b'PRIVATE LITIGATION GOODWINthat the court may consider a claim for purchases inadvice on How to Buy XRP that provided links to the secondary market. The court also held that theexchanges and instructions on How to Buy XRP plaintiff had alleged that the defendants qualified ason those exchanges, which the court inferred to be sellers for purposes of the federal securities claimsaccessible to individuals in California.because the complaint alleged that the defendantsThe court did, however, accept the defendants systematically marketed XRP and financially benefitedarguments that the plaintiff failed to state a from such efforts by publishing various tweets,claim under the California securities laws for interviews, and articles pushing the adoption of XRP;misrepresentations. The court held that the hosting conferences concerning XRPs use; explainingplaintiff failed to specify the defendants alleged on Ripples website how to purchase XRP andmisrepresentations concerning (1) XRPs use as a including a link to cryptocurrency exchanges for suchbridge currency for international payments; (2) XRPs purchases; beginning to lobby Congress and the SECspeed, reliability and scalability, which strengthened to adopt cryptocurrency-friendly laws; and earningthe demand for XRP and increased its listings from more than US$1.1 billion through the sale of XRP insix exchanges to more than 50 worldwide, and XRPs 2017 and 2018. ability to help financial institutions source liquidity for Third, the court rejected the defendants argumentspayments into and out of emerging markets; (3) the that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under theRipple CEOs very long position in XRP and vocal California securities laws for the sale of unregisteredadvocacy for investing in XRP; (4) Ripples assets, securities because he failed to allege that (1) heability to cash out hundreds of millions per month, purchased his XRP as part of an issuer transactionand focus on fostering a healthy XRP ecosystem;(i.e., a sale of securities purchased from the issuing(5) Ripples announcement of ten additionalcorporation in a public offering), (2) he purchasedcustomers for its blockchain payments network;his XRP from defendants, and (3) the defendants(6) statements by the defendants concerning public offered or sold XRP in California. In particular, theinterest in XRP, advantages over Bitcoin, the growth court held that the plaintiff adequately alleged thatand potential value of XRP, the future use of XRP the initial listing of XRP on an exchange qualified asby banks and payment providers, how XRP is more an issuer transaction and, as a result, any purchasethan bank software, a partnership with MoneyGram, of XRP by the plaintiff on an exchange qualified asthe defendants intent to develop the infrastructure an issuer transaction. The court also held that thenecessary for banks to use XRP directly, and how plaintiff adequately allegedly that he purchased XRPXRPs value depends upon the XRP Ledgers use from the defendants at this stage of the litigationfor cross-border payments as well as its adoption by where the court may draw reasonable inferences andenterprises; and (7)statements by the defendants the relationship between defendants, subsequentclaiming that XRP is not a security.purchasers, and the exchange is unclear. The courtOn March 25, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended further held that the plaintiff adequately alleged that thecomplaint seeking to specify certain of the alleged defendants offered XRP in California because Ripplemisrepresentations.had a section of its website dedicated to providing 19'