Bhushan is a FinTech enthusiast and holds a good flair in understanding financial markets. His interest in economics and finance draw his attention towards the new emerging Blockchain Technology and Cryptocurrency markets. He is continuously in a learning process and keeps himself motivated by sharing his acquired knowledge. In free time he reads thriller fictions novels and sometimes explore his culinary skills.
In the framework of its a long going battle with complainants claiming XRP as a security, Ripple has raised additional questions over the plaintiff’s arguments.
Blockchain startup Ripple has been engaged in a long going battle with complainants claiming XRP as a security. However, it seems that the company wants to put an end to this debate and reach a final settlement.
In its latest filing on December 4, with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Ripple said that the plaintiffs suing the company over the unregistered sale of security tokens (XRP) have brought the case too late. In the filing, Ripple says that even if XRP is a security, getting this matter in courts three after the token sale makes no sense.
Ripple said that it is willing to settle this matter once-and-for-all before its next hearing on January 15, 2020. The filing states:
“Plaintiff’s federal securities claims are barred by Section 13’s statute of repose, which strictly forbids claims brought more than three years after the security was bona fide offered to the public. XRP is not a security, but that is irrelevant for purposes of this motion. Even if XRP were a security, Plaintiff’s claims still fail as a matter of law,”
This move from Ripple comes amidst the ongoing court battle with Bradley Sostack, the lead plaintiff appointed by the federal court, reports CoinDesk. The latest filing also includes the reiterations of its previous arguments and plea to dismiss the case.
#Ripple Files Last Bid To Dismiss #XRP Securities Lawsuit Before Court Meeting@Ripple said in a new filing "#XRP is not a security but that's irrelevant for this motion because the investors suing #Ripple brought their case far too late for it to proceedhttps://t.co/uOc5EnCjC9
— XRPcryptowolf (@XRPcryptowolf) December 5, 2019
Plaintiff didn’t Purchase XRP from Defendants
In addition to the three-year clause, Ripple has argued that the plaintiff has not claimed nor shown evidence that he purchased XRP either from Ripple or during the Initial Coin Offering (ICO). The company noted:
“Plaintiff’s federal and state securities claims also fail because he has not plausibly alleged that he purchased XRP either from Defendants or in an initial offering, as those statutes require. Finally, Plaintiff’s allegations—which pervasively claim that XRP is a security—defeat plaintiffs state consumer protection law claims, which cannot be predicated on the offer, purchase, and sale of purported securities as a matter of law. Because none of these deficiencies can be remedied through amendment, Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed with prejudice”.
On the other hand, the plaintiff has previously argued that the XRPs he purchased in 2018 was different from its 2013 ICO offering. Calling this claims to be baseless, Ripple said that his arguments lack any “factual basis”.
We can’t say anything about whether the regulators would approve Ripple’s comments. But this ongoing battle has certainly put the third-largest crypto-maker in a position of question and scrutiny.
XRP has been the worst-performing top-ten cryptocurrencies so far in 2019. While all other top-ten cryptocurrencies gave positive returns, XRP has over 20% negative returns as on date.
At press time, XRP is trading at $0.22 with a market cap of $9.6 billion. It still continues to enjoy its position as the third-largest cryptocurrency by market cap.