Open Now
Open Now
Watch now

Ripple lawsuit Update: There is a long list of demands from Ripple's executives for the lawsuit to be dropped, according to the company's statement

Despite the company's protests, Ripple officials have confirmed that the SEC prefers a jury trial.

People who have been waiting a long time for Individual Defendants' Answers have finally done so. This means that the deadline for the SEC's position on more discovery is now April 15, 2022, and the deadline for the Joint Proposed Scheduling Order is April 22, 2022.

Chris Larsen and Brad Garlinghouse's answers to the SEC mostly deny or say the defendants don't know enough to either admit or deny the SEC's claims.

It also says what each individual defendant wants from the court in order for the SEC v. Ripple case to be over with.

A lot has changed since yesterday's news that the SEC knew about Bill Hinman's "full financial conflict of interest" with his old firm and that he ignored internal advice several times to meet people at Simpson Thacher or clients.


Garlinghouse's list of 440 answers and Larsen's thread of 442 answers both end with the same thing:

"Plaintiff's request for relief and judgment (including Sections I through V) does not need a response, but if there is a need for a response, Mr. Larsen [Garlinghouse] says that Plaintiff is not entitled to the requested relief and judgment or to any relief at all, and asks that the Court:

To start with, the case should be thrown out with prejudice. Then, the judge should rule in favor of the Defendants on every single cause of action in the Complaint, and the judge should pay Mr. Larsen's legal fees and any other costs that he had to pay to fight this case.

As a result, the defendants said that the SEC "demands a trial by jury." It would add more time to a case that has been going on for more than a year and a half, which is holding back one of the most well-known blockchain companies in the world and one of the most valuable digital assets on the market.

People in the UK, Japan, and Singapore don't think XRP is safe.

XRP transactions don't qualify as securities because they aren't "investment contracts," which is what the Supreme Court ruled in SEC v. W.J. Howey Company, 328 U.S. 293 (1933). (1946).

The defendants said that XRP (and the XRP Ledger) has a use that is separate and apart from the value it might have as a stock.

Some of the people who spoke at the meeting said that Ripple has never made or sold XRP as an investment in the company; that Ripple has never sold XRP in an Initial Coin Offering; and that XRP holders do not own any of Ripple's assets, have any ownership interest in Ripple, or get a share of Ripple's future profits.

It was a good time to remind the SEC and the court that seven years ago, the DoJ and FinCEN said that XRP is legal to use and trade in the market because it is a store of value, a medium of exchange, and a unit of account, not because Ripple owns a share of its profits.

That's not all: The SEC and court were also reminded that XRP isn't subject to securities regulation in the United Kingdom and Japan and Singapore, as well. There aren't any securities in "well-known cryptoassets" like Bitcoin or Ethereum. They're "exchange tokens" that are used mainly to exchange money.

It will also have to decide on the SEC's request for a partial rewrite, the Defendants' request to strike the Supplemental Expert Report, the Defendants request to get the Estabrook notes, and the SEC's request to make some changes.

** Information on these pages contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Markets and instruments profiled on this page are for informational purposes only and should not in any way come across as a recommendation to buy or sell in these assets. You should do your own thorough research before making any investment decisions. All risks, losses and costs associated with investing, including total loss of principal, are your responsibility. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of USA GAG nor its advertisers. The author will not be held responsible for information that is found at the end of links posted on this page.

Follow us on Google News

Filed under