Investors Fight to Keep $JENNER Crypto Lawsuit Alive
On Wednesday, April 9, 2025, Lee Greenfield filed a response in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington regarding the case Azad et al. v. Jenner et al. The case, which involves allegations of securities fraud against celebrity Caitlyn Jenner and her business partner, Sophia Hutchins, centers on the sale of an unregistered cryptocurrency called $JENNER.
In the opposition document, lead plaintiff Greenfield argues that the defendants should not be granted a motion to dismiss their first amended complaint. The plaintiffs allege that they, along with thousands of other investors, suffered financial losses after purchasing the $JENNER cryptocurrency, which they claim was promoted with misleading statements and omissions.
The complaint outlines how Caitlyn Jenner, a well-known media personality and former Olympic athlete, launched the $JENNER token on May 26, 2024, through a promotional campaign primarily conducted on social media. Jenner’s business partner, Hutchins, is accused of assisting in the marketing and promotion of the token, which the plaintiffs assert constituted an unregistered security under federal law.
The filing details how Jenner announced the launch of $JENNER via Twitter, claiming it would achieve a market capitalization of $50 million within the first 24 hours. This announcement reportedly generated significant interest, leading to over 300,000 transactions and a trading volume exceeding $250 million on the first day. However, the plaintiffs allege that after this initial surge, the token’s value plummeted due to the defendants’ actions.
In their response, the plaintiffs assert that the $JENNER token meets the criteria of an investment contract under the Howey test, which is used to determine whether a financial instrument qualifies as a security. They argue that the investment of money, the existence of a common enterprise, and the expectation of profits derived from the efforts of the defendants are sufficient to classify $JENNER as a security.
The plaintiffs contend that Jenner’s promotional efforts and her public persona created a reliance among investors who believed in the legitimacy and potential profitability of $JENNER. They argue that Jenner’s claims about her commitment to the project and future developments were misleading, particularly when, shortly after the initial launch, she shifted focus to another cryptocurrency project while continuing to promote $JENNER.
The response also addresses the defendants’ reliance on a recent statement from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding meme coins. The plaintiffs argue that this statement is non-binding and does not provide a valid defense for the defendants’ actions, asserting that the economic realities of their transactions must be considered.
Furthermore, the plaintiffs assert that Jenner is a statutory seller under Section 12 of the Securities Act, as her actions in promoting and selling the token constitute solicitation. They argue that her involvement and the substantial financial interest she had in the project tie her directly to the alleged violations.
The opposition document also challenges the defendants’ claims regarding the extraterritorial applicability of U.S. securities laws, stating that the transactions in question were domestic. The plaintiffs emphasize that Jenner, a California resident, conducted the promotional activities and executed transactions within the United States, thereby subjecting her to U.S. securities law.
In addition to seeking damages for securities fraud under federal law, the plaintiffs have also brought state law claims against the defendants, including common law fraud and unjust enrichment. The opposition details how Jenner and Hutchins’ alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding the management and financial handling of the $JENNER token have caused significant harm to investors.
As the case progresses, the plaintiffs are calling for the court to deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss, asserting that they have sufficiently established their claims and that the evidence supports their allegations of fraud. The plaintiffs are seeking full restitution for their losses, as well as any additional relief deemed appropriate by the court.
The court is scheduled to hear the motion on May 9, 2025, in Courtroom 6C, presided over by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr.
Please contact BlockTribune for access to a copy of this filing.
