Search the Community

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

Keep an eye on lazy, indifferent cell phone service providers: https://news.livecoinwatch.com/att-slammed-224-million-crypto-lawsuit/

Here's another take on the matter... Ripple (XRP) Given Opportunity To Prove Itself By Ulysses Smith - May 8, 2018 https://stocksgazette.com/2018/05/08/ripple-xrp-given-opportunity-to-prove-itself/ "The Class Action suit brought against Ripple (XRP) by James Coffey has attracted sharp reactions from the Twitter community; with many holding the view that it’s misplaced and doesn’t represent all the XRP investors as termed in the suit. And to some, this is an opportunity for Ripple to prove what it has maintained all along: XRP isn’t and doesn’t qualify as a security." "One XRP holder fired: “As an XRP holder I want to inform you and others that you do NOT represent me, I demand to be excluded from the class. Furthermore, I will be discussing with my lawyer any legal remedies against you and your client if your frivolous lawsuit results in damage to my holdings.”

Potentially bad news for Ripple and its native token's price in the following very short article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-12/ripple-loses-bid-to-keep-its-cryptocurrency-fight-in-california

Guys, While searching for a Ripple Labs vs. R3 update in the California court records, a different court case came to my attention. Tony Petrucci of North Carolina (plaintiff) is suing Ripple Labs, Inc. (defendant) for $5,885.68 USD in small claims court because "21,798.84 Units of currency (XRP) (was) not accessible due to upgrades by Ripple Labs, Inc. that I was not made aware of." According to the complaint (see pictures below), this allegedly happened on 6/19/2017. When asked how the plaintiff (Tony Petrucci) calculated the money owed to him, his answer under oath stated "currency (XRP) worth an all time high of 0.42 per unit, recently trading at 0.25 - 0.29. I will accept $0.27 per unit, which equates to $5,885.68." He asked Ripple Labs, Inc. to reimburse him prior to filing the lawsuit. The trial in small claims court beings on January 12, 2018. Notes: 1.) What is this guy doing? 2.) In small claims court in San Francisco CA, individuals can file a claim to up to $10,000 USD. 3.) 21,798.84 "units" (XRP) is now worth over $65,000.00 USD. 4.) Not sure if Mr. Petrucci is going to fly out to California and represent himself (think of Judge Judy type court, that is small claims) or if he is going to hire a lawyer. Maybe he can conference in via telephone. 5.) A plaintiff cannot appeal a decision made in small claims court in California. 6.) Success will unfortunately bring suits like this. Ha, just add it to my list of cases to track. Keep you guys posted.

Hey guys, Happy Thanksgiving. Hope you all have a safe and fun holiday with your friends and family. A while back, my first post highlighted the legal dispute between Ripple Labs, Inc. and R3, providing this community the documents filed in court ( https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/9857-ripple-labs v-r3-actual-court-documents/ ) That legal dispute is still ongoing in two different jurisdictions right now (CA and NY). A main document that was missing from my original post (and the court records) was the Technology Provider Agreement or TPA that was executed between both parties, Ripple and R3. That document was filed in court two days ago and is now available to the public. My notes on the Technology Provider Agreement or TPA: The Technology Provider Agreement is dated August 16, 2016. R3 was/is responsible for the overall management and execution of the project (page 2). There were two (2) phases of Project Xenon (page 2). "Following the completion of Phase 1 of the Project, after considering the results of the completed Phase and feedback from the participating R3 Members, the determination to proceed with the Phase 2 shall be solely at R3's option and discretion." (page 2) R3 was/is required to issue a report regarding the outcome of the project, objectively and without bias (page 2). R3's project report was/is confidential information. Have not seen this document filed in court (yet). No clue if this was completed by R3 either. Ripple shall not solicit feedback from R3 members unless R3 approved it first. If a participating R3 member contacted Ripple with feedback, Ripple had to make a reasonable effort to include R3 in the conversation (page 3). Technology license and related obligations. In my opinion, this is one of the important parts of this agreement (page 3). "Each party will own all right, title and interest in and to all of the technology it contributes to the Project including all intellectual property rights..." (page 3) My view here is this. If Ripple's provides their technology, they still own it. If R3 brought something to the table, they still own that. Pretty standard. "Each party will own all right, title and interest in and to any adaptions and modifications of its background technology." (page 3) "The parties agree to disclose promptly in writing and deliver to the other party all derivative technology that it conceives, creates or develops during the term of this agreement." (page 3) In a recent post of mine, it was highlighted that one of the discovery requests asked by Ripple of R3 was about "atomic mode." Was R'3 Corda's atomic mode feature derivative technology that came from this relationship? If so, did R3 communicate that with Ripple? R3 has not answered any of the discovery requests from Ripple Labs (as of 11/22). https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/11893-r3-stonewalling-ripple-labs-in-legal-action/?tab=comments#comment-121617 "Neither party will reverse engineer, disassemble or decompile the other party's proprietary software or attempt to extract any materials and/or exploit any intellectual property embodied in the other party's proprietary software except in furtherance of the commercial partnership and purposes contemplated under this agreement." (page 4) Ripple was/is required to provide R3 with a quarterly report (page 5). Option clause (page 5). We have already seen this. If the agreement is terminated by either party, R3 and any "sublicensees" of Ripple's technology R3 issued (project participants) shall immediately stop using Ripple's technology (page 7). Any disputes arising out of the agreement shall be governed by New York law. Both parties waived their right to a trial by jury (page 11). Ripple filed their complaint in California and demanded a jury trial whereas R3 filed their complaint in Delaware and New York, and they did not request a jury trial. Regarding some of you in this community and your frustrations about Ripple announcing partnerships and who Ripple was/is working with (past, currently or future), this agreement discusses the public disclosure of the agreement and R3 participating members (page 12), shedding some light on joint press releases, getting permission first, etc. Ripple could be working with a central bank or Visa or Amazon (enter any company name here), and we will never know about it until they want us to know. Hate to assume anything, but it is a safe assumption that this clause or something similar is in every agreement Ripple signs with a potential customer. Objective of the project was/is "to explore the potential of digital assets and shared ledger technology in executing customer money movements (as opposed to only moving cash in support of other assets on a ledger...the aim is to demonstrate where the current overheads involved in Nostro accounting can potentially be reduced." ("Exhibit B") One goal of the project was/is having R3 operate Azure node running Rippled ("Exhibit B"). Several things were determined to be outside of the scope of this project ("Exhibit B"). You guys should check these out. Trading use cases which are not settled in cash (e.g., title changes). Nostro accounts held by banks funded with XRP Hedging Wholesale transaction sizes The Project Xenon plan or timetable (snapshot as of 7/13/2016) is in "Exhibit B" Phase 1 - "enable banks to settle transactions on Ripple with each other using XRP to create markets from cash balances." The goal of Phase 1 was to provide viability of the technology ("Exhibit B"). For Phase 1, the time needed to complete the phase for each bank was/is two days. Found this very interesting/cool. My thought was this. If a bank approached Ripple today and wanted to test their technology, does that first round of testing also take two days? Assume "two days" to be two business days, and there are a five business days in a week, but it somewhat puts it into perspective how much time it takes to get just one bank live. Phase 2 - "provide member banks with an additional hosted Ripple Connect instance accessible via browser (fiat payments and messaging), and keep Phase 1 running." The goal of Phase 2 was/is the same as Phase 1. "Exhibit C" appears to be the grant language and/or form for each Project Xenon participant. The amount of XRP granted to each participant was/is 150,000 XRP. "At the conclusion of Project Xenon, you may keep this XRP or you may return it to Ripple." ("Exhibit C") Page 18 and page 26 were blank in the court filings, so those two pages were left out of the documents post below. You can view the original complaints (CA and NY) and the option agreement here: https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/9857-ripple-labs v-r3-actual-court-documents/

Quick update on the Ripple Labs v. R3 lawsuit filed in California back in September 2017. 1.) Plaintiff-Ripple recently requested Defendant-R3 to answer some questions through "interrogatories." An interrogatory is a written question that is formally put to one party in a case by another party and that must be answered. This would be the start of the discovery phase. 2.) Ripple also requested documents and communications from R3. Ripple requested all documents and communications: a.) related to Project Xenon, the agreements between both parties and anything tied to the litigation. b.) related to R3 and Ripple involving David Rutter (R3's CEO). c.) related to entities joining or leaving R3's consortium. d.) related to R3's efforts to have R3's members implement or use Ripple's technology, products, XRP or similar products. e.) concerning R3's effort to account for the value of the option contract and/or to hedge or otherwise manager the risks associated with the option contract. f.) between R3 and current, former and potential investors relating to the option contract. g.) concerning R3's Series A or any other fundraising activity. h.) concerning R3's decision to abandon blockchain technology. i.) concerning the "atomic mode feature" in Corda (R3's DLT software). j.) All documents and communications concerning XRP. 3.) R3 objected and did not answer any interrogatory questions put in front of them by Ripple Labs. 4.) R3 objected and has not turned over any documents and communications requested by Ripple Labs. 5.) R3's main argument is that the court does not have jurisdiction over R3 to hear this case in California. Thus, they don't need to answer or produce anything. 6.) Ripple labeled R3 and their legal team's actions, or lack thereof, as "stonewalling." All of this is pretty standard, and this "procedural posturing" is pretty common, especially when you have two cases filed in two different jurisdictions (CA and NY). It does seem like R3 is delaying a bit aka "stonewalling." In my opinion, the two things that stuck out were Ripple's request from R3 for all documents and communications concerning the "atomic mode feature" in Corda and those communications involving XRP. What is "atomic mode"? Is Corda's atomic mode feature similar to an aspect of Ripple's technology? Was "atomic mode" released after Ripple and R3 had entered into their TPA agreement? Very interesting. Within a few weeks, more should be filed in this case and with the case in NY. Stay tuned.

Hey Guys, Just to recap. A civil court case was filed by Ripple Labs against R3 in California on September 8, 2017. Ripple Labs is the plaintiff in one case (California) and the defendant in the other case (New York). This post goes into detail about the case filed in California. Foremost, this post has nothing to do with Ripple’s “procedural” win in Delaware earlier this month. Despite a tweet and some previous posts within this forum and on Reddit, yes, this case is still active (the case in New York is still active as well). Anything stating otherwise is incorrect. Yesterday, October 26, 2017, defendant-R3 filed paperwork in the The Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. Here are my notes on R3’s latest motion, their court documents and the civil case in California (court documents posted below; court documents separated by the Ripple logo): Ripple Labs filed the original complaint against R3 in California on September 8, 2017. R3 filed a motion on October 4, 2017 asking the court for an extension or for more time to respond to Ripple's original complaint. The court granted R3's motion for an extension to respond on October 11, 2017, allowing R3 to respond on or before October 26, 2017. R3 filed a Motion to Quash the original summons or complaint (deem it null or invalid) filed by Ripple Labs on October 26, 2017. There will be a meeting or appearance in court on this motion on or before Monday, November 27, 2017. Under oath, David Rutter (R3's CEO) filed a supporting document for this Motion to Quash, a declaration, stating several things: Ripple has alleged two (2) meetings took place in the Delaware court action (Delaware paperwork could not be found), however, according to David Rutter, the meetings were unrelated to The Technology Partnership Agreement (TPA) and the Option Contract. Both parties have conflicting facts here. "R3 did not immediately sue Ripple for claims arising out of its improper repudiation of the Option Contract because the parties were attempting to resolve the dispute without resorting to litigation." David Rutter called Brad Garlinghouse "as a professional courtesy to inform him of the Delaware action." After filing the complaint in Delaware, R3 filed a second complaint in New York, and R3 is awaiting Ripple's response. Under oath, Isabelle Corbett (R3's Senior Counsel and Director of Regulatory Affairs) also filed a support document for this Motion to Quash, a declaration, stating several things: "To the best of my knowledge, no Project Xenon participant is headquartered or organized in California." "To the best of my knowledge, at least one individual who served as the point of contact for a Project Xenon participant is located in New York; no individual who served as a point of contact for a Project Xenon participant is located in California." R3 attached their original complaint filed in New York for the court or judge in California to view. This is called judicial notice. As of today, October 27, 2017, Ripple Labs has not filed an answer to R3's original complaint in New York (I am actively watching that docket as well). The main point to take away here is this. R3 has motioned the court in California and basically said, look, this Court does not have personal jurisdiction (one of several requirements needed in order to properly bring a civil case forward in court in the U.S.). R3 is stating the New York is the proper forum or venue. In a way, this is going to go back and forth until a proper venue is found. It won't be Delaware. We are left with California or New York. Obviously, R3 wants the dispute litigated in New York, for they will be favored in that state. Same goes for Ripple Labs in California. For my notes on Ripple's original complaint in California, here was my post https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/9857-ripple-labs v-r3-actual-court-documents/ Keep you guys posted. Later.

This blog entry is my pre-SWELL round-up of significant crypto news items affecting XRP and Ripple. I discuss a variety of Ripple and XRP-related items, and also cover the Bitcoin fork(s) news. As always, please leave any feedback re: my blog below, and thank you sincerely for sharing my blog with others. Hope you enjoy & good luck to the Ripple team preparing for the big day tomorrow! My blog announcements on other media: Twitter Reddit Bitcointalk - alt coin sub forum Bitcointalk - XRP speculation thread

Merely a procedural ruling? Hardly... https://www.ft.com/content/05fb7f62-cf54-3d2f-9e9d-d2c994074958

The "R3 Sues Ripple Over $1 Billion XRP Options Contract" article which can be found here https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/1-billion-ripple-r3-file-dueling-lawsuits-over-cancelled-partnership/ raises some eyebrows. The core of the disagreement centers on an options contract that gave R3 the right to purchase up to 5 billion XRP for $0.0085 per unit–or $42.5 million for the entire amount–until September 2019. how will the markets react when and if R3 exercises its option.

A year ago, Ripple gave R3 an out-of-the-money call option to buy 5 billion XRPs at $0.0085 apiece. Now that the price of XRP has gone up by 4000%, the option is worth a billion dollars and represents R3’s single most valuable asset. Ripple wants to renege, and R3 is understandably annoyed. https://elaineou.com/2017/09/10/r3-should-have-used-a-smart-contract/?utm_content=buffer7cbc7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

I've take a close look at the history of R3, and I provide my own opinion of the current legal conflict between R3 and Ripple. I'll be honest.. the more I read about R3, the less favorable was my impression of their C-level decision making. Hope you enjoy the read - please leave any feedback here, and please feel free to share on any other media! My blog announcements on other media: Twitter Reddit Bitcointalk - alt coin sub forum Bitcointalk - XRP speculation thread