Regulation
Judge Dismisses Most Ripple Claims, One Goes to Trial
Ripple has secured a procedural victory as a judge dismissed several claims in the Oakland class action lawsuit.
The U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Ripple’s motion for summary judgment on federal class claims for unregistered securities and state law securities claims.
Dismissal of Ripple Federal and State Law Claims
Judge Phyllis Hamilton tossed out most of the class action claims against Ripple. Both the federal class claims for unregistered securities and the state law securities claims were dismissed, which is a procedural victory for Ripple.
However, the dismissal did not address the fundamental question of whether XRP is a security.
Ripple’s Chief Legal Officer, Stu Alderoty, showed his satisfaction with the court’s decision and said,
“We are glad that the California court has dismissed all the class action claims. The only individual state law claim that has been left will be addressed in the trial.”
XRP Security Status to Be Decided by Jury
However, the court stated that the status of XRP as a security is still uncertain even with the procedural wins. The court stated that it is for a jury to decide whether all three prongs of the Howey test are satisfied.
Besides the class action, another civil securities lawsuit against Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse will also go to trial. In this case, the court denied part of Ripple’s motion for summary judgment on the claim that Garlinghouse sold unregistered securities in 2017. The plaintiff alleges that Garlinghouse lied about being “very, very long XRP” while dumping millions of XRP on various exchanges.
However, legal expert Fred Rispoli noted on X that the likelihood of a settlement is high, given the low damages and potential negative jury verdict for Ripple if the plaintiff wins. Rispoli also stressed that the question as to whether XRP is a security or not remains unanswered and noted that federal legislation is required to address this issue.
The class action is now over at the district court level. As to whether XRP is a security, however, the Court held it is for a jury to decide whether all three prongs of the Howey test are met. That claim, a individual claim by one plaintiff, will go to trial (though…2/4
— Fred Rispoli (@freddyriz) June 20, 2024
Ripple’s attorneys stated that XRP does not fit the Howey Test’s definition of a security and therefore, the case should be thrown out. Nevertheless, Judge Hamilton decided that the case should proceed to trial and held that it cannot be decided as a matter of law that Ripple’s conduct would have led a reasonable investor to expect profits because of the company’s efforts.
Motions to Seal and Upcoming Deadlines
At the hearing, the court ordered both parties to reconsider their motions to seal any part of the briefs on the basis of the court’s decision to deny their motions. Both the parties have filed their unredacted briefs and have also moved the court to allow them an extra three weeks to file a motion to seal some of the exhibits they have used.
The court allowed this and set the new deadline to file the motion to seal with the narrowed grounds to July 8, 2024. As for the motion to seal, a separate order will be issued regarding the narrowed motion.
However, Judge Hamilton’s ruling is different from that of U.S. District Court Judge Analisa Torres in the Southern District of New York who held that XRP was not a security when sold to retail investors because it did not meet all the elements of the Howey Test.
Read Also: Jeremy Hogan Predicts No Clear SEC Win in Ripple Case Appeal
The presented content may include the personal opinion of the author and is subject to market condition. Do your market research before investing in cryptocurrencies. The author or the publication does not hold any responsibility for your personal financial loss.
Regulation
Polymarket Faces French Ban After Massive Bets On US Election Results
Polymarket, a crypto-based prediction market, is likely to be prohibited by France’s gambling regulator, the ANJ, after a huge amount of bets were placed on the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Since the global audience engaged in prediction platforms, Polymarket experienced a record jump, with $450 million expected to be distributed to users following the victory of Donald Trump.
This increase of betting volume and large stakes has become a matter of concern for the French regulator because the platform offers unlicensed gambling services.
$450 Million in Payouts Expected After U.S. Election Bets
Prediction markets, which are expected to increase their payout to election bettors to around $450m following Donald Trump’s projected win, are attracting increasing attention.
Although conventional polls pointed to a closer contest, prediction markets such as Polymarket and Kalshi recorded a steep rise in Trump’s chances in the last few days, indicating a strong divergence with poll-based expectations.
Among the active users of Polymarket, a French trader called “Theo” made a $26 million bet on Trump’s win and won $49 million. This big bet made Polymarket popular, as the French authorities paid attention to the platform and its popularity among French residents, which led to concerns about the compliance of the platform with French gambling legislation.
France’s ANJ Considers Blocking Access to Polymarket
The ANJ has claimed that Polymarket is involved in gambling which is only allowed in France by licensed operators. According to local media, the regulator has the power to ban access to unlicensed gambling sites and is expected to restrict access to Polymarket soon.
An ANJ insider said: “Polymarket is just betting on something that is completely uncertain, which is exactly what gambling is.”
If put in place, the ban would prevent the usage of the application in France, despite the fact that users can still try to avoid the restriction by connecting to VPN. The ANJ could also try to influence media outlets and directories to stop advertising or linking to Polymarket and, thus, limit its audiences even more.
Regulatory Concerns Over Market Manipulation
The high level of activity on Polymarket has led to speculations that the platform may be used for market manipulation. Two blockchain analysis firms, Chaos Labs and Inca Digital, recently revealed that there was potential wash trading within Polymarket’s U.S. presidential betting market where the same assets are bought and sold to simply create a fake market. This type of trading is rather manipulative and can lead to the distortion of signals on the market and mislead other participants.
The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission also has concerns about prediction markets and put forward a rule in May aiming at stricter regulation of such markets due to the potential for manipulation.
Although no final decision has been reached, regulatory actions could impact Polymarket’s ability to operate freely in other markets, including the U.S.
Disclaimer: The presented content may include the personal opinion of the author and is subject to market condition. Do your market research before investing in cryptocurrencies. The author or the publication does not hold any responsibility for your personal financial loss.
Regulation
FTX Co Founder Gary Wang Appeals For No Jail Time, Here’s Why
FTX co-founder Gary Wang has requested a federal judge not to send him to prison. He noted that he is testifying against the former business partner, Sam Bankman-Fried, someone he has known for a long time in a fraud case.
The lawyer for Wang submitted a sentencing memo in Manhattan federal court wherein he claimed that his client should not be incarcerated as he provided assistance to the prosecutors as well as his role in the scheme was comparatively less.
Wang, who pleaded guilty to fraud and conspiracy when FTX went bankrupt in 2022, is to receive his sentencing on the 20th of November.
FTX Co-Founder Gary Wang Appeals for No Jail Time
The defense counsel for FTX co-founder Gary Wang highlighted his client’s early cooperation with the federal prosecutors as one of the key reasons why the court should consider him for mercy. According to Graff, Wang was one of the first FTX executives to meet with the authorities and share information on the FTX and Alameda Research. Wang gave a testimony in the trial that led to the recent conviction of Bankman-Fried who was sentenced to 25 years in prison.
Speaking at the trial, Wang described how he was ordered to change the code of FTX in order to enable Alameda Research to use the assets of the company’s clients, which is one of the key points of Bankman-Fried’s fraud.
FTX co-founder’s lawyer noted that his involvement in the fraud was less than some of the other former executives, including Caroline Ellison, former CEO of Alameda Research, and Nishad Singh, FTX’s former head of engineering. Wang, his lawyer said, did not start or operate the scheme and was not personally involved in the provision of false information to the investors.
“Gary was not involved in the scheme at its inception, was never provided with details of the scheme, and, in contrast to Bankman-Fried, Ellison and Singh, never engaged in any affirmative action of deception,” Graff wrote.
Sentencing Comparisons to Other Executives
Wang’s attorney argued that a prison sentence would create an “unwarranted sentencing disparity” with Nishad Singh, who avoided jail time after pleading guilty and cooperating with the government. Singh, who faced potential decades-long sentences, was ultimately sentenced to time served and three years of supervised release.
Ellison, another major cooperator, received a two-year prison sentence. FTX co-founder Gary Wang contended that Wang’s level of involvement was even lower than Singh’s, supporting a non-custodial sentence for Wang as well.
Graff also noted Wang’s personal circumstances, stating that Wang is expecting the birth of his first child shortly after his sentencing date. Wang’s attorney suggested that allowing him to remain with his family would align with the court’s treatment of other cooperators in the case.
“Gary wants nothing more than to be a good husband and father and to continue his work to facilitate FTX victims’ recovery,” Graff wrote.
Separately, the U.S. government is working to reclaim approximately $13.25 million in political donations made by FTX executives, including Bankman-Fried and Singh. Judge Lewis Kaplan however granted the government additional time to negotiate the return of these funds, extending discussions with the PACs until January 15, 2025.
Disclaimer: The presented content may include the personal opinion of the author and is subject to market condition. Do your market research before investing in cryptocurrencies. The author or the publication does not hold any responsibility for your personal financial loss.
Regulation
US SEC Files Motion for Judgment Against Kraken, Challenges Key Defenses
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a motion seeking judgment in its case against cryptocurrency exchange Kraken, focusing on defenses such as “fair notice” and the “major questions doctrine.”
This move, led by SEC Chairman Gary Gensler’s team, aims to limit further discovery into the agency’s regulatory policies, particularly those affecting the crypto sector. The timing of the filing has drawn attention, as some in the industry view it as a strategic attempt to shield the SEC’s methods from closer examination.
US SEC Files Motion for Judgment Against Kraken
The SEC’s motion seeks to dismiss defenses put forward by Kraken that include the fair notice defense and the major questions doctrine. The fair notice defense argues that Kraken did not receive adequate regulatory guidance regarding its crypto-related activities.
Meanwhile, the major questions doctrine suggests that regulatory agencies, such as the SEC, should not make major policy decisions without clear direction from Congress.
Subsequently, the US SEC’s motion appears intended to prevent further discovery into its policies, which Kraken and other crypto advocates have criticized as inconsistent and unclear. A similar motion was filed in Ripple case, where the US SEC failed to secure a judgment. Michael O’Connor, an attorney representing Kraken expects a similar outcome in the Kraken case, though Kraken has indicated that it has additional defenses should this motion proceed.
This Is A Breaking News, Please Check Back For More
Disclaimer: The presented content may include the personal opinion of the author and is subject to market condition. Do your market research before investing in cryptocurrencies. The author or the publication does not hold any responsibility for your personal financial loss.
-
Market24 hours ago
Celestia and GOAT investors turn to Poodlana to try and recoup losses
-
Altcoin23 hours ago
Binance To Delist These Crypto in BTC Trading Pairs
-
Ethereum11 hours ago
Ethereum Analyst Sets $3,400 Target Once ETH Breaks Key Resistance – Details
-
Market23 hours ago
Best Solana Airdrops for Early Crypto Access
-
Market9 hours ago
Bitcoin Price Pushes Rally Further: Bulls in Full Force
-
Altcoin22 hours ago
Dogecoin Price To Hit $4 As Elon Musk’s D.O.G.E. May Target US Fed
-
Altcoin21 hours ago
3 Promising Crypto Coins with 5000% Returns in 2025
-
Altcoin20 hours ago
Shiba Inu Burn Rate Rockets 3,700% Sparking Optimism, SHIB To Hit $2?
✓ Share: