Pro-XRP Lawyer Enters LBRY Case

Prominent attorney John E. Deaton, known for his active involvement in the Ripple legal case, has filed his Notice of Appearance on behalf of Amicus Curiae Naomi Brockwell in the LBRY Inc. appeal case. 

This comes in the wake of LBRY Inc.'s filing of a Notice of Appeal against a U.S. District Court ruling, which concluded that the company's native token, LBRY Credits (LBC), was an unregistered security. 

Deaton's participation has garnered significant attention, especially from Ripple supporters who are closely monitoring developments in the SEC's legal actions against blockchain companies.

The LBRY appeal 

LBRY Inc., a decentralized content distribution network, found itself at odds with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) over the classification of its native token. The District Court sided with the SEC, stating that LBC indeed qualified as an unregistered security. 

This decision was based on the court's finding that the token's utility did not outweigh its investment characteristics, thus aligning with "objective economic realities." 

Related

Thu, 09/14/2023 - 16:00

BTC to $28,660: Top Trader Shares New Bitcoin Price Prediction

Gamza Khanzadaev

In response, LBRY displayed resolve, declaring their intention to continue the fight. Interestingly, the SEC recently moved to reduce the firm's fine, citing the company's financial constraints. 

Ripple supporters are keenly observing the LBRY appeal as its outcome could have significant implications.  

Opting out of the Coinbase amicus brief

Deaton also recently made headlines for opting not to file an amicus brief in another high-profile case involving Coinbase. According to Deaton, the Coinbase case revolves around a narrow legal issue concerning jurisdiction, making his input less relevant at this stage. He emphasized that the case is not necessarily a platform for presenting new information, but rather hinges on the court's interpretation of existing law. In addition, Deaton expressed confidence in Coinbase's legal representation and questioned the incremental value his brief could provide under these circumstances.