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.
Pro-XRP lawyer Jeremy Hogan draws attention to the latest development in the LBRY case, which he believes might impact the Ripple SEC lawsuit.
LBRY has submitted a supplemental brief in support of its motion to limit the SEC's remedies as it awaits a final ruling in the case. In this brief, LBRY requests the court approve its proposed final judgment.
LBRY is asking the Court to clarify that secondary sales of LBRY are not affected by the judgment.
— Jeremy Hogan (@attorneyjeremy1) May 26, 2023
Watch out for this ruling! as this is a possible scenario in the Ripple case with the SEC asking for a broad/vague injunction and Ripple seeking clarity from the Judge. https://t.co/mbIijIMKBH pic.twitter.com/B1WdM7lINL
Hogan enjoins the XRP community to watch out for this ruling as a potential scenario might arise in the Ripple case with the SEC asking for a broad or vague injunction and Ripple thus seeking clarity from the judge.
In its supplemental brief, LBRY says its focus has always been to seek clarity around the use of the LBRY token (LBC), including clarity that LBC is not a security in and of itself.
However, the SEC refuses to provide such clarity and now seeks a broad-based injunction that is neither specific nor clear. The Commission has requested injunctive relief specifically against Odysee, an open-source video-sharing website that uses the LBRY network, which was split into a separate company on Oct. 1, 2021.
As such, LBRY requests that the Court provide the clarity that is so desperately needed, as it believes only a clear and unambiguous final judgment will finally provide clarity as to how LBC tokens can be used.
It believes that this is critical to ensuring that the Commission's requested relief is appropriately targeted and not imposed to harm public holders of the LBC regime for the digital asset industry.
Tomiwabold OlajideLBRY also argues that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to regulate digital assets or to impose relief until Congress develops a regulatory regime for the digital asset industry.
On the other hand, if the court determines that the Commission has clear congressional authority to regulate the digital asset industry, the scope of the injunction must be well defined.
It requests that the language of the Final Judgment make clear that: (i) only LBRY violated Section 5 by offering and selling premined LBC, that LBC tokens are not in and of themselves a security, and (ii) nothing in the injunction prohibits Odysee or other users from using or purchasing LBC.
CryptoLaw founder reacts
CryptoLaw founder John Deaton recounts the Jan. 30 oral hearing, wherein the judge stated that his ruling does not extend to secondary sales. He is hopeful the judge will do as promised.
I have the transcript from the Jan. 30 hearing wherein I appeared for @naomibrockwell. The judge promised he would make clear his order did not apply to secondary market sales. I objected to the over-broad injunction language and he said he would not issue an injunction like that https://t.co/TKjI7clqnH
— John E Deaton (@JohnEDeaton1) May 27, 2023
He adds, "I have to wait another few weeks before I can publish the hearing transcript. But I'm hoping the judge does what he said he would do and not do what he said he would not."
Arman Shirinyan
Alex Dovbnya
Dan Burgin
U.Today Editorial Team
Vladislav Sopov