Jump to content

brjXRP17

Member
  • Content count

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1
  1. @FreedomGundam, once one state court in California makes a ruling, the rest of California will more likely than not follow suit there. There could be an appeal, but California securities laws should be interrupted the same way by all courts in California (or you would imagine the California courts would all come to the same conclusion, but that's not how the U.S. system works). And the facts in all four securities cases alleged by the plaintiff(s) vary, so each case is separate and needs to be ruled upon separately (and there could be different rulings within the same state). Very confusing. Furthermore, a state court in New York could rule a completely different way (i.e., California could say XRP is not a security, New York could say XRP is a security). On the federal level, the SEC can put this to bed right now and say whether XRP is or is not a security. And the SEC will, hopefully by the end of the 2018.
  2. brjXRP17

    Ripple Lawsuit Tracker

    Guys, Update to the Ripple Labs, Inc. Lawsuit Tracking list provided below, for two (2) new court cases were filed against Ripple Labs, Inc. since this original post (#13, #14). The open or active cases are in bold: 1.) 2014 - Ripple vs. LaCore Enterprises (closed or not active) 2.) 2015 - Ripple vs. Kefi Labs (closed or not active) 3.) 2015 - Arthur Britto vs. Jed McCaleb (closed or not active)** 4.) 2016 - Bitstamp vs. Ripple, Jed McCaleb, Stellar (closed or not active) 5.) 2016 - Ripple vs. Pixel Labs (closed or not active) 6.) 2017 - R3 vs. Ripple (Delaware) (closed or not active) 7.) 2017 - Ripple and XRP II vs. R3 (California) (open or active; on appeal) 8.) 2017 - R3 vs. Ripple (New York) (open or active) 9.) 2017 - Tony Petrucci vs. Ripple (closed or not active) 10.) 2018 - Ryan Coffey vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (open or active) 11.) 2018 - Ryan Coffey vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (U.S. Federal Court) (open or active) 12.) 2018 - Vladi Zakinov vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (open or active) 13.) 2018 - David Oconer vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (open or active) 14.) 2018 - Avner Greenwald vs. Ripple, XRP II, Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ben Lawsky (California) (open or active) @Pablo @Snoopy @zerpdigger @vlad_got_it @Mrsrippley @Sebastian @xrpisking
  3. In fact, two (2) new lawsuits were filed against Ripple Labs, Inc. within the last week, both citing securities related issues in their complaints (see attached photo). The law.com article needs to be updated to four lawsuits, not three. David Oconer vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) - filed on 6/27/2018 Avner Greenwald vs. Ripple, XRP II, Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ben Lawsky (California) - filed on 7/3/2018 It's not over either. More lawsuits more likely than not to be filed against Ripple Labs, Inc. due to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision (Cyan v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund). Check out this older post of mine below. I talk about that Supreme Court decision there. https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/23224-ripple-sued-for-securities-violations/?page=9&tab=comments#comment-386239 Hang on, guys. They'll get through this. @Pablo @Snoopy @zerpdigger @vlad_got_it @Mrsrippley @Sebastian @xrpisking
  4. Guys, Not sure about you, but it feels like every other day a new lawsuit is filed against Ripple. So, in the interest of keeping everything straight and knowing where Ripple (company) is with each court or legal case, avoiding the FUD, below is a list of every lawsuit Ripple Labs, Inc. has been involved with in the U.S. court system, all in chronological order since the company's inception in 2012. The open or active cases are in bold. 1.) 2014 - Ripple vs. LaCore Enterprises (closed or not active) 2.) 2015 - Ripple vs. Kefi Labs (closed or not active) 3.) 2015 - Arthur Britto vs. Jed McCaleb (closed or not active)** 4.) 2016 - Bitstamp vs. Ripple, Jed McCaleb, Stellar (closed or not active) 5.) 2016 - Ripple vs. Pixel Labs (closed or not active) 6.) 2017 - R3 vs. Ripple (Delaware) (closed or not active) 7.) 2017 - Ripple and XRP II vs. R3 (California) (open or active; on appeal) 8.) 2017 - R3 vs. Ripple (New York) (open or active) 9.) 2017 - Tony Petrucci vs. Ripple (closed or not active) 10.) 2018 - Ryan Coffey vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (open or active) 11.) 2018 - Ryan Coffey vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (U.S. Federal Court) (open or active) 12.) 2018 - Vladi Zakinov vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (open or active) * Case did not involve Ripple Labs, Inc. per se, but it was a dispute involving the technology, the creation of the Stellar, etc. Lastly, here are a few fun facts for you today. 1.) Google was founded in 1998. A little over 6 years after Google was formed, it appears the company was involved in over 40+ federal court or legal cases. This does not include any lawsuits filed against Google in any state courts.** 2.) Airbnb was founded in 2008. A little over 6 years after Airbnb formed, it appears company was involved in over 20+ federal court or legal cases. This does not include any lawsuits filed against Airbnb in any state courts.** 3.) Uber was founded in 2009. A little over 6 years after Uber was formed, it appears company was involved in over 100+ federal court or legal cases. This does not include any lawsuits filed against Uber in any state courts.** ** data is from https://www.pacer.gov/ Hang in there. Disruption breeds legal challenges. More lawsuits to come. Later. cc: @Pablo @Snoopy @zerpdigger @vlad_got_it @Mrsrippley @Sebastian @xrpisking
  5. No surprise here, guys. A recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court (Cyan v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund) earlier this year more likely than not opened the flood gates and we will probably see an increase in the overall number of securities class action lawsuits across the county, especially in this cryptocurrency and blockchain space. One lawsuit was already filed against Ripple Labs, Inc. in California on this very issue (Ryan Coffey v. Ripple Labs, Inc. and Brad Garlinghouse), and more likely than not, there will be another lawsuit filed in the state of New York by Scott + Scott Attorneys. Check out my post below. Went into detail on this issue about a month ago. Ha, what interests me the most though is that in theory, one state (e.g., California) could rule that XRP is a security and one state (e.g., New York) could rule that XRP is not a security (conflicting views or rulings). All that to say, Ripple Labs, Inc. will be ready to go to court and defend their position. Stay tuned.
  6. @Pablo, as of yesterday (6/4/2018), Ripple Labs, Inc. and Brad G. have not filed a response in court to the original complaint filed by Ryan Coffey in early May. Going to hold off on commenting on this case until both Ripple and BG file an answer. I want to see what they have to say (legally) in response to the complaint. Stay tuned, tag you when that post goes up (hopefully soon).
  7. Hey Guys, We were all made aware of Xpring a few weeks ago. No surprise here. Ripple Labs, Inc. filed a trademark to protect the word mark "Xpring" on May 18, 2018. Check out the filing below and how Ripple Labs, Inc. described Xpring within their intellectual property or trademark. Glad they did this. This filing marks the 51st trademark Ripple Labs, Inc. has filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office since its inception in 2012. 45 of the 51 trademarks are "active," whereas six (6) of the 51 trademarks are marked "dead" or were abandoned by the company (e.g., "Ripple Communications"). Ripple Labs, Inc. also has one (1) patent filed with the U.S. office as well. Excited for them. Keep adding more to the IP portfolio. Later.
  8. Thought the same thing from a jurisdictional standpoint. Before one can even get to trial, the court must be able to hear the case. In the U.S., if a court does not have jurisdiction, that court cannot hear the case. This applies to federal courts and state courts. After doing some research, there was a recent 2018 U.S. Supreme Court Case that is less than 2 months old (Cyan v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund). Basically, the Supreme Court held that state courts (e.g., California, where this case is filed) have the jurisdiction to hear U.S. securities related court cases, in state court, not federal court; the precedent set gives state courts jurisdiction to rule on federal securities law, along with their own state level securities laws. What does that mean? Well, this recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court will more likely than not open the flood gates and will increase the overall number of securities class action lawsuits that will not be dismissed from state court any longer (and go into federal court), and instead, state courts can and will be ruling on federal law moving forward (unless Congress "makes a patch" and changes the law; not sure you can rely on them right now). Arguably, this won't be the last lawsuit filed against Ripple Labs for the same cause of action and securities related issue or issues, all because of this most recent Cyan ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. What if? What if another lawsuit in New York is filed? Same facts, different plaintiff and attorney. Now what? Let's say this case moves forward and this California court rules that XRP is not a security. However, the court in New York moves their case forward and rules that XRP is a security. Then what? That is where we are at right now. That is what this Cyan v. Beaver County case means. Everyone here can make fun of the plaintiff and the attorney that filed the case, provide their input as to whether or not XRP is or is not a security, but this case is legitimate and needs to be taken seriously. The attorney will more likely than not take a back seat as "second chair" and shop this case out to a law firm that knows what they are doing (security law wise), and that law firm will be the lead attorney and take the case from there. That is not a knock on him, just the reality. And, brilliantly enough, he will probably make a name for himself (arguably, he already has). https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/race-to-the-state-courthouse-how-the-62544/ @TheXRPer @OzAlphaWolf @Pablo @zerpdigger @Snoopy @vlad_got_it @Hodor
  9. Does the plaintiff, Ryan Coffey, work for Wells Fargo? Wonder if this is the same guy?
  10. Again, according to Ripple's legal team, R3 is refusing to produce the operating agreements of R3 HoldCo LLC and Distributed Ledger Group, LLC. Now, as promised, after looking into the Distributed Ledger Group, LLC, the entity is filed in Delaware (and is still active). However, in October 2017, David Rutter of R3 signed a certification of cancellation for Distributed Ledger Group, LLC in California, meaning R3 "wound up" or closed down the entity, for Distributed Ledger Group, LLC no longer plans on operating or doing business in California. Interesting development.
  11. Hey guys, Quick update on the Ripple Labs, Inc. v. R3 court case in New York. Remember, this legal dispute is in two jurisdictions - California and New York. The Delaware case was dismissed. The California case is on appeal and will pick back up in July 2018. This post only pertains to the case in New York (Case No. 655781/2017). No, the case between Ripple Labs and R3 is not over, contrary to previous reports, news articles and previously posted FUD on this website. 1.) Discovery has commenced. This is the next step in preparing a case for trial. 2.) Ripple's legal team wrote a letter to the judge overseeing this case yesterday (4/3/2018) and asked Justice Bransten to direct R3 to a.) produce documents from a wider timeframe, b.) to fully respond to reasonable discovery requests, c.) to include key custodians in document searches and d.) to apply search terms to ensure production of relevant documents. 3.) "R3 initiated this lawsuit and yet is now taking inordinate steps to avoid its discovery obligations." 4.) According the Ripple's legal team, R3 refuses to produce documents predating January 1, 2016 or post-dating June 13, 2017. Their argument is such documents are not relevant. 5.) According to Ripple's legal team, R3 refuses to produce the operating agreements of R3 and Distributed Ledger Group, LLC. 6.) According to Ripple's legal team, R3 is refusing to including in the document search and collection efforts four (4) highly relevant custodians (people). 7.) The four (4) custodians or R3 people: Charley Cooper, Adam Furgal, Mike Hearn and Richard Brown. 8.) Project Romeo was a code name used by the parties to refer to the development of a formal R3/Ripple long-term commercial partnership. Thus, Ripple's legal team has added that term to the list of terms to search in the emails, texts, correspondences, etc. 9.) In one of the court documents below, you will see the proposed list of people from R3 who will be ordered to turn over texts, emails, voicemails, etc., and will probably be deposed at some point by both sides and their legal team. Check out that document. 10.) Lastly, both parties are going back and forth on what terms to search, limiting the scope of the discovery. This is common. So, for example, let's say R3 and Ripple Labs both agree to include the search term "XRP." During the discovery process, Ripple and R3 would then search through the other party's texts, emails, voicemails, correspondences, etc., of the custodians or people specifically listed or agreed upon AND within the specified timeframe, looking for the term "XRP." Thus, if Brad is a listed custodian for Ripple Labs, any email during the timeframe where the word "XRP" was used would come up in the search for R3. Hopefully that makes sense. Anyways, they are fighting on what terms to search and how "wide" the scope should be here. Still digging through these documents. I will post some more information, if needed. Later tonight, I'm going to do some more digging into Distributed Ledger Group, LLC. Never heard of this LLC before. Later. @Snoopy @Pablo @zerpdigger @vlad_got_it @xrpisking @FinancialAnybody
  12. I'll keep you posted, @FinancialAnybody.
  13. brjXRP17

    XRP iced by CNBC Last night .

    See link/story below. As of December 2017, according to the IRS, Stellar is NOT a non-profit like you think it is, @SuperTronk. Sure, they checked the "non-profit" box when filing the entity in Delaware, but the two of us could form an entity in Delaware and do the same thing, doesn't make our entity a true non-profit. And if Stellar is a non-profit, a true 501(c)(3), not only are they late on filing their paperwork with the IRS, but I would love to see their books (i.e., The Bitcoin Foundation, a true non-profit and 501(c)(3), has their tax filings and books on their website). Thanks. https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/17500-a-stellar-story/
  14. Attention everyone, See the screenshot below. The case on appeal in California was lost at the trial court level last year (2017). Ripple Labs has appealed. The next hearing is in July (2018).
  15. brjXRP17

    Ripple Labs + Massachusetts

    Care to share some more information on Ripple Labs, inc. filing to do business in both Massachusetts and Vermont, @JoelKatz?
×