Jump to content

Court filings in SEC case - Answer deadline and a few more interesting attorneys entered for Ripple


Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Valhalla_Guy said:

Which tells me that precedence and written laws will be inconsequential, and the ruling will be which ever way the admin wants it. This will be a complete toss up. My money is that Ripple Labs will not do well, because the incoming administration's priorities will be on appeasing foreign powers. RL is a threat to that.

As far as RL donating $$ to the dems: When a party eats their own, it is always easiest to start with those that eagerly show up for dinner. I believe the term is "collateral damage" if you remember Ambassador Stevens.

Are you for real? Lol 

I'm having trouble even coming to terms with how savagely wrong someone could be. 

Edited by HenrySeldom
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I checked the Pacer website and saw that the Answer to the SEC Complaint is to be filed with the court no later than March 5, 2021.  That deadline applies to all defendants (Ripple, BG and CL).  Rippl

Great analysis from this guy. Not an XRP holder as he states which makes it unbiased. To summarize, he says XRP cannot be deemed a security, because SEC does not even ask that, most likely there will

To make amends to the retail traders, the new SEC team should allow Brad and Chris to pump XRP's price back to the exact price that XRP was at before the SEC news hit.  In soccer, we call it a "drop b

Posted Images

3 hours ago, panmores said:

Might well be the SEC fighting a lone battle here. Other financial agencies might try to distance themselves from the Clayton regime which brought more damage than resolution to something that was already "established."

My guess? A face-saving resolution - for the SEC, not for Ripple. They should be fully vetted after what is a nightmare for many hodlers - for others just more of the same volatility and shakeouts.

To make amends to the retail traders, the new SEC team should allow Brad and Chris to pump XRP's price back to the exact price that XRP was at before the SEC news hit.  In soccer, we call it a "drop ball" to restart play. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great analysis from this guy. Not an XRP holder as he states which makes it unbiased. To summarize, he says XRP cannot be deemed a security, because SEC does not even ask that, most likely there will be a settlement without reaching the court and that Ripple could agree (or be ordered) to lock most (or all) of the escrow forever.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Alluvial said:

I checked the Pacer website and saw that the Answer to the SEC Complaint is to be filed with the court no later than March 5, 2021.  That deadline applies to all defendants (Ripple, BG and CL).  Ripple's attorney said the other day that the Answer to Complaint would be filed in the upcoming weeks so it could very well be before the deadline (usually answers aren't filed early, but in this case it likely will).

Also noticed the entry of seven more attorneys on behalf of Ripple, including one MARY JO WHITE, the former SEC Chair from 2013 through 2017. 

It's definitely on!

Can you please provide us with links to:

1) the pacer documentation

2) where ripple said it would be settled soon

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 2ndtimearound said:

To make amends to the retail traders, the new SEC team should allow Brad and Chris to pump XRP's price back to the exact price that XRP was at before the SEC news hit.  In soccer, we call it a "drop ball" to restart play. :D

And distribute a large portion of both personal and Ripple XRP to the holders as of X date as compensation for all the sleepless nights, the emotional pains endured, the humiliation from fudsters, etc etc.    Perhaps the snapshot as of Dec 31, 2020 is a good record of those who stayed vs those who jumped ship.  

Edited by Honeybee
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Panopticon said:

Great analysis from this guy. Not an XRP holder as he states which makes it unbiased. To summarize, he says XRP cannot be deemed a security, because SEC does not even ask that, most likely there will be a settlement without reaching the court and that Ripple could agree (or be ordered) to lock most (or all) of the escrow forever.

 

If they end up locking the asset then it is game over for Ripple. I am sure many here cheer that option cause they want the coin to pump but that is a very short sighted view because when Ripple is gone or can't operate at full capacity to reach the true potential of the cross border transmit the use case for XRP will dwindle and with a large supply of 50 billion circulating will fade into nothing eventually. This is ofcourse not taking into account someone coming in and doing something short of amazing with the XRPL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, HenrySeldom said:

Are you for real? Lol 

I'm having trouble even coming to terms with how savagely wrong someone could be. 

That’s because you lack the wisdom from reading history. I will send you back to this post after the law suit settles and fanboys like yourself are walking around saying “What happened???”

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Valhalla_Guy said:

That’s because you lack the wisdom from reading history. I will send you back to this post after the law suit settles and fanboys like yourself are walking around saying “What happened???”

Ya, um, the "history" you're referring to with Biden is drawn from the fever swamp of rightwing media. I think I'll pass, thanks. 

You got the Protocols of the Elders of Zion--the ur-text of your "foreign powers" thesis--on your nightstand too?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So many people think this lawsuit is about XRP being a security. It has nothing to do with that. The lawsuit isn’t towards XRP it is towards Ripple the company and whether they acted professionally, which they did not. Ripple broke every sec rule in the book and they will lose and pay the price for their inability to conduct themselves within the confines of the law. Ripple will get their hand slapped hard and xrp will carry on. No suspense or mystery about this lawsuit. Like Brad Garlinghouse said XRP is not a security he was right, unless a company treats it as such.

American exchanges that choose to delist XRP are just doing so in case transactions have been made on behalf of Ripple’s nefarious business interactions. Ripple brought this on themselves thinking they were above the law. They too must play by the rules.

 

Edited by Scout
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2021 at 3:13 AM, PunishmentOfLuxury said:

She might be in a bind, though. How can she criticise the SEC for not providing regulatory clarity when she was the Chair for four years whilst Ripple was under investigation?

Mary Jo White apparently is representing Ripple for quite some time already, at least since June 2018 on a related, perhaps same matter: https://www.coindesk.com/former-sec-chair-represents-ripple-xrp-lawsuit

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, jn_r said:

Mary Jo White apparently is representing Ripple for quite some time already, at least since June 2018 on a related, perhaps same matter: https://www.coindesk.com/former-sec-chair-represents-ripple-xrp-lawsuit

 

As a SEC chair she always must have known about rule 501 under regulation D. Ripple always had the option to sell XRP under exemption as an unregistered security to accredited investors. But ... they opted for doing business behind the curtains.... NDA's you know. When you carefully read the SEC allegations they do not say that XRP is a security. At least not all XRP and for sure not those in your or my wallet. What the allegation says is that Ripple SOLD XRP AS a security. And as a private company they were allowed .... IF they did proper reporting of those sales. Brad and the "Ripple Legal Department" always have been saying there was no regulation, but now it seems that there WAS a possibility to go by the rules. I can understand that WE didn't know about those rules. But a SEC chair? High profile lawyers? Or was is that this regulation WAS well known but they just didn't like to report? 

Edited by kanaas
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.