paint-brush
SEC v. Ripple: SEC Brings Lawsuit Against Ripple and Two of Its Senior Leadersby@legalpdf

SEC v. Ripple: SEC Brings Lawsuit Against Ripple and Two of Its Senior Leaders

by Legal PDFOctober 6th, 2023
Read on Terminal Reader
Read this story w/o Javascript
tldt arrow

Too Long; Didn't Read

Plaintiff, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), brings this action against Defendants Ripple Labs, Inc. (“Ripple”) and two of its senior leaders.

People Mentioned

Mention Thumbnail
featured image - SEC v. Ripple: SEC Brings Lawsuit Against Ripple and Two of Its Senior Leaders
Legal PDF 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 1 of 18.

Introduction

Plaintiff, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), brings this action against Defendants Ripple Labs, Inc. (“Ripple”) and two of its senior leaders, Bradley Garlinghouse and Christian A. Larsen, alleging that Defendants engaged in the unlawful offer and sale of securities in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and (c). Am. Compl. ¶¶ 9, 430–35, ECF No. 46. The SEC also alleges that Garlinghouse and Larsen aided and abetted Ripple’s Section 5 violations. Id. ¶¶ 9, 436–40.


Before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 824, 836; see also ECF Nos. 621, 625, 639, 642.[1] For the reasons stated below, the SEC’s motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Defendants’ motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.




[1] Portions of the briefs, Rule 56.1 statements, and other documents discussed in this order were filed under seal or redacted. See ECF No. 819 (granting in part and denying in part the parties’ and third parties’ motions to seal). These materials are “judicial documents” because they are “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016). To the extent that information in these documents is disclosed in this order, the privacy and business interests that justified their sealing or redaction are outweighed by “the public’s right of access to [information] necessary to understand the basis for court rulings.” Spinelli v. Nat’l Football League, 903 F.3d 185, 193 n.2 (2d Cir. 2018); see also Dodona I, LLC v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 119 F. Supp. 3d 152, 155 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).



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.