Lawyer Confirms: XRP Future Still Uncertain At State Level

In a pivotal development for Ripple Labs, a U.S. District Court Judge has issued key rulings on multiple motions in a securities lawsuit filed against the company in California. This case involves plaintiffs who claimed the firm violated securities laws with XRP.

The recent court decisions have somewhat clarified the trial’s progression as both parties prepare for upcoming settlement discussions and critical court dates. A pretrial conference is scheduled for December 19, with jury selection set to commence on January 21, 2025.

Judge Phyllis Hamilton presided over the latest proceedings. Her rulings largely aligned with the plaintiffs’ arguments. She applied the Daubert standard—a legal criterion used to assess expert witness testimony in federal court—when evaluating the admissibility of testimony from various expert witnesses. The judge issued orders on four expert-related motions, providing each party with victories in different respects.

Key Rulings on Expert Testimony

In an essential decision, Judge Hamilton denied Ripple’s motion to exclude the testimony of expert witness, Jeremy Clark, who was invited by plaintiffs to testify.

Ripple had argued that Clark lacked the specialized expertise needed to credibly assess the XRP Ledger, particularly regarding its operational dependence on Ripple and its distribution model favoring the company. However, Judge Hamilton found Clark’s report credible, allowing his testimony to be used in trial proceedings.

Similarly, Ripple’s efforts to dismiss the testimony of another plaintiff expert, Dr. Saifedean Ammous, were unsuccessful. The judge ruled that Dr. Ammous’s input on whether Ripple’s actions influence the price of XRP could be valuable for the jury to consider, alongside contradictory insights from Ripple’s experts.

She determined that the differing expert opinions offered by Dr. Ammous and Ripple’s expert, Professor Allen Ferrell, would provide the jury with a basis for deciding whether Ripple’s conduct has impacted XRP’s value.

In contrast, Ripple’s motion to exclude testimony from plaintiffs’ expert Joel Seligman was granted. Furthermore, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs’ motion to exclude testimony from Ripple’s expert, Professor Alan Schwartz. These decisions set the stage for the trial to proceed without the input of these witnesses, impacting the array of expert testimony available to both sides.

Legal Expert On Implications for XRP Status

As Ripple’s legal battles continue, the question of XRP’s classification as security remains open, especially concerning its regulatory status under state and federal law.

Legal expert Fred Rispoli has pointed out that this California lawsuit centers on state securities law, separate from the federal regulatory framework under which the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) operates.

Rispoli emphasized that the outcome of the California case, therefore, does not directly impact the federal case brought by the SEC against Ripple.

The SEC’s ongoing case against Ripple has already yielded a significant judgment. Earlier this year, Judge Analisa Torres, presiding over the SEC v. Ripple case in federal court, determined that Ripple’s institutional sales of XRP constituted securities transactions in violation of federal law. However, she ruled that sales of XRP on secondary markets to retail investors did not fall under the same classification, leaving XRP’s status at the retail level legally distinct.

Impacts of Rulings on Ripple’s Argument and Future XRP Market

Judge Hamilton’s recent decision to admit Clark’s testimony means Ripple faces challenges in contesting the plaintiff’s assertions about XRP’s dependence.

Clark’s testimony will likely grant the plaintiffs an argument that Ripple’s control over the XRP Ledger and the token’s distribution framework creates a scenario akin to traditional securities arrangements. These arguments could help shape the jury’s view on XRP’s nature as a security.

Ripple has argued that XRP’s classification as a security would require a different interpretation under state laws, given that federal rulings like Judge Torres’s do not automatically apply at the state level.

This nuanced legal position suggests that even if the SEC’s federal case partially clarified XRP’s status, the outcome of the California litigation could introduce different regulatory implications for XRP within state jurisdictions, possibly affecting Ripple’s compliance requirements and business operations regionally.

Disclaimer: This content is meant to inform and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author’s personal opinions and do not represent Times Tabloid’s opinion. Readers are urged to do in-depth research before making any investment decisions. Any action taken by the reader is strictly at their own risk. Times Tabloid is not responsible for any financial losses.

---

Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Telegram, and Google News