Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by our writers are their own and do not represent the views of U.Today. The financial and market information provided on U.Today is intended for informational purposes only. U.Today is not liable for any financial losses incurred while trading cryptocurrencies. Conduct your own research by contacting financial experts before making any investment decisions. We believe that all content is accurate as of the date of publication, but certain offers mentioned may no longer be available.
According to recently provided updates by James K. Filan in Ripple ally LBRY's lawsuit, the SEC has sought an additional five days to respond to LBRY's motion to limit the commission's remedies, which is a date of Dec. 19 if granted.
#XRPCommunity #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP #LBRY 1/2 In the LBRY case, the SEC has filed a Motion to Extend the Time to respond to LBRY's Motion to Limit the SEC's remedies. LBRY objects to the motion. The SEC argues that "As counsel for the Commission stated during the recent pic.twitter.com/RbiaPFzDfQ
— James K. Filan 🇺🇸🇮🇪 126k (beware of imposters) (@FilanLaw) December 12, 2022
The SEC cites as its reason for its request for extra time that it "would allow convening on an expedited basis to authorize aspects of a response." LBRY objects to the motion.
In a document submitted to the court, the SEC maintains that it remains the sole authority to advance certain aspects of LBRY's positions in the case.
In its opinion, the SEC says an extension would not have a significant impact. It also said it would oblige LBRY if it sought an extension of time.
In looking back on events after the announcement of the loss of the lawsuit by LBRY at summary judgment, it should be recalled that on Nov. 30, LBRY filed a motion requesting an expedited briefing schedule to limit the commission's remedies, citing its financial situation.
This is because both parties were unable to reach a resolution concerning the remedies sought by the SEC in a meeting that deliberated the settlement proposal.
The court granted LBRY's motion, and an expedited schedule was set thus: LBRY's motion was due on Dec. 7 while the commission's response was due on Dec. 14. LBRY's reply to the commission was expected to be turned in on Dec. 19.
LBRY fulfilled its side by filing its motion on Dec. 7 wherein it argued that the law limited the commission's remedies and additionally requested that the court impose specific remedies on it. It now awaits the SEC's response to proceed further.
Thus, as it stands, approval by the court regarding the SEC's request might shift the expected date of LBRY's reply in the final phase of the lawsuit.
Denys Serhiichuk
Yuri Molchan
