Tweet

James K. Filan 🇺🇸🇮🇪

12 Jan, 7 tweets, 3 min read

#XRPCommunity #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP Due to complications related to COVID, the parties have filed a joint letter requesting until February 28, 2022 to complete expert discovery, stating that the extension, if granted, will not “impact any other deadline in the case.”

My belief is that before filing this motion the parties agreed to specific dates for every remaining expert deposition, far enough out that they believe COVID won’t be a problem, so that they could say to the Court that all expert discovery would be completed by February 28th.

I understand people are frustrated by extensions of time, and I'm seeing a lot of responses critical of Ripple et al for agreeing to this one. I have a couple of thoughts. First, we are in really weird times and we just don't know what's happening behind the scenes.

For all we know, people on both sides, or their families, could be getting sick. Second, even if Ripple wanted a shorter extension, or no extension, fighting over a Covid-related delay would just look bad and good lawyers, like the ones we have here, know what battles to pick and

when to pick them. This is especially true when you realize that the Court granted previous, non- Covid-related extension requests over Ripple's objection. So, I think we need to leave the strategic decisions to the Ripple teams' lawyers.

Throughout this lawsuit the legal team has never let us down or backed away from any truly important battle. This will take time & we have to have patience and not turn on each other or the Ripple team. The SEC would love to see us turn on each other. Don't give them that.

Motion granted in Text Only Order: “ORDER granting 410 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Expert discovery shall be completed by February 28, 2022.”

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

More from @FilanLaw

James K. Filan 🇺🇸🇮🇪

@FilanLaw

25 Jun 21

#XRPCommunity #SEC_News v. #Ripple #XRP 1/5 What a convoluted and contradictory motion to quash. First, Hinman gives a pass to ETH in what is arguably the most impactful speech on digital currencies at the time as well as in Hinam’s career at the SEC.

2/5 Second, the SEC says Hinman held a position of “critical importance” to the SEC’s operations. Third, the SEC then says “Director Hinman Has No Unique, First-Hand Knowledge of Market Participants’ Understanding as to the Regulatory Status of XRP Offers and Sales.”

3/5 Fourth, the SEC shows its weakness, saying “the Court should quash the Subpoena without prejudice until after Judge Torres’s ruling on the SEC’s motion to strike Ripple’s fair notice defense. Finally, Hinman finishes it (and his credibility) off with the declaration that

Read 5 tweets

James K. Filan 🇺🇸🇮🇪

@FilanLaw

17 May 21

1/4 #XRPCommunity #SEC_NEWS v. #Ripple #XRP The #SEC_NEWS has filed another objection to the Motion to Intervene. The SEC's mission statement is among other things to "protect investors." The SEC has argued from the beginning of this enforcement action that XRP is a security,

2/4 thereby arguing that XRP holders are actually XRP "investors." In its latest filing, it attacks XRP holders. It says "[b]ecause Movants are not seeking to appear as objective “friends of the court,” but rather to advance their own interests—to pursue claims against the SEC

3/4 —Defendants’ request that Movants appear as amici should be denied." Its clear that the SEC is antagonistic toward XRP holders and has no intention of protecting them or advancing XRP holders' interests. Which leads to only one conclusion:

Read 4 tweets

James K. Filan 🇺🇸🇮🇪

@FilanLaw

8 Apr 21

1/10 This is what Coinbase said in its S-1/A (Registration statement) filed (2021-03-17) regarding its determinations whether a crypto asset is a “security.” I found It interesting and informative.

“We have policies and procedures to analyze whether each crypto asset that

2/10 we seek to facilitate trading on our platform could be deemed to be a “security” under applicable laws. Our policies and procedures do not constitute a legal standard, but rather represent our company-developed scoring model, which permits us to make a risk-based assessment

3/10 regarding the likelihood that a particular crypto asset could be deemed a “security” under applicable laws. Regardless of our conclusions, we could be subject to legal or regulatory action in the event the SEC, a foreign regulatory authority, or a court were to determine

Read 10 tweets