Per the latest update shared by James K. Filan in the LBRY case, the SEC has filed a supplemental brief that amends the relief requested in its opposition to LBRY's motion to "Limit the Commission's Remedies."
The Commission also stated it has withdrawn its prior request for disgorgement for reasons it cited as "LBRY lack of funds and near defunct status."
#XRPCommunity #XRP In the LBRY case, the SEC has filed a Supplemental Brief on Remedies requesting a civil penalty of $111,614 and for the Court to enjoin LBRY from violating Section 5 of the Securities Act. https://t.co/I8dzNmVqpP— James K. Filan 🇺🇸🇮🇪 (@FilanLaw) May 12, 2023
Per the brief, the SEC stated, "Notwithstanding the availability of disgorgement as a remedy in this case, the commission, considering the information and sworn testimony received during the supplemental discovery period, withdraws its request for disgorgement because of LBRY's (including its wholly owned subsidiary's) lack of funds and near-defunct status."
The Commission has, however, requested the court order a civil penalty of $111,614 and enjoin LBRY from violating Section 5 of the Securities Act and from conducting unregistered offerings of crypto asset securities, at least until LBRY destroys its holdings of LBC and dissolves, as it promised the court it would.
LBRY lost its lawsuit with the SEC, and the regulator moved to impose a penalty equal to LBRY's full pecuniary gain of $22,151,971.
The SEC claimed that LBRY's gross receipts for its Section 5 violation equaled the value it received in exchange for its sale of 280 million LBC from its premine and market-making activity on multiple crypto asset trading platforms, which was over $22 million.
LBRY filed its motion to limit the SEC remedies as well as an oral hearing on Jan. 30 of this year.
LBRY to burn its LBC holdings: Pro-Ripple lawyer says XRP case is different
As the crypto community contemplates what the outcome of the LBRY lawsuit might imply for the ongoing Ripple SEC lawsuit, crypto lawyer Bill Morgan says he does not accept the relevance of the LBC burning to XRP at all.
He says nothing about LBRY sales of LBC is even close to Ripple's current sales of XRP to ODL customers. He says ODL customers do not invest in XRP but instead use it for cross-border payments; thus, such sales do not qualify as investment contracts.
He concludes: "What need is there to burn the XRP escrow if sales by Ripple of XRP to ODL customers are not enjoined by the Court, which they shouldn't be."