paint-brush
SEC v. Ripple: The Day the SEC Began Its Actionby@legalpdf

SEC v. Ripple: The Day the SEC Began Its Action

by Legal PDF: Tech Court CasesOctober 6th, 2023
Read on Terminal Reader
Read this story w/o Javascript
tldt arrow

Too Long; Didn't Read

On March 11, 2022, the Court denied the SEC’s motion to strike Ripple’s affirmative defense.

People Mentioned

Mention Thumbnail
featured image - SEC v. Ripple: The Day the SEC Began Its Action
Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases HackerNoon profile picture

SEC v. Ripple Court Filing, retrieved on July 13, 2023 is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 6 of 18.

BACKGROUND

II. Procedural Background


On December 22, 2020, the SEC commenced this action. ECF No. 1. An amended complaint was filed on February 18, 2021. Am. Compl. Fact discovery closed on August 31, 2021, see ECF No. 313, and expert discovery concluded on February 28, 2022, see ECF No. 411. On March 11, 2022, the Court denied the SEC’s motion to strike Ripple’s affirmative defense that it “lacked . . . ‘notice that its conduct was in violation of law, in contravention of Ripple’s due process rights,’” ECF No. 128. ECF No. 440. That same day, the Court also denied Garlinghouse’s and Larsen’s separate motions to dismiss, ECF Nos. 105, 110. MTD Order, ECF No. 441. On March 6, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ motions to preclude expert testimony. ECF No. 814.


Before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment filed on September 13, 2022. ECF Nos. 621, 625; see also ECF Nos. 639, 642, 824, 836. The Court has also reviewed amicus briefs from Accredify, Inc. d/b/a/ InvestReady, ECF No. 698 [9] ; the Blockchain Association, ECF No. 706; the Chamber of Digital Commerce, ECF No. 649; Coinbase, Inc., ECF No. 705; Cryptillian Payment Systems, LLC, ECF No. 716; the Crypto Council for Innovation, ECF No. 711; I-Remit, Inc., ECF No. 660; the New Sports Economy Institute, ECF No. 717; Paradigm Operations LP, ECF No. 707; Phillip Goldstein and the Investor Choice Advocates Network, ECF No. 683; Reaper Financial, LLC, ECF No. 710; SpendTheBits, Inc., ECF No. 684; TapJets, Inc., ECF No. 661; Valhil Capital, LLC, ECF No. 722; Veri DAO, LLC, ECF No. 709; and XRP holders Jordan Deaton, James LaMonte, Mya LaMonte, Tyler LaMonte, Mitchell McKenna, and Kristiana Warner, ECF No. 708. [10]




[9] Accredify, Inc. did not formally file an amicus brief after the Court granted leave to do so, see ECF No. 704, but included its brief as an attachment to its original request, see ECF No. 698


[10] On November 4, 2022, the Court directed that any requests to file amicus briefs be filed by November 11, 2022. ECF No. 695. William M. Cunningham and Anoop Bungay, both pro se litigants, each separately requested leave to file an amicus brief on November 16, 2022, and January 20, 2023, respectively. ECF Nos. 712, 807. Cunningham’s and Bungay’s requests are DENIED as untimely.



Continue Reading here.


About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.


This court case 1:20-cv-10832-AT-SN retrieved on September 7, 2023, from dropbox is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction.