Class-Action Lawsuit Threatens Ripple’s Established Market
Download File ::: https://urlin.us/2sXTw1
In the years before football's concussion crisis, dozens of insurers -- including household names such as Fireman's Fund, The Hartford and Travelers -- insured the NFL without restrictions for traumatic brain injury. Many of those companies are now embroiled in a six-year lawsuit with the NFL in New York Supreme Court over who will pay legal fees and claims associated with the 2013 settlement of a class-action lawsuit that is expected to cost more than $1 billion. The market for amateur sports was even larger, according to industry experts, with insurers competing to provide a range of coverages for youth, high schools and colleges.
For this story, Outside the Lines hired legal researchers to document the growing universe of concussion litigation -- the primary reason behind the insurance industry's fears. Since 2005, when the first case of brain disease was reported in a former NFL player, thousands of concussion-related lawsuits have been filed in the United States, including class-action suits against the NFL, the NHL and the NCAA. Since the NFL settlement, concussion-related lawsuits involving at least 18 sports and activities have been filed in at least 29 states, Outside the Lines' research shows. They target not only professional sports but also youth leagues, school districts, athletic associations, equipment manufacturers, medical providers, coaches and athletic trainers.
Butler called Pop Warner the "canary in the coal mine." He said the effort to educate the insurance industry is supported by other youth sports organizations that fear they will be unable to obtain insurance because of litigation. In November, for example, a federal appeals court reinstated a class-action lawsuit that accused USA Water Polo of failing to protect athletes who were sent back into games after suffering concussions.
A class-action lawsuit that threatened the world's third-largest virtual currency, XRP, will continue, as it was not thrown out at the request of blockchain payment services provider Ripple, according to Bloomberg on Wednesday (Feb. 26).
The judge disagreed with the complaint by Ripple that the lawsuit wasn't timely because it was filed five years after XRP was offered in 2013. Ripple has argued that the case, were it to go forward, would upend and threaten to destroy the established XRP market, which has involved over $500 billion in trading over the last several years.
Although insurance costs were identified as a very serious problem by nearly all motor carriers interviewed, few were able to suggest public or public-private solutions to the problem. Some carriers believe the only way to address the problem is to reduce the incentive for lawsuits through tort reform. Others see the problem as primarily market-driven, and anticipate a market correction in the future. Historically, periods of high rates have eventually attracted more providers to the market, which increases competition and exerts downward pressure on rates.
Soon after the 2004 standards were established, EPA sued most heavy-duty engine makers, charging that they had programmed engines to reduce emissions during certification tests but emit at a higher rate during on-road driving. Seven engine makers (Caterpillar, Cummins, Detroit Diesel, International, Mack, Renault, and Volvo) agreed to settle the lawsuit and accepted a consent decree. In addition to fines, the engine makers agreed to accelerate compliance with the 2004 NOx standards to October 1, 2002. Many in the motor carrier industry are concerned that engines meeting this new emissions standard are unproven and may saddle them with higher maintenance costs and lower fuel economy.
Back to the Ripple case for a second, what happens if the SEC wins? We're not saying that it will. But what what happens to Ripple? What happens to XRP?Well, I guess the question is, what is a win. If they win outright, of what they've alleged in the complaint, then that means that all XRP would be deemed a security. And in essence, Ripple would only be able to sell it with after registering it and sell it to accredited investors where they have certain more specific requirements. They're [also] seeking $1.3 billion. And so if they received some type of verdict, there probably be would be a fund and XRP holders could get reimbursed to a certain extent. That doesn't mean Ripple's out of business. It would certainly transform their business and limit them in many ways. Would that set a bad precedent, I take it? Oh, great question. Absolutely, it would be extremely bad. Because the SEC, everyone needs to understand this isn't like a new cryptocurrency where they've offered a fundraising event, and they're going to develop the blockchain technology. That's an ICO, and that [case law] is well-settled. This is the SEC going back seven and a half years retroactivel. It's insane that from 2013 until the present day, all the sales of XRP were unregistered securities. [That precedent could have] impact on literally 10,000 cryptos. I'd say that there's a couple hundred of them that are interesting, and the rest of them are garbage, but it would have an absolute detrimental impact. I could name you 10 cryptocurrencies off top my head that would then be like, potentially out of business as well. What's interesting is that since this Coinbase news and the attacks on decentralized finance, and on BlockFi and Celsius, some of Ripple's biggest criticse actually have acknowledged that they're rooting for Ripple because of that precedent that could be established. I don't see that happening. I think that the case is ripe for a settlement where Ripple agrees that early transactions in 2013 to 2017 [were securities offerings], when there weren't hundreds of thousands of XRP holders and there was a much, much smaller ecosystem. That's where the SEC has potentially legitimate claims against Ripple. You would imagine that that's where a deal would be struck where the ongoing future and present day sells are not deemed securities. But those earlier transactions were and Ripple pays a fine and the market gets some clarity. Unfortunately, whoever the SEC goes after next will have to fight that same fight.
Researchers have identified a variety of factors that led to the opioid crisis, including increased prescribing of opioids, changes in illegal opioid markets, and societal changes that may have resulted in increased demand for opioids by people experiencing declines in real wages and social cohesion (see Figure 2-1). Those factors also reinforced each other. For example, increasing the supply of opioids had a greater effect on society because the demand for opioids also increased.1 But the relative importance of individual contributors to the crisis has not been established.2 2b1af7f3a8