Quote
In a ruling Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton, of the Northern District of California, allowed a putative class-action lawsuit by retail XRP (XRP) buyers to proceed.
The order follows a hearing held in mid-January between the plaintiff, which includes Bradley Sostack, a one-time XRP owner, and the defendant, which includes Ripple, its XRP II subsidiary and Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse.
The order follows a hearing held in mid-January between the plaintiff, which includes Bradley Sostack, a one-time XRP owner, and the defendant, which includes Ripple, its XRP II subsidiary and Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse.
The main allegations:
1. Violation of Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act (Title 15 U.S.C. §77l(a)(1)) against defendants for the unregistered offer and sale of securities. Compl. ¶¶ 169-175;
2. Violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act (Title 15 U.S.C. § 77o) against defendant Ripple and defendant Garlinghouse for control person liability for the primary violation of Title 15 U.S.C. § 77l(a)(1). Id. ¶¶ 176-183 (to get her with U.S.C. § 77l(a)(1), the “federal securities claims”);
3. Violation of California Corporations Code § 25503 against defendants for a primary violation of $25110 restriction on the offer or sale of unregistered securities. Id. ¶¶ 184-190
4. Violation of California Corporations Code § 25504 against defendant Ripple and defendant Garlinghouse for control person liability in connection with
defendants’ primary violation of $25110. Id. ¶¶ 201-207
5. Violation of California Corporations Code § 25501 against defendant Ripple and defendant XRP II, as well as a parallel material assistance claim under§ 25504.1 against defendant Ripple and defendant Garlinghouse, for misleading statements in connection with the offer or sale of securities in violation of § 25401. Id. ¶¶ 191-200;
6. Violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17500 against defendants for misleading advertisements concerning XRP. Id. ¶¶ 208-212;
7. Violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200 against defendants for their unregistered offer or sale of securities in violation of federal and state law, false advertising practices, misleading statements,and offense to established public policy. Id. ¶¶ 212-222.
New Reference: https://www.coindesk.com/ripple-class-action-lawsuit-can-proceed-judge-rules
More trouble for Ripple in 2020? Seems imminent!