Jump to content

SEC v Ripple Pre-trial audio


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, melushell said:

The video is private

Whoops, I watched it over lunch so it wasn't private a few minutes ago.

Basically the SEC stated their case that XRP is an investment contract. Then Ripple's atty said no because Reasons, then Laesen's lawyer said, "yeah what they said, plus Reasons to dismiss individual actions". Then Garlinghouse's atty said, "yeah what they said, plus more reasons, why this is ridicules".

Defendants move to dismiss, SEC says they intend to make a motion to Strike. Ripple says they are open to more discovery, they want more internal documentation on how BTC & ETH were classified "not a security", and would like the motions submitted publicly. Judge says, "yeah publicly". 

Bye your honor

Edited by KarmaCoverage
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KarmaCoverage said:

Whoops, I watched it over lunch so it wasn't private a few minutes ago.

Basically the SEC stated their case that XRP is an investment contract. Then Ripple's atty said no because Reasons, then Laesen's lawyer said, "yeah what they said, plus Reasons to dismiss individual actions". Then Garlinghouse's atty said, "yeah what they said, plus more reasons, why this is ridicules".

Defendants move to dismiss, SEC says they intend to make a motion to Strike. Ripple says they are open to more discovery, and would like the motions submitted publicly. Judge says, "yeah publicly". 

Bye your honor

Some NY law let you listen to the hearing, but it must not be recorded and distributed.... So better take care with posting such direct recordings

Edited by kanaas
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kanaas said:

Some NY law let you listen to the hearing, but it must not be recorded and distributed.... So better take care with posting such direct recordings

I have no idea about all that. I didnt put it on youtube.

Found this interesting re the SEC's motion to strike though... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_to_strike_(court_of_law)

Quote

A motion to strike is a request by one party in a United States trial requesting that the presiding judge order the removal of all or part of the opposing party's pleading to the court. Motions to strike are most commonly sought by the defendant, as to a matter contained in the plaintiff's complaint; however, they may also be asserted by plaintiffs to a defendant's answer or other pleadings such as cross-complaints. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(f) states that if a complaint contains "any redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter," it may be stricken upon motion. Similarly, for example, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 436 provides, in part, that a motion to strike may be made to strike out any "irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading." A motion to strike may also be used to request the elimination of all or a portion of a trial witness's testimony. During a jury trial, if a motion to strike witness testimony is granted, the jury is typically instructed to disregard the stricken statements.

 

Edited by KarmaCoverage
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, kanaas said:

Means they do not like some of Ripple's arguments... wonder what those may be .... Cannot think of anything else than the Q that came from the unnamed exchange... And that Q seems pretty relevant to me, so I cannot see a reason why the judge would put it aside...

I gathered that it was likely something the SEC had turned over in the FOIA request, and/or discovery. Guessing the SEC dosent want to turn over more info on how they determined BTC & ETH to be "not a security".

But we have to wait for the public motions to know for sure, I guess. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KarmaCoverage said:

I gathered that it was likely something the SEC had turned over in the FOIA request, and/or discovery. Guessing the SEC dosent want to turn over more info on how they determined BTC & ETH to be "not a security".

But we have to wait for the public motions to know for sure, I guess. 

Maybe that's indeed the reason for their motion to strike, but how can they make it hard NOT having to tell the public how they came to a conclusion? Public companies have to put almost everything to the public and a regulator shouldn't have to tell what a decision is based on? Can't see a judge buying that one...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kanaas said:

Maybe that's indeed the reason for their motion to strike, but how can they make it hard NOT having to tell the public how they came to a conclusion? Public companies have to put almost everything to the public and a regulator shouldn't have to tell what a decision is based on? Can't see a judge buying that one...

That was my first thought. What could be obtained by Ripple in discovery that does not already fall under FOIA?

BTC & ETH dont make any public filings, so I guess only the SEC and BTC lobbyists would have communications around the decision. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KarmaCoverage said:

That was my first thought. What could be obtained by Ripple in discovery that does not already fall under FOIA?

BTC & ETH dont make any public filings, so I guess only the SEC and BTC lobbyists would have communications around the decision. 

Yeah, and if it's that, then I really wonder what (and even more why) they have to hide .... makes me curious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So which "major crypto exchange" asked for clarification in 2019?  I guess we can narrow it down to exchanges that do business in the US since they're asking the SEC for guidance.  

Obvious choice is Coinbase, which listed XRP Feb 2019 to the public. Does Coinbase, or any major US crypto exchange for that matter, ask the SEC if they can list every single crypto they plan to offer?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Babelly said:

So which "major crypto exchange" asked for clarification in 2019?  I guess we can narrow it down to exchanges that do business in the US since they're asking the SEC for guidance.  

Obvious choice is Coinbase, which listed XRP Feb 2019 to the public. Does Coinbase, or any major US crypto exchange for that matter, ask the SEC if they can list every single crypto they plan to offer?

Great question, Babelly.

Only CB isn't really much of a friend to RL, afaik. So they'd prolly not have shared the helpful info.
Where as, Bitstamp IS.
Binance.US certainly would have asked, given the hoops New York put them thru to get licensed. 

Oh, and isn't the head of Binance.US a former exec of RL ?

#breadcrumbs 

Edited by JASCoder
word fix
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.