Documents

MTD Ripple

Description
Description:
Categories
Published
of 36
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Share
Transcript
  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Kathleen R. Hartnett (SBN 314267) BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 44 Montgomery Street, 41 st  Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 293-6800 Facsimile: (415) 293-6899 Email: khartnett@bsfllp.com Damien J. Marshall (  pro hac vice admitted) BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 55 Hudson Yards, 20 th  Floor  New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 446-2300 Facsimile: (212) 446-2350 Email: dmarshall@bsfllp.com Andrew J. Ceresney (  pro hac vice pending) DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 919 Third Avenue  New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 909-6000 Facsimile: (212) 909-6836 Email: aceresney@debevoise.com  Attorneys for Defendants Ripple Labs Inc.,    XRP II, LLC, and Bradley Garlinghouse  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION In re RIPPLE LABS INC. LITIGATION, Case No. 18-cv-06753-PJH NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL AND CALIFORNIA LAW; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT Date: January 15, 2020 Time: 9:00 a.m. Place: Courtroom 3 Judge: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton Consolidated Complaint filed: August 5, 2019 This Document Relates To: All Actions  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE  that on January 15, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the courtroom of the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton, United States District Judge, Northern District of California, located at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, Courtroom 3, the undersigned Defendants, Ripple Labs Inc. (“Ripple”), XRP II, LLC (“XRP II”), and Bradley Garlinghouse (collectively, “Defendants”), will move the Court to dismiss Lead Plaintiff Bradley Sostack’s (“Plaintiff’s”) Consolidated Complaint for Violations of Federal and California Law (“Complaint”). Defendants’ Motion is made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and seeks dismissal of the Complaint with prejudice. This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Request for Judicial Notice, the Declaration of Kathleen Hartnett filed in support thereof, reply briefing in further support of this Motion, any matters of which this Court may take judicial notice, the files in this action, the arguments of counsel, and any such other matters as the Court may consider. Dated: September 19, 2019 Respectfully Submitted, By:  /s/ Kathleen R. Hartnett   Kathleen R. Hartnett (SBN 314267) BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 44 Montgomery Street, 41 st  Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 293-6800 Facsimile: (415) 293-6899 Email: khartnett@bsfllp.com Damien J. Marshall (  pro hac vice admitted)  BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 55 Hudson Yards, 20th Floor  New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 446-2300 Facsimile: (212) 446-2350 Email: dmarshall@bsfllp.com Andrew J. Ceresney (  pro hac vice pending)  DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 919 Third Avenue  New York, NY 10022  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ii Telephone: (212) 909-6000 Facsimile: (212) 909-6836 Email: aceresney@debevoise.com  Attorneys for Defendants Ripple Labs Inc.,    XRP II, LLC, and Bradley Garlinghouse  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .............................................................................1   I.   INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1   II.   STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ..............................................................................2   III.   FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................3   A.   Defendants ...........................................................................................................................3   B.   XRP and the XRP Ledger ....................................................................................................3   C.   XRP Sales, Including Plaintiff’s Alleged Purchases ...........................................................4   IV.   STANDARD OF REVIEW .............................................................................................................4   V.   PLAINTIFF’S FEDERAL SECURITIES CLAIMS ARE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF REPOSE AND FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM (Counts 1, 2) ...................................5   A.   Plaintiff’s Securities Act Claims Are Barred By The Act’s Statute Of Repose ..................5   2.   Plaintiff’s Allegations Demonstrate That He Brought This Action More Than Three Years After Defendants Allegedly First Offered XRP To The Public ................................................................................................................7   3.   Plaintiff’s Effort to Plead Around Section 13 Fails .................................................8   B.   Plaintiff’s Securities Act Claims Fail Because He Does Not Plausibly Allege That He Purchased XRP In An “Initial Distribution” ........................................................10   C.   Plaintiff’s Securities Act Claims Fail Because He Does Not Plausibly Allege That He Purchased XRP From Any Defendant .................................................................11   1.   Plaintiff Does Not Allege That Any Defendants Passed Title To Him .................12   2.   Plaintiff Does Not Allege That Any Defendant Solicited His Purchases ..............13   D.   Plaintiff Fails To State A Claim Under Section 15 ............................................................14   VI.   PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STATE ANY CLAIMS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONS CODE (Counts 3, 4, and 5) ............................................................................15   A.   Plaintiff’s “Unqualified” Securities Claims Fail (Counts 3 And 5, Cal. Corp. Code §§ 25110, 25503, and 25504) ...................................................................................15   1.   Plaintiff Fails To Allege An “Issuer Transaction” .................................................15   2.   Plaintiff Fails To Allege Privity With Defendants ................................................15   3.   Plaintiff Fails To Allege His XRP Transaction Occurred “In This State” ............16   4.   Control Person Liability Is Unavailable Absent A Primary Violation ..................17   B.   Plaintiff’s Misrepresentation Claim Fails (Count 4) ..........................................................17  
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x