On September 20, Ripple's lawyers filed a motion to challenge the lawsuit filed by the buyerXRP 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's lawyers drew the court's attention to the fact that the acquisition of XRP cannot be considered as an investment in the company, since the startup does not createa joint venture with token holders and does not promise to transfer a portion of the profits to them.In addition, the XRP network is decentralized and does not belong to any organization.The petition states that XRP is a currency, so the turnoverIn this case, lawyers refer to employees of the US Treasury Department and the Department of Justice, who have publicly admitted 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.
