Perhaps someone can look this up, was posted on XRPChat (thanks Peanut56). "The Delaware Chancery court issued temporary restraining order Friday limiting Ripple's cryptocurrency transactions and stock redemptions until Tetragram can sell back its stock."
law360.com/articles/13454…
law360.com/articles/13454…
"The vice chancellor said she viewed Tetragon's requests for a complete ban on XRP purchases as potentially "heavy-handed." Instead, the court ordered Ripple to maintain a "net zero" position in sales and purchases of XRP, rather than halting acquisitions outright."
Some takeaways:
•Tetragon's argument was they want to get out before the stock depreciates.
•They argue the Wells notice was a trigger for redemption, but Ripple argues it was not; a textbook example even.
•Tetragon's argument was they want to get out before the stock depreciates.
•They argue the Wells notice was a trigger for redemption, but Ripple argues it was not; a textbook example even.
•Tetragon also admitted Ripple has the resources to repay the amount many times over.
•They claim Ripple threatened a suit seeking "billions of dollars in injury and damages if we sued" after the SEC issued a "Wells notice"
•They claim Ripple threatened a suit seeking "billions of dollars in injury and damages if we sued" after the SEC issued a "Wells notice"
The argument seems to be that Ripple is in a place to repay any stock value losses, so hold on until the SEC ruling.
• NOTE: Vice Chancellor said she would schedule a preliminary injunction hearing for February and, if needed, a one or two-day trial in March on the complaint.
• NOTE: Vice Chancellor said she would schedule a preliminary injunction hearing for February and, if needed, a one or two-day trial in March on the complaint.
The "net zero" sales of XRP is interesting. How far might it apply and in what circumstances? Would it affect ODL or just OTC?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
