A new document presented as part of the case against Ripple suggests that XRP may not be security.
The document was filed by the attorneys for the lead plaintiff, the former XRP investor Bradley Sostack, on behalf of all investors involved in the class action, alleging that Ripple had raised hundreds of millions of dollars through sales to retail investors of an unregistered security, XRP, and then violated the relevant securities laws with repeated sales of XRP. in the market.
According to the document, the allegations have been readjusted with additional claims, including a sixth false advertising claim in violation of California trade law, which adds an amendment worded "in accordance with the alternative theory that XRP is not a guarantee."
There is also a seventh claim that accuses the company of unfair competition, again in violation of California law, still on the theory that XRP is not security.
These amendments introduce the alternative theory that Ripple did not issue and sell an unregistered security, unlike what the plaintiffs have always argued.
In addition, other changes have also been made regarding the alleged nature of XRP as a Ripple instruments utility token, in light of the fact that over 60% of XRP tokens are actually owned by the company, and it appears to have no other purpose than to be sold in the future to raise other funds.
The document also mentions that the CEO of Ripple, Brad Garlinghouse, in 2017 it would have sold at least 67 million XRP on various exchanges, and that it sold all the XRP tokens received by Ripple in the same year within a few days of receiving them.
On the other hand, XRP's long-term price performance in the market has been disappointing for at least two years, and the CEO himself has explicitly confirmed that the company needs to continue selling them to continue operating.
However, it is not clear why the hypothesis that XRP is not a security it is also expressly introduced in this document, considering that much of the case was based on this assumption.