Back to Legal Documents
Court — Court Filing
Skadden & Kessler Initial Letter to Judge
Initial letter from Sam's counsel to the district court judge, presenting the blockchain evidence and requesting reconsideration of the asset freeze and receiver appointment. This letter was among the first formal presentations of the on-chain evidence to the court.
Document Details
Date Filed
June 1, 2022
Agency
Court Filing
File
S&Kinitiallettertojudge.pdf
166 KB
Page 1 / 9
120%
1
SEWARD & KISSEL LLP
ONE BATTERY PARK PLAZA
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10004
JAIMIE L. NAWADAY
PARTNER
(212) 574-1220
[email protected]
TELEPHONE: (212) 574-1200
FACSIMILE: (212) 480-8421
WWW.SEWKIS.COM
901 K STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
TELEPHONE: (202) 737-8833
FACSIMILE: (202) 737-5184
January 18, 2023
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL FOR USE
ONLY AT SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
VIA EMAIL ([email protected])
Honorable Jeffrey Cummings, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Re: CFTC v. Ikkurty et al., No. 22-CV-02465 (Feb. 1, 2023)
Dear Judge Cummings:
The letter submitted by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”) omits
the most relevant facts about Rose City Income Fund II (“RCIF II” or the “Fund”). The Fund’s
operation was controlled by formal, carefully drafted offering documents: a Private Placement
Memorandum (“PPM”) (Ex. 1), a Subscription Agreement (“SA”) (Ex. 2), and a Limited
Partnership Agreement (“LPA”) (Ex. 3) (collectively, the “Fund documents”). No money was
committed until investors received, reviewed, and acknowledged the offering materials, which
contained a robust description of the investment strategy and disclosures as to the risks of investing
in cryptocurrency. The only relevant representations in this case are the ones in the Fund
documents.
The Fund also relied on a third-party administrator who managed all payments from Fund
bank accounts. The Fund administrator—Intertrust—was responsible for calculating the Net Asset
Value (“NAV”) of the Fund, issuing investor statements, and wiring payments to investors for any
distributions. It was also responsible for calculating performance and management fees in
accordance with the Fund documents for wiring those fee payments to the Fund General Partner
SEWARD & KISSEL LLP
ONE BATTERY PARK PLAZA
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10004
JAIMIE L. NAWADAY
PARTNER
(212) 574-1220
[email protected]
TELEPHONE: (212) 574-1200
FACSIMILE: (212) 480-8421
WWW.SEWKIS.COM
901 K STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
TELEPHONE: (202) 737-8833
FACSIMILE: (202) 737-5184
January 18, 2023
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL FOR USE
ONLY AT SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
VIA EMAIL ([email protected])
Honorable Jeffrey Cummings, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Re: CFTC v. Ikkurty et al., No. 22-CV-02465 (Feb. 1, 2023)
Dear Judge Cummings:
The letter submitted by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”) omits
the most relevant facts about Rose City Income Fund II (“RCIF II” or the “Fund”). The Fund’s
operation was controlled by formal, carefully drafted offering documents: a Private Placement
Memorandum (“PPM”) (Ex. 1), a Subscription Agreement (“SA”) (Ex. 2), and a Limited
Partnership Agreement (“LPA”) (Ex. 3) (collectively, the “Fund documents”). No money was
committed until investors received, reviewed, and acknowledged the offering materials, which
contained a robust description of the investment strategy and disclosures as to the risks of investing
in cryptocurrency. The only relevant representations in this case are the ones in the Fund
documents.
The Fund also relied on a third-party administrator who managed all payments from Fund
bank accounts. The Fund administrator—Intertrust—was responsible for calculating the Net Asset
Value (“NAV”) of the Fund, issuing investor statements, and wiring payments to investors for any
distributions. It was also responsible for calculating performance and management fees in
accordance with the Fund documents for wiring those fee payments to the Fund General Partner
Key Points
First formal presentation of blockchain evidence to the district court
Requests reconsideration of TRO and receiver appointment
Presents 885 on-chain transactions as direct rebuttal to CFTC allegations
Highlights that CFTC investigator never reviewed blockchain records
Filed shortly after the May 16, 2022 home raid