Legal proceedings against Ripple Labs on the normative character of the token XRP, transferred to the jurisdiction of the Federal court. It insisted cryptocurrency company.

Ripple representatives explained that they insisted on this solution, because a class action lawsuit filed against the company came from investors from different States, and therefore cannot be considered by the court in the same state. As noted by the Ripple Labs lawyer of the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, a blockchain startup had every right to this action because the amount in dispute in the suit exceeds $5 million, and the group of plaintiffs includes at least one hundred persons.

“The alleged collective action may be sent to the appropriate Federal district court if (1) the lawsuit is a class action filed on behalf of a hundred or more people; (2) any of plaintiffs is a citizen of a state different from that where the defendants; (3) the amount in dispute exceeds $5 million,” the lawyer explained.

According to the lawyer Kobre & Kim cherwinski Jake (Jake Chervinsky), the transfer of the case to the Federal court was a brilliant move on the part of the company.

“The Ripple team adopted a tactically brilliant decision. It is difficult to explain the meaning of this maneuver in a single tweet, and I’m not going to make a thread about this; suffice it to say that it is really a clever attempt to go to the Federal level. This may not work, but, nevertheless, it is a clever move,” commented the situation in his Twitter account Czerwinski.

Probably Ripple Labs believes that the company’s chances to win the case in Federal court is much higher, — explained the lawyer. If in the course of this trial, the decision will be made in favor of the cryptocurrency, the company is once and for all clarify the normative nature of the tokens Ripple XRP, denying their belonging to the class of securities.

Recall that the case against Ripple began in may of this year when investors who lost all their money when trading XRP, filed the first class action lawsuit. Then the accusations were joined by two of the applicant. They all insist that the company conducts illegal activities by refusing to recognize the tokens of securities. In August, the first applicant withdrew the claim, and the court case on the other two claims, the court of the state of California has United in one manufacture.