable Court does not
agree that recession is appropriate, and in order to meet the “substantial equivalent of rescission”
to which he is entitled, See Pinter, 486 U.S. at 641, n.18, Plaintiff King Fung Poon is entitled to a
monetary judgement of $33,006.00 under Section 12(a) and Section 10(b) in return of his 56,000
CTR Tokens. See Def. Exhibit E.

5. PLAINTIFF LEE IS ENTITLED TO A RECISSION OF 30 ETHER, OR, IN THE

ALTNERATIVE, $8,843 BY RETURNING 6,000 CTR TOKENS.

Plaintiff Lee purchased 6,000 CTR Tokens with 30 Ether from the Centra Tech Official
Sale. The U.S. Dollar value was $8,843.00 at the time the purchase was made. Plaintiff Lee is
entitled to a default judgement against the Defendant in the form of a recession of his purchase.

Page 11 of 15
Case 1:17-cv-24500-RNS Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2019 Page 12 of 15

However, since the U.S. Dollar value of Ether today is $149, if Plaintiff Lee were to receive
a recession, he would be in a monetary loss of $4,373.00 which is what Plaintiff’s counsel will
subsequently argue. Therefore, if this Honorable Court does not agree that recession is appropriate,
and in order to meet the “substantial equivalent of rescission” to which he is entitled, See Pinter,
486 U.S. at 641, n.18, Plaintiff Lee is entitled to a monetary judgement of only $8,843.00 under
Section 12(a) and Section 10(a) in return of his 6,000 CTR Tokens. See Def. Exhibit F.

6. PLAINTIFF GANCZAREK IS ENTITLED TO A RECISSION OF 40 ETHER

AND 0.0262 BTC, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, $11,416.35, BY RETURNING
8,204.99 CTR TOKENS.

Plaintiff Ganczarek purchased 8,204.99 CTR Tokens with 40 Ether from the Centra Tech
Official Token Sale and 0.0262 BTC from an unknown seller from Cryptopia, a digital asset
exchange. The U.S. Dollar value was $11,266.10 made with the Ether and no more than $150.258
made with Bitcoin totaling $11,416.35 at the time the purchase was made. Assuming arguendo
that Plaintiff Ganczarek is entitled to a default judgement against the Defendant, Plaintiff
Ganczarek is entitled to a recession of his purchase.
However, since the U.S. Dollar value of Ether and Bitcoin today is $149 and $7,347, if
Plaintiff Ganczarek were to receive a recession, he would be at a monetary loss of $5,263.85,
which is what Plaintiff’s counsel will subsequently argue. Therefore, in the alternative, if this
Honorable Court does not agree that recession is appropriate, even though recession would restore
the exact position the Plaintiff would be in if he did not purchase CTR Tokens, in order to meet
the “substantial equivalent of rescission” to which he is entitled, See Pinter, 486 U.S. at 641, n.18,
Ganczarek is entitled to a monetary judgement of only $11,416.35 under Section 12(a) and Section
10(a) return of his 68,000 CTR Tokens. See Def. Exhibit G.

7. PLAINTIFF WARREN IS ENTITLED TO A RECISSION OF 1.75797 BTC, OR,

IN THE ALTERNATIVE, $35,010.9 BY RETURNING 39,528 CTR TOKENS.

8
Since Plaintiff Ganczarek did not include his trading records from the “digital asset exchange”
Cryptopia, the way Centra Tech calculated the value was taking the highest possible value of
Bitcoin on the date of the transaction and giving the Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt that he
executed the trade at the highest value to ensure no dispute can be made on the amount.
Page 12 of 15
Case 1:17-cv-24500-RNS Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2019 Page 13 of 15

In total, Plaintiff Warren, purchased 39,528 CTR Tokens with 1.75797 BTC. Plaintiff
Warren also paid 0.07984656 in transaction fees. The U.S. Dollar value was $35,010.91 at the time
the purchase was made. Plaintiff’s counsel has erroneously calculated Plaintiff Warren’s loss
amount, and it’s Centra Tech’s position that Plaintiff Warren’s loss amount is greater than what
Plaintiff’s counsel has asserted. Assuming arguendo that Plaintiff Warren is entitled to a default
judgement against the Defendant, Plaintiff Warren is entitled to a recession of his purchase.
However, since the U.S. Dollar value of Bitcoin today is $7,347, if Plaintiff Warren were
to receive a recession, he would be at a monetary loss of $21,508.48, which is what Plaintiff’s
counsel will subsequently argue. Therefore, in the alternative, if this Honorable Court does not
agree that recession is appropriate, even though recession would restore him to the exact position
the Plaintiff would be in if he did not purchase CTR Tokens, in order to meet the “substantial
equivalent of rescission” to which he is entitled, Pinter, 486 U.S. at 641, n.18, Warren is entitled
to a monetary judgement of $35,010.91 under Section 12(a) and Section 10(a) in return of his
39,528 CTR Tokens. See Def. Exhibit H.

CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Centra Tech, based upon the foregoing reasons, respectfully requests this
Honorable Court enter an order 1) setting this matter for hearing so the Court can consider
Defendant’s calculation of damages; or 2) entering final judgment based on the damage
calculations set forth.

Page 13 of 15
Case 1:17-cv-24500-RNS Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2019 Page 14 of 15

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically filed
this 13th day of December 2019 with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the
foregoing document is being served via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by
CM//ECF or some other authorized manner for those counsel and/or parties in interest who are not
authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.

/s/ Frank E. Gil

___________________________
Frank E. Gil

Page 14 of 15
Case 1:17-cv-24500-RNS Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2019 Page 15 of 15

SERVICE LIST

KOMLOSSY LAW P.A.

Emily Cornelia Komlossy
Florida Bar No.: 7714
[email protected]
4700 Sheridan Street,
Suite J Hollywood, FL
33021
Telephone: (954) 842-2021
Facsimile: (954) 416-6223
Counsel for Plaintiffs

LEVIN & KORSINSKY, LLP

Donald J. Enright
Admitted pro hac vice
1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 524-4290

James Taylor- Copeland (admitted pro hac vice)

TAYLOR-COPELAND LAW
[email protected]
501 W. Broadway Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 400-4944

Page 15 of 15