Jed McCaleb has sold half the XRP he received; left with ~4.5 billion

                                

The culmination of 2017 bull-run gave rise to scores of crypto millionaires and a few billionaires.

Jed McCaleb, co-founder of Ripple was one of the very few who made the list. On his exit from Ripple in 2013, McCaleb held 9 billion XRP and had signed a contract with Ripple to ensure that no huge XRP dumps would take place. However, there have been allegations of McCaleb selling hoards of XRP, but an active XRP member put these allegations to rest. Twitter user @LeoHadjiloizou identified accounts used by Ripple to send XRP to McCaleb’s XRP selling wallet and charted out the sales of XRP over-time by the co-founder. Leonidas tweeted, According to their deal, Ripple has control over McCaleb’s XRP and it holds it in 3 distinct accounts and 1 account through which it sold XRP via Bitstamp.

Thus, the wallet addresses mentioned by Leonidas, are associated with Ripple and indicate a moving of XRP from their wallets to the address that sells McCaleb’s XRP.  The chart provided by the Twitter user called attention to the sale of XRP and compared it to the daily CoinMarketCap volume. Even though the chart reflected similarities between McCaleb’s XRP sales and XRP volume on CMC, the Twitter user pointed out that a “huge” percent of the total volume was fake. The sale of XRP took place according to the deal with Ripple and saw a no-sell period between January 2019 and June 2019, indicating that McCaleb’s XRP sale has not amounted to a large figure that could cause market instability.

Leonidas added:

“… a huge % of the total volume is fake. I wanted to check if the sales are being calculated based on a different metric, like the volume from crypto compare. The graph doesn’t seem to suggest that anything changed.”

After revising a few details from the contract in February 2016, the new deal asked McCaleb to donate 2 billion XRP and noted that even though he retained ownership of the 5.3 billion XRP, Ripple will control its release. According to the data, the co-founder has managed to sell half the XRP he received and was left with approximately 4.5+ billion more.
Namrata Shukla

Namrata is a full-time journalist at AMBCrypto covering the US and Indian market. A graduate in Mass communication, while majoring in Journalism, she writes mainly about regulations and its impact with a focus on technological advancements in the crypto space.

https://ambcrypto.com/jed-mccaleb-sold-half-xrp-he-received-left-with-4-5-billion/

TP

Crypto Exchange CoinField Bringing Stock and Fiat-backed Stablecoins on the XRP Ledger

TP

Ripple has filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit claiming it violated U.S. securities laws

by selling XRP. In a new filing posted early Friday, attorneys for Ripple pushed back on allegations made by XRP purchasers suing the company, its subsidiaries and executives. Notably, the motion to dismiss specifically claims that the plaintiff, Bradley Sostack, does not have standing to file a complaint, rather than address claims that XRP is a security.

In the motion to dismiss, Ripple states that the plaintiff failed to bring a case within three years of the initial offering (which would have been 2013), meaning the statute of repose expired; that the plaintiff did not “plausibly allege” that he purchased XRP during the initial offering; and that the plaintiff did not “plausibly allege” that any of the defendants actually sold the XRP that he bought. Notably absent from the motion to dismiss is a full-fledged argument over why XRP is not a security. Indeed, the filing only addresses the question in a footnote (footnote 19), which states that XRP is not a security “because it is not an ‘investment contract.'”

The filing goes on to say:

“Purchasing XRP is not an ‘investment’ in Ripple; there is no common enterprise between Ripple and XRP purchasers; there was no promise that Ripple would help generate profits for XRP holders; and the XRP Ledger is decentralized.”

The footnote also adds that “because XRP is a currency,” it cannot also be a security under law. The filing states that the court itself does not need to determine “whether XRP is a security or currency for purposes of this motion, which assumes Plaintiff’s allegation that XRP is a security.” The filing also states that “the federal Departments of Treasury and Justice publicly concluded that XRP is a ‘convertible virtual currency,'” in its “factual background” section. “This is consistent with the CFTC’s position that virtual currency is a commodity,” the filing states. “Nonetheless, Plaintiff alleges that XRP is a ‘security’ under federal and state law, … and that Defendants have offered and sold XRP despite its non-registration with securities authorities.”

Moving to dismiss

Ripple’s actual arguments focus on when the most recent case has been filed, with the first hinging around the fact that XRP entered the market in 2013.

The filing states:

“… under Plaintiff’s own allegations, Defendants offered XRP to the public throughout 2013 through 2015. Accordingly, the three-year statute of repose expired as of 2016 (three years after the sales cited in the May 2015 settlement) and in no case later than May 2018 (three years after the May 2015 settlement agreement in which ‘Defendants acknowledged that they had sold XRP to the general public,’ Complaint ¶ 25). The Securities Act claims in the Complaint, filed August 5, 2019, are therefore untimely and barred by the statute of repose.”

The filing adds that the plaintiff does not claim he bought XRP directly from Ripple or another defendant, but rather, “he was part of the ‘general public’ who purchased XRP through transactions in a two-week period in January 2018.” “The necessary inference is that he bought and sold XRP through a secondary trading exchange,” the filing says. The response also states that plaintiff’s consumer protection claims under California state law (rather than federal securities law) should be dismissed because the statutes require a securities claim. As a result, the response says, the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice

(meaning plaintiffs would not be able to re-file the suit).

“Leave to amend should be denied because amendment would be futile.”

Year-long case

Ripple’s filing comes a month and a half after the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging the company, affiliated entities and individuals violated both state and federal securities laws. The new complaint, filed by law firms Susman Godfrey and Tayler-Copeland Law, alleges that Ripple, its subsidiary XRP II, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse and others violated securities law by selling XRP. In a first, the complaint borrowed from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s digital assets framework, drawing parallels between the SEC’s analysis for what constitutes a security and Ripple’s alleged actions. The case itself stretches back to early 2018, when XRP purchasers first began filing lawsuits against Ripple. The complaints alleged that Ripple sold XRP, using the proceeds to fund its operations. The cases were consolidated into the current form.

While the class has not been certified yet, Thursday’s filing is still the first time Ripple has had to respond to the substance of the complaints against it. At the heart of the matter is the question of whether XRP is a security. Some of Ripple’s detractors claim it is, one that is issued and managed by Ripple. The startup disagrees, saying XRP is a token created by Jed McCaleb (now at Interstellar), Arthur Britto and David Schwartz. It remains to be seen whether the case proceeds to a jury trial, or if settlement talks occur first. However, the filing notes that there is a hearing scheduled for early next year, and the attorneys say they are willing to argue the motion then.

Legal team shake up

Friday’s filing comes just days after Ripple brought Damien Marshall and Kathleen Hartnett, two lawyers with Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, on board to work on the case (a judge approved their appearance for the case on Sept. 17). They join Skadden Arps attorneys Peter Morrison, John Neukom and Virgina Milstead, who have been listed on the docket but whose names did not appear on the filing Friday morning. On Thursday night, former SEC Division of Enforcement director Andrew Ceresney also applied to join the case as a lawyer for Ripple. Ceresney is currently an attorney with Debevoise & Plimpton, an international law firm based in New York, and his name appeared on Friday’s filing. He previously represented Ripple against one of the previous class action lawsuits, filed by plaintiff Ryan Coffey, alongside former SEC Chair Mary Jo White. That case was voluntarily dismissed, and White’s work for Ripple appears to have ended around that time.

Article Produced By
Nikhilesh De

https://www.coindesk.com/ripple-avoids-securities-question-in-motion-to-dismiss-xrp-lawsuit

TP

Ripple Says ‘Final Guidance’ From UK Regulator Hands XRP Long-Awaited Regulatory Clarity

Ripple’s global head of government relations says a “final guidance”

issued by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority is offering long-awaited regulatory clarity for XRP in the country.On July 31st the FCA published its final guidance defining which crypto asset activities it regulates. It lists XRP alongside Bitcoin and Ethereum, which have both been declared by the agency as exchange tokens – not securities.

“The FCA is therefore publishing the Final Guidance as consulted on with some amendments to provide greater clarity on what is and isn’t regulated. This includes making the important distinction as to which cryptoassets fall inside the regulatory perimeter clearer. Consumers should be mindful of the absence of certain regulatory protections when considering purchasing unregulated cryptoassets. Unregulated cryptoassets (e.g. Bitcoin, Ether, XRP etc.) are not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and consumers do not have recourse to the Financial Ombudsman Service.”

Ripple’s Michelle Bond first brought the new document to light on Twitter.

“The FCA now lists XRP in the company of BTC and ETH, both of which were previously classified as exchange and/or utility tokens (and not a security token). This is exactly the kind of regulatory clarity the industry needs.” Ripple is battling a federal court case filed by a number of XRP investors who accuse the company of selling the digital asset as an unregistered security. he investors recently filed an amended complaint against the fintech company, claiming that the development of the XRP ledger and the success of XRP are dependent on Ripple’s efforts. Ripple has until September 19th to file its response.

Article Produced By
The Daily Hodl Staff

https://dailyhodl.com/2019/08/15/ripple-says-final-guidance-from-uk-regulator-hands-xrp-long-awaited-regulatory-clarity/

TP