Court to Refuse to Return XRP Case to the Lower Instance

The case by XRP investor alleged that Ripple used dishonest and illegal tactics to control the price of XRP
13 August 2018   1682

The Court of the Northern District of California rejected the claim to return the lawsuit against Ripple Labs to a lower court initially formed by investor Ryan Coffey in the San Francisco court on May 3, 2018. Coffey wanted the trial to continue in lower courts in California and not be carried out by federal courts, Bitcoinist reports.

With his suit, Coffey claims to recover the losses he incurred as a result of investing in XRP. He claims that Ripple is manipulating the XRP course with unreasonable statements about the future price of the crypto currency, while violating California Corporate Law and "hiding the role of the security."

He also accuses Ripple CEO Bred Garlinghouse of misleading investors with statements aimed at promoting and enhancing the market rate of XRP. The plaintiff believes that XRP is not a fully decentralized crypto currency, which leads to the conclusion that Ripple may violate securities laws by distributing it.

Having read the papers filed by the parties and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s motion.
 

Court's Statement

Meanwhile, two lawsuits against Ripple have already been transferred to federal courts in the United States. One of them was issued by a group of investors in late May. Its organizers also claim that they lost money, because they invested them in XRP under the influence of the company's statements, and assume that it can distribute unregistered securities. A third lawsuit with similar applications was filed in early July.

US Crypto Companies to Support TON in Case With SEC

The Blockchain Association said Telegram taken sufficient measures to ensure that the Gram token offer met SEC requirements
23 January 2020   466

The Blockchain Association, which combines companies such as Coinbase, Circle, 0x and Ripple, issued an expert opinion as part of the ongoing proceedings of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with Telegram.

Previously, the Digital Commerce Chamber launched a similar initiative. The blockchain association, however, was more straightforward and stated that Telegram had taken sufficient measures to ensure that the Gram token offer met SEC requirements. According to members of the organization, the actions of the SEC can damage not only Telegram, but the market as a whole.

The Court should not block a long-planned, highly anticipated product launch by interfering with a contract between sophisticated private parties. Doing so would needlessly harm the investors that securities laws were designed to protect.

 

The Blockchain Association

The Blockchain Association notes that for many years it has not been possible for SEC to obtain clear and unambiguous guidance for conducting activities in the cryptocurrency space, while the claims of the regulator make the current situation even more ambiguous. 

The SEC’s lawsuit also raises novel questions regarding whether companies are forbidden from raising funds from sophisticated U.S. investors, under well-established regulatory provisions, to build blockchain networks.

 

The Blockchain Association

They cite examples of startups TurnKey Jet and Pocketful of Quarters, in respect of which the regulator recommended not to apply legal measures, adding that such litigations inevitably involve high costs and do not guarantee industry participants that they will not be prosecuted in the future.

Telegram discussed its plans with SEC staff for a year and a half, provided copious information and responded to limited feedback by adjusting the design of its transaction. Yet, at the end, the SEC has sued, and the SEC’s briefs thus far say nothing about the substance of those discussions. 

 

The Blockchain Association

In conclusion, the group asks the court to “reject the SEC’s arguments that the not-yet-in-existence Grams were securities at the time of the Purchase Agreements.”