Investors Sue Cere Network Founders, Alleging $41M Token Sell-Off and Seeking $100M

A new federal lawsuit lodged in San Francisco accuses senior figures behind a blockchain data platform of covertly converting company tokens into personal funds, triggering investor litigation that seeks substantial monetary relief. The plaintiff, who identifies herself as a former employee and investor, contends that insiders who were supposed to be subject to vesting restrictions instead executed sales soon after a public token listing and routed proceeds into private accounts. This complaint follows an earlier action filed in Delaware by a co-founder alleging large-scale diversion of corporate assets through sham entities and manipulated bookkeeping. Both filings single out transfers of token units to accounts on centralized exchanges as critical evidence linking the alleged misconduct to identifiable liquidation events. The suits also raise concerns about coordination with third-party trading firms, suggesting the use of automated strategies to amplify apparent market activity while masking the insiders’ withdrawals. Financially, plaintiffs quantify the immediate transfers and estimated misstatements in fundraising disclosures, and they have proposed damages far exceeding the amounts the lawsuits say were misdirected. Market indicators show the platform’s token has collapsed from its prior market highs to near-zero trading value, a collapse defendants will likely need to explain in any damage assessment. Legally, the cases present intersecting theories: one focuses on direct investor fraud and market manipulation, the other on fiduciary breaches and corporate waste, which could produce overlapping discovery into internal records, transfer trails and communications with counterparties. If investigators can trace funds through exchanges and intermediary entities, civil remedies could include disgorgement and punitive damages, and the evidence may also attract regulatory and criminal scrutiny. For counterparties such as exchanges and market makers, these suits underscore the reputational and compliance risks of accepting large, rapid inflows tied to alleged insider sales. The litigation timeline will hinge on early motions, jurisdictional disputes and the pace of asset tracing; however, the presence of parallel suits in different fora increases pressure on defendants to resolve factual disputes quickly. Ultimately, the disputes reflect the broader vulnerabilities of tokenized fundraising and governance structures when safeguards like vesting and transparent treasury controls are circumvented or inadequately enforced.