2018-8-12 01:28 |
It was only days ago that Ripple was threatened with yet another lawsuit made under the suspicion that the cryptocurrency was committing violations with regards to the US' existing securities regulation.
However, as of August 10th, a demand was filed by the plaintiff Ryan Coffey against the defendant, Ripple Labs inc. XRP II, LLC, an ancillary of Ripple, and the CEO of Ripple, Brad Garlinghouse, has been ruled over by the court.
Plaintiff initially filed the patent on May 3, 2018, accusing the aforementioned defendants after investing in XRP. According to the details of the lawsuit, the plaintiff and their legal representation, Rosen law Firm, demanded remuneration from the defendant (Ripple) for the damages caused to the plaintiff from investing in the cryptocurrency. The plaintiff also demanded that Ripple conform to the California Corporations Code.
The lawsuit and its plaintiff, have also accused Ripple of “focus[ing] on how to create, maintain, and increase the value of XRP,” continuing on to accuse Ripple of not being decentralized. Accusations against Ripple included the suspicion that the company was able to control the value of XRP through “continuously touting it in the press and obscuring the role of the security.”
The accusations continued on to suggest that they misled and sought wider attention through an extensive level of marketing. Among the statements presented as evidence, one of them included a statement made by the Ripple CEO, Brad Garlinghouse, made on various platforms, upon which he speaks about the various products within Ripple, including XRP and how it utilizes its ledger. Garlinghouse is quoted as saying these products are part of an effort to “Market and increase the value of XRP”.
As of the 1st of June, the defendants were successful in removing one action, according to the Class Action Fairness Act. On the 1st of August, however, the plaintiff filed for a remand. Representing the plaintiff in question was James Taylor-Copeland as their counsel, while the defendants were represented by their respective counsel, Peter Morrison.
While the court took into consideration several factors of the case, they made this statement.
“[W]hen an anti-removal provision such as Section 22(a) is invoked, the threshold question is whether removal is being effectuated by way of the general removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), or by way of a separate removal provision that “grants additional removal jurisdiction in a class of cases which would not otherwise be removable under the prior grant of authority.” If removal is being effectuated through a provision[, like § 1453,] that confers additional removal jurisdiction, and that provision contains no exception for nonremovable federal claims, the provision should be given full effect.”
The court of law has ruled in favor of the defendants. The order read:
“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,”
A lot of commotion has stirred up on Twitter after the order was passed.
Dr. RedsoXRP, a Twitter user tweeted:
“Looks like we are staying in federal court “
FLY on da WALL, another member of the Twitter community:
“Ripple wanted this in federal court and the plaintiff wanted it to stay in California. Ripples attorneys know what they are doing. If Ripple wins in federal court than this becomes federal law. This is a big advantage for Ripples side.”
FLY on da WALL further included:
“Ripple wanted this in federal court and the plaintiff wanted it to stay in California. Ripples attorneys know what they are doing. If Ripple wins in federal court than this becomes federal law. This is a big advantage for Ripples side.”
Similar to Notcoin - TapSwap on Solana Airdrops In 2024
Ripple (XRP) на Currencies.ru
|
