September 20, Ripple lawyers filed a motion to challenge the lawsuit filed by the buyer XRP cryptocurrencies in relation to the enterprise, subsidiaries and management.
The document lists three main points because of which the court must dismiss the lawsuit:
- the plaintiff, Bradley Sostack, has not filed an application within three years from the start of the ICO (2013), so the statute of limitations has already expired;
- Bradley did not provide conclusive evidence that he acquired XRP during the ICO;
- Sostek did not confirm with his facts his claim that the defendants sold him virtual currency.
Ripple lawyers drew the court's attention to thatthe fact that the acquisition of XRP cannot be regarded as an investment in the company, since the startup does not create a common enterprise with the owners of the tokens and does not promise to transfer part of the profit to them. In addition, the XRP network is decentralized and does not belong to any organization. The petition states that XRP is a currency, therefore the turnover of a digital asset is not regulated by the securities law. In this case, lawyers refer to employees of the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Justice who have publicly acknowledged that XRP is a “convertible virtual currency.”
Sostack claims XRP tokens countsecurity at the federal and regional levels. According to him, the defendants sold coins illegally because they did not receive a license to trade in securities. Bradley admitted that he purchased coins on the cryptocurrency exchange in January 2018, so he is not entitled to make a claim to Ripple or its subsidiaries.
Six lawyers defend Ripple's interests: Damian Marshall and Kathleen Hartnett of Boies Schiller Flexner, attorneys Peter Morrison, John Newcom and Virginia Milsted of Skadden Arps, and former US Securities and Exchange Commissioner Andrew Serezna.