OPELAND LAW AYLOR-COPELAND (284743) 501 West Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, CA. 92101 Telephone: 619/400-4944 ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP LUCAS F. OLTS (234843) SARA B. POLYCHRON (244685) BRIAN E. COCHRAN (286202) 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/231-1058 619/231-7423 (fax) Attorneys for Plaintiff ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of Catforna, 08/03/2018 Clerk of the Court Doputy Cork SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT 206 COORDINATION PROCEEDING SPECIAL TITLE [RULE 3.550] TEZOS ICO CASES Included actions: Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-17-562144 Trigon Trading Pty. Ltd., et al. v. Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc., et al., Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, Case No. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Baker v. Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc., et al.,) ) ) ) ) ) ) IscIvo20as } ) No. CIC-18-004978 Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4978 OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR COORDINATION BY PLAINTIFF ANDREW BAKER, ‘OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR COORDINATION BY PLAINTIFF ANDREW BAKER 457799110 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS. 1 INTRODUCTION....... I, FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND. A. The Baker Action...acscnsnetasee B. The Copycat Federal Actions C. The Copycat Trigon Action... I ARGUMENT.. A. Under the Rule of Exclusive Concurrent Jurisdiction, the Trigon Action Should Be Abated in Deference to the Earlier Filed Baker Action... B. Petitioners Cannot Avoid the Rule of Exclusive Concurrent Jurisdiction ‘Through Their Petition for Coordination... oo C. Ifthe Actions Are Coordinated, Proceedings Should Move Forward in San Francisco and the Trigon Action Should Be Stayed ....00n0 1. The Convenience of Parties, Witnesses, and Counsel .. 2. The Relative Development of the Actions and the Work Product of Counsel 3. The Efficient Use of Judicial Facilities and Resources 4. Any Other Relevant Matter... Iv: 5 {CONCLUSIONS etree See -i- ‘OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR COORDINATION BY PLAINTIFF ANDREW BAKER 45779911], INTRODUCTION 2 Trigon Trading Party Ltd. (“Trigon”) and Bruce MacDonald’s (“MacDonald”) (collectively, 3 || “Petitioners”) Petition for Coordination should be denied. Petitioners filed their case six months after 4 || plaintiff Andrew Baker filed Baker v. Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc., et al., No. CGC-17-362144 5 || (Baker Action”), on behalf of all investors who purchased Tezos tokens (“XTZ” ot “Tezzies”) from 6 || defendants during the Tezos initial coin offering (“Tezos ICO”). Petitioners’ copycat complaint 7 || (Trigon Action”) was only filed after Trigon’s motion to be lead plaintifT in the Federal Action was 8 [rejected The Trigon Action is entirely redundant with the Backer Action, and the proper course of 91} action is to stay or abate Petitioners’ later-filed copycat suit. 10 Petitioners concede that the Trigon Action arises from the same facts, asserts one of the same 11 || evo causes of action, and is brought on behalf of a subset of the Baker Action’s proposed class. Thus, 12 || allowing the Trigon Action to proceed will add nothing to the proceedings except for inefficiencies. 13 || Petitioners contend that these factors militate in favor of coordinating the two actions. They are wrong. 14 || Under the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction, the Trigon Action should be abated in deference to 15 || the earlier-filed Baker Action, Mr. Baker and his counsel are more than capable of representing the 16 | proposed class, Indeed, defendant Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc. (“DLS”) has filed a motion to stay 17 }| or abate the Petitioners’ action in San Mateo in favor of the Baker Action, arguing that “the Baker court 18 || has the power to litigate all the issues and grant complete relief.” See Declaration of James Q. Taylor- 19 || Copeland in Support of the Opposition to Petition for Coordination by Plaintiff Andrew Baker, Ex. A at 20 5, filed herewith. In the event defendants’ motion is granted this Petition for Coordination will be moot. 2 Accordingly, Petitioners’ request to coordinate the Baker Action in San Mateo should be denied, 22 | In the event these actions are coordinated, plaintiff respectfully submits that the Trigon Action should 23 |e stayed in deference to the Baker Action and the coordination should proceed in San Francisco, the 24 | first-filed forum, OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR COORDINATION 45779911]. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 A. The Baker Action 3 Baker filed his securities class action in San Francisco Superior Court on October 25, 2017, 4 || under the express jurisdiction of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), Plaintiff's action was 5 }| brought on behalf of all investors who purchased Tezzies from defendants during the Tezos ICO. Inan ICO, tokens are sold to consumers in exchange for legal tender or other cryptocurrencies (most often Bitcoin and Ethereum). ‘These tokens generally give the purchaser various rights on the blockchain 8 || network and resemble the shares of a company sold to investors in an initial public offering (“IPO”). 9 On November 29, 2017, defendant DLS improperly removed the Baker Action to federal court, 10 }| despite the express language in the Securities Act prohibiting removal and granting concurrent state 11 | court jurisdiction, Baker filed a motion to remand, which DLS opposed, contending that the Securities 12 | Litigation Uniform Standards Act (*SLUSA”) abolished state court subject matter jurisdiction for! 13 || Securities Act claims. The federal court noted “that courts in the Northern District, and throughout the 14 || Ninth Circuit, have been nearly uniform in rejecting arguments like those made by DLS and remanding 15 }| class actions which solely allege claims under the Securities Act,” but stayed the case to await guidance from the Supreme Court in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, et al., No. 15- 17} 1439 (“Cyan”), Case No. 17-cv-06850, ECF No. 18 at 2, 5, On March 20, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Cyan, reaffirming Baker’s position 19} and holding that SLUSA (1) “did nothing to strip state courts of their longstanding jurisdiction to 20 } adjudicate class actions” alleging Securities Act Violations, and (2) “[nJeither did SLUSA authorize 21 || removing such suits from state to federal court.” Cyan, 138 S, Ct. 1061, 1078 (2018). Plaintiffrenewed 22 || his motion to remand on that same day, and on April 19, 2018, Judge Seeborg ordered Baker's case 23 || remanded to this Court, noting that Baker’s “position has been largely vindicated.” Case No. 17-cv- 24 | 06850, ECF No. 34 at 2. DLS’s improper removal has already unnecessarily delayed this case for nine months, OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR COORDINATION 45779911 B. The Copycat Federal Actions 2 While the Baker Action was unnecessarily delayed by DLS’ improper removal, a number of 3 | copycat complaints were filed in federal court, including one by Petitioner MacDonald and his 4 || attorneys. Like the instant action, those complaints alleged that defendants violated the Securities Act's 5 || registration provisions by selling Tezzies to the general public beginning in July 2017. The copycat 6 || complaints borrowed extensively from Baker’s complaint, sometimes copying and pasting entire 7|[sections. DLS acknowledges as much, arguing that “Baker and the plaintiffs who followed him 8 [erroneously refer to the fundraiser as an ‘initial coin offering’ or ICO.” Stay Motion at 8, n. 4 9}]| (emphasis added). 10 In January 2018, five sets of lead plaintiffs, including Petitioner Trigon, moved for appointment 11 |Jas tead plaintiff in the Federal Action. On March 16, 2018, Judge Seeborg consolidated the federal 12 || actions, including the MacDonald Action, under the caption Jn Re Tezos Securities Litigation, No. 17- 13 || cv-06779-RS (“Federal Action”). Judge Seeborg specifically found that “the claims in MacDonald 14 [arise from the same factual predicates as the other cases,” “rely on the same legal theory . . . an 15 | unregistered sale of securities,” and “seek the same relief.” ECF No. 101 at 4, However, Judge 16 || Seeborg explicitly declined to consolidate the Baker Action with the Federal Action despite requests 17} from both Petitioners and defendants that he do so, Jd. In that same March 16, 2018 order, Judge 18 || Seeborg rejected Trigon’s bid to serve as laid plaintiff. 19 C. The Copycat Trigon Action 20 On April 24, 2018, six full months after the Baker Action was filed, and after Judge Seeborg 21 || granted Baker’s renewed motion to remand, Petitioners MacDonald and Trigon filed the Trigon Action. 22'|| Like the Baker Action, Petitioners seek to represent a worldwide class consisting of “all persons who 23 Il purchased Tezos toker s, XTZ, and/or Tezzies during the ICO conducted by Defendants in July 2017.” 24 | Trigon Complaint at 30. However, the Trigon Action is narrower than the Baker Action. The Trigon Action asserts only claims under Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act, while the Baker Action asserts claims under both Section 12(a)(1) and control person liability claims under Section 15. The Baker Action is also brought against a broader of defendants, and, importantly, is brought on behalf of a OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR COORDINATION 45779911 || broader group of purchasers ~ all “persons who purchased XTZ from Defendants,” not just those who 2 || purchased XTZ “in July 2017.” 3| 11. ARGUMENT 4 “It is well settled that the law abhors vexations and unnecessary litigation wherein several 5 [lawsuits are brought involving the same parties and subject matter.” Bistawros v. Greenberg, 189 Cal 6 || App. 34 189, 191 (1987). Accordingly, when two or more duplicative actions are pending in California 7 }| state courts, “the first superior court to assume and exercise jurisdiction in the case acquires exclusive 8 }| jurisdiction until the matter is disposed of.” Levine v. Smith, 145 Cal. App. 4th 1131, 1135 (2006) 9 || (citing 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1996), Courts, §232 at 302-304); see also Franklin & Franklin 10 |v. 7-£leven Owners for Fair Franchising, 85 Cal. App. 4th 1168, 1175 (2000); Scott v. Industrial 11 }| Accident Comm'n, 46 Cal. 2d 76, 81-82 (1956) (collecting cases). Petitioners’ Petition for Coordination 12 |fis nothing more than an end-run around this well settled rule. 13 There is no dispute that (1) the Trigon Action was filed half a year afier the Baker Action, (2) 14||the Baker Action asserts claims against all the defendants in the Trigon Action and additional 15 || responsible parties, (3) the Baker Action asserts the 12(a)(1) claims asserted in the Trigon Action as 16 }| well as additional Section 15 claims, and (4) the Trigon Action is brought on behalf of a class that is 17 | entirely subsumed by the proposed class in the Baker Action. Nor do Petitioners contend that the Baker 18 || Action was brought in the wrong venue, as at least one of the defendants in the Baker Action resides in 19 }| San Francisco. In short, there is simply no reason for the copycat Trigon Action to exist. 20 A. Under the Rule of Exclusive Concurrent Jurisdiction, the Trigon Action Should Be Abated in Deference to the Earlier Filed Baker Action The rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction requires that where two or more duplicative actions 33 || ate pending in California State courts, “the first superior court to assume and exercise jurisdiction in the |] ease acquires exclusive jurisdiction until the matter is disposed of,” and the court hearing the latter filed claim must abate it. Levine, 145 Cal. App. 4th at 1135 (citing 2 Witkin, Cal, Procedure, Courts, supra, §232 at 302-304); People ex rel. Garamendi v. Am. Autoplan, Inc., 20 Cal. App. 4th 760, 770 (1993). 97 | This nule of exclusive jurisdiction does not require, “absolute identity of parties, causes of action or 9g || remedies sought in the initial and subsequent actions.” Am. Autoplan, 20 Cal. App. 4th at 770. “If the OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR COORDINATION 45779911 }| court exercising original jurisdiction has the power to bring before it all the necessary parties, the fact 2 | that the parties in the second action are not identical does not preclude application of the rule.” Id. 3 ‘When a subsequent action duplicates an earlier suit, the court hearing the latter claim must abate 4 fit. Am. Autoplan, 20 Cal. App. 4th at 770. California applies a clear bright-line test to determine which 5 || court takes precedence: “[p}riority of jurisdiction resides in the tribunal where process is first served.” 6 || California Union Ins. Co. v. Trinity River Land Co., 105 Cal. App. 34 104, 109 (1980). 7 There can be no dispute that the Trigon Action is nearly identical to the Baker Action. In fact, 8 || Petitioners argue that this is the very reason the cases should be coordinated. Petition at I, There can 9}]| also be no dispute that the Baker Action has priority over the Trigon Action, having been filed on 10 || October 25, 2017 and served on DLS on the same day — approximately six months before the Trigon 11 ]| Action was filed. The ch ms in both actions arise from the same transaction ~ defendants’ sale of| 12 || unregistered Tezzies securities during the Tezos ICO ~ and require the determination of the same 13 || questions of law and fact. 4 Like the Baker Action, Petitioners name the Tezos Foundation, DLS, Arthur and Kathleen 15 }| Breitman, Timothy Draper, and Drapers Associates V Crypto LLC as defendants. However, the Baker 16 || Action also names Johann Gevers, the Tezos Foundation’s president at the time of the ICO, Strange 17 || Brew Strategies, LLC, and Bitcoin Suisse AG. Petitioners also seek to represent a class that is entirely 18 || subsumed by the proposed class in the Baker Action, namely all persons who “purchased” Tezzies 19 || during the Tezos ICO. Compare, Baker Action class definition (“AMI persons who purchased XZ from 20 || Defendants during the Tezos ICO conducted by Defendants beginning in July 2017.") with Trigon 21 || Action class definition (“All persons who purchased Tezos tokens, XTZ, and/or Tezzies during the ICO 22 || conducted by Defendants in July 2017.”). Like the Baker Action, the Trigon Action asserts claims 23 || under Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act based on defendants’ failure to register the Tezzies 24 || securities. However, unlike the Baker Action, the Trigon Action does not assert claims based on control person liability under Section 15 of the Securities Act. Allowing the narrower copycat Trigon 26 || Action to proceed in tandem would serve no purpose other than to waste judicial and party resources. 27 | In addition, the Baker Action should not be tethered to the follow-on Trigon Action because the Trigon 28 || Action was only filed after Petitioners failed to secure case leadership in the Federal Action and 6+ OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR COORDINATION 45779911 || borrows and relies heavily on the allegations in the Baker Action and the investigative work of Baker's, 2 || counsel. 3 The Trigon Action adds nothing of substance beyond the Baker Action. The rule of exclusive 4 || concurrent jurisdiction therefore requires that the Trigon Action be abated pending the resolution of the 5] earlier-filed Baker Action. See Plant Insulation v. Fibreboard Corp., 224 Cal. App. 34 781, 787-88, 6 |] (1990) ("Where a demurrer is sustained on the ground of another action pending, the proper order is not 7 || a dismissal, but abatement of further proceedings pending termination of the first action.”), 8 B. Petitioners Cannot Avoid the Rule of Exclusive Concurrent Jurisdiction ‘Through Their Petition for Coordination Petitioners cannot avoid the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction through this Petition for Coordination. In fact, the petition does not cite any authority holding that a court may use coordination as a means of avoiding abatement where it is required by the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction. None exists. Where the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction applies — as here — abatement of the later filed case is mandatory as a matter of law, See Am. Autoplan, 20 Cal. App. 4th at 770; Lawyers Title Ins, Corp. v. Superior Court, 151 Cal. App. 3d 455, 460 (1984). With only two identical class actions pending in California state court, coordination is hardly a superior remedy to abatement. In Thayer, the Court of Appeal found that “[dJuplication was, indeed, the hallmark of the coordinated proceeding.” Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank, 92 Cal. App. 4th 819, 840 (2001). The Panel went on to explain that: [I]t is difficult to find any need for the filing of so many essentially duplicative actions 20 in the first place. Had the four actions filed after Phebus not been commenced, the plaintiffs in those cases would have been included in the class alleged in Phebus. While 2 it is therefore impossible to conclude that the filing of so many nearly identical actions > significantly increased the value of this litigation to any customers of the Bank, it did 2 substantially increase the Bank’s exposure to large attorney fee awards. 23 ll Id. at $41. So too here, there can be no doubt that this second, duplicative state court suit would increase costs f coordinated and serves no purpose other than to provide Petitioners a second bite at the apple after failing to secure leadership of the Federal Action, Accordingly, the Trigon Action should be abated or stayed rather than coordinated with the Baker Action, OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR COORDINATION 45779911 C. Ifthe Actions Are Coordinated, Proceedings Should Move Forward in San Francisco and the Trigon Action Should Be Stayed In the event Petitioners’ action is ordination, the jot abated, thereby mooting the Petition for proceedings should be coordinated in San Francisco. The California Rules of Court provide guidance on the factors to consider in selecting the site of coordination. Relevant considerations are: [T]he convenience of parties, witnesses, and counsel; the relative development of the 6 actions and the work product of counsel; the efficient use of judicial facilities and resources; the calendar of the courts; and any other relevant maiter. f ¢ | California Rute of Court 3.5400). . 1, The Convenience of Parties, Witnesses, and Counsel a The first factor weighs against any coordinated action moving forward in San Mateo. 11 | Petitioners complain of circumstances that they themselves created. As stated above, the Trigon Action 12 | is # copyeat case which is entirely subsumed by the proposed class in the Baker Action, It has no 13 | independent basis to exist, Nor do Petitioners contend that San Franeiseo is the wrong venue, Plaintiffs 14 | im the Trigon Action are simply forum shopping. In any event, San Francisco is not an inconvenient site for the coordinated actions, At least one 15 16 |[of the defendants is located in San Francisco, And although San Mateo and San Francisco are 17 | geoeraphically close, itis noteworthy that some of the parties and many potential witnesses are far 13 | flung across the country and the world, As an international hub, San Francisco is clearly a more 19 | accessible venue for those traveling fiom afar. This factor weighs in favor of coordination in San 39 | Francisco al 2. The Relative Development of the Actions and the Work Product . of Counsel 2 ‘The second factor also weighs in favor of San Francisco. Counsel in the Baker Action have 2B vigorously litigated this case since its filing on October 25, 2017, about six months before the Trigon 24 Action. Baker successfully challenged the improper removal to federal court by DLS and an attempt by the lead plaintiff in the Federal Action to stay this action, Moreover, the Baker Action is more advanced than the Trigon Action. Plaintiff in the Baker Action has already filed an Amended Complaint and served discovery on defendants. On July 22, 2018, plaintiff in the Baker Action also OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR COORDINATION 45779911 }] sought relief from the Superior Court in San Francisco ~ requesting that discovery go forward in 2 |[ advance of this tribunal’s decision on coordination of the actions 3 3. ‘The Efficient Use of Judicial Facil jes and Resources 4 Petitioners have already wasted a considerable amount of judicial resources by filing a 5 || duplicative proceeding after failing to secure lead plaintiffiin the Federal Action. Ifthe Superior Court 6 || does not abate or stay the San Mateo action, this tribunal should exercise its inherent authority to do so. 7 |[Instead of respecting the final decision by Judge Seeborg in selecting a different lead plaintiff and 8 | consolidating the MacDonald action, Trigon and MacDonald are now trying their luck in state court. 9 || The only logical motive for their copycat li igation is apparent ~ a do-over on their failed attempt to 10 || secure a leadership position in the Federal Action. This Court should put an end to their forum 11 || shopping and stay this case in favor of the original Baker Action which was properly filed in San 12 || Francisco. B In addition, San Francisco and San Mateo are equally competent forums and regularly handle 14 | class actions brought under the Securities Act. This factor therefore weighs in favor of coordinating 15 || these actions in San Francisco. 16 4, Any Other Relevant Matter As discussed in detail above, the Baker Action has priority over the Trigon Action, Moreo er, this Court has the inherent authority to prioritize the Baker Action and stay the Trigon Action. in re 19 | Acknowledgment Cases, 239 Cal. App. 4th 1498, 1503 (2015) (additional coordinated actions stayed by 20 }| the coordination judge pending resolution of the original cases). The Trigon Action, if coordinated, 21 | should therefore be stayed pending the outcome in the Baker Action OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR COORDINATION 4577991IV. CONCLUSION As the proper path forward is to abate the follow-on Trigon Action, plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny the Petition for Coordination, In the event these actions are coordinated, plaintiff respectfully submits that the Trigon Action should be stayed in deference to the Baker Action and the coordination should proceed in San Francisco, the first-filed forum, 10 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED: August 3, 2018 4577991 TAYLOR-COPELAND LAW JAMES ©. TAYLOR-COPELAND, am JAMES 0. TAYLOR-COPELAND. 501 West Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/400-4944 iames@tavlorcopelandiaw.com ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP LUCAS F. OLTS SARA B, POLYCHRON BRIAN E. COCHRAN 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/231-1058 619/231-7423 (fax) lolts@rgrdlaw.com spolychron@irgrdlaw.com beochran@irgrdlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff -10- ‘OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR COORDINATION,10 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL 1, the undersigned, declare: 1, That declarant is and was, at all times herein mentioned, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of San Diego, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to or interested party in the within action; that declarant’s business address is 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, California 92101 2. That on August 3, 2018, declarant served the OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR COORDINATION BY PLAINTIFF ANDREW BAKER by depositing a true copy thereof in a United States mailbox at San Diego, California in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid and addressed to the parties listed on the attached Service List. 3. That there is a regular communication by mail between the place of mailing and the places so addressed. | declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 3, 2018, at San Diego, Cali NATALEE HORSTMAN ‘OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR COORDINATION, 4577991DYNAMIC LEDGER Counsel for Defendant(s) Brian E. Klein Scott M. Malzahn Donald R. Pepperman Brian E. Klein BAKER MARQUART LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1600 Los Angeles. CA 90067 Christopher L. Wanger Ana G. Guardado MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP ‘One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Neal A, Potischman DAVIS, POLK & WARDWELL LLP 1600 Ef Camino Real Menlo Park, CA 94025 Counsel for Plaintiff(s) Lucas F, Olts Sara B. Polychron Brian E, Cochran ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway. Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Reed R. Kathrein Peter E. Borkon Danielle Smith HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Daniel L. Sachs COOLEY LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004 Patrick E. Gibbs Jeffrey M. Kaban David S. Houska Samantha A. Kirby COOLEY LLP 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 James Q. Taylor-Copeland TAYLOR-COPELAND LAW 501 West Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Steve W. Berman HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Fighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR COORDINATION 4577991