All news is rigorously fact-checked and reviewed by leading blockchain experts and seasoned industry insiders.
- The SEC and Ripple have agreed on a schedule for briefing the motions to dismiss filed by Garlinghouse and Larsen.
- According to attorneys for the Ripple chiefs, both parties have “reached an impasse” on several issues, which is why they are requesting the filing of a new brief.
The legal battle between the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Ripple continues to pick up steam. No less than four documents were published yesterday via CourtListener. One of them revolves around the schedule for the briefing of the motions to dismiss filed by Chris Larsen and Bradley Garlinghouse.
As CNF reported, both Ripple CEOs have each filed a letter stating their intention to file a motion to dismiss the SEC’s amended complaint against them. Just three days ago, the SEC denied those motions to dismiss based on “scienter liability.” According to the SEC, the two Ripple executives had “avoided knowing that XRP could be found to be a security” in order to profit financially.
The SEC told Judge Torres in the latest letter that they and the individual defendants have agreed on a proposed schedule for briefing the individual defendants’ motions to dismiss.
The parties respectfully propose that the Individual Defendants’ opening briefs be due April 12, 2021, the SEC’s brief(s) in opposition be due May 14, 2021, and the Individual Defendants’ reply briefs be due June 4, 2021.
Ripple and SEC reached an impasse
Further, the Garlinghouse and Larsen legal team has filed a motion to file a combined brief of 10 pages or less. Specifically, they seek to address “several discovery issues on which we have currently reached an impasse with the plaintiff. The SEC has agreed on the condition that they also be entitled to a reply brief with the same page limit.
In addition, the two parties were informed by Judge Torres that Joy Guo, counsel for Ripple, “was one of my law clerks during the September 2016-September 2017 term, more than three years ago. The Court does not believe this relationship creates a conflict but will entertain any request to reassign this case.” Attorney James K. Filan commented via Twitter:
Everyone needs to understand clearly that it is not at all unusual in federal court for an attorney to appear before a judge for whom she or he clerked for a year. It happened with me and happens all the time. The Court is merely alerting the parties of the previous position that attorney held on her staff.
I’m confident that all counsel already knew this. Nobody is going to question or should question Magistrate Judge Netburn’s impartiality. She is simply making a record, which is what all good judges do. SO DO NOT READ ANYTHING INTO THIS AT ALL AND PLEASE DON’T THINK IT IS A BIG DEAL.
