XRP: CREATOR GREAT REVEALS BY XRP LION DAVE

  Owen v. Elastos Found. 1:19-cv-5462-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2021)    Cited 2 times Defendants argue that their actions are too far removed from the secondary market transactions to be considered to have sold or solicited the sale of the ELA Tokens. However, even indirect solicitation efforts are sufficient to state a claim under Section 12. See Capri v. Murphy, 856 F.2d 473, 478 (2d Cir. 1988) (“indirect solicitation can suffice to state a claim under Section 12(a)(2)” and “the language of sections 12(1) and 12(2) is identical in meaning”); see also In re Vivendi Universal, S.A., 381 F.Supp.2d 158, 186 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (finding adequate allegations that CEO was a statutory seller where he “regularly appeared before investors and financial news agencies to tour the financial vitality of [the company] and thereby encourage investors to purchase [the company's] securities”); In re WorldCom, Inc. Secs. Litig., 294 F.Supp.2d 392, 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (finding sufficient allegati...

  Zakinov v. Ripple Labs. 18-cv-06753-PJH (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2023)    Cited 3 times For exhibits 35 and 43, defendants argue that the documents contain information that was designated as confidential or highly confidential by a third party. See Dkt. 182 at 4. Plaintiff further filed a response indicating that third party Poloniex, LLC requests the sealing of only a portion of exhibit 43 (specifically, exhibit 43 is a spreadsheet showing  XRP  transactions, and Poloniex requests the sealing of only column A of the spreadsheet, which lists the user who made each transaction). See Dkt. 183. Because the request to seal exhibit 43 was narrowed to seek the sealing of only information regarding individual user names, the court GRANTS the motion to seal to the extent that it seeks to seal column A of exhibit 43.

  United States Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Bluepoint Inv. Counsel 19-cv-809-wmc (W.D. Wis. Nov. 16, 2021) The claim to a denial of fair notice is similarly meritless. “Due process requires that “laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited.” Upton v. S.E.C., 75 F.3d 92, 98 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972). In cases assessing whether fair notice was given, however, courts look to the particular SEC rule or rule interpretation that is challenged. E.g., Upton v. S.E.C., 75 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 1996) (looking at whether Rule 15c3-3(e) was interpreted correctly); Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Ripple Labs, Inc., No. 20CV10832ATSN, 2021 WL 2323089 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2021) (looking at whether the SEC considered  XRP  a security); KPMG, LLP v. S.E.C., 289 F.3d 109 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (looking at the interpretation of AICPA Rule 302).

United States Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Bluepoint Inv. Counsel 19-cv-809-wmc (W.D. Wis. Nov. 16, 2021) The claim to a denial of fair notice is similarly meritless. “Due process requires that “laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited.” Upton v. S.E.C., 75 F.3d 92, 98 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972). In cases assessing whether fair notice was given, however, courts look to the particular SEC rule or rule interpretation that is challenged. E.g., Upton v. S.E.C., 75 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 1996) (looking at whether Rule 15c3-3(e) was interpreted correctly); Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Ripple Labs, Inc., No. 20CV10832ATSN, 2021 WL 2323089 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2021) (looking at whether the SEC considered  XRP  a security); KPMG, LLP v. S.E.C., 289 F.3d 109 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (looking at the interpretation of AICPA Rule 302).

  Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Arbitrade Ltd. 22-cv-23171-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes (S.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2023)    Cited 1 times The Court is likewise unpersuaded by Goldberg's discussion of how other crypto assets were categorized in circumstances not analogous to those alleged in the Complaint. See ECF No. [25] at 11-13 (discussing  XRP  coins and citing, inter alia, a consent judgment in CFTC v. Omega Knight 2, No. 18-cv-22377-RNS (S.D. Fla. 2019)). Whether other crypto assets constitute securities or commodities is not the issue before this Court. Goldberg has provided no cognizable argument as to why the specific scheme described in the Complaint does not constitute an investment contract under the well-established Howey test.

  Underwood v. Coinbase Glob. 21 Civ. 8353 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2023) Specifically, this action concerns the 79 digital assets traded under the following symbols: IINCH, AAVE, ACH, ADA, AGLD, ALGO, AMP, ANKR, ARPA, ATOM, AUCTION, AXS, BAL, BAND, BAT, BNT, BOND, BTRST, CGLD, CLV, COMP, CRO, CRV, CTSI, CVC, DNT, DOGE, DOT, ENJ, EOS, FARM, FET, FIL, FORTH, GNT, GRT, GTC, ICP, IOTX, KEEP, KNC, LINK, LOOM, LRC, MANA, MATIC, MKR, MLN, NKN, NMR, NU, OGN, OMG, ORN, OXT, PLA, POLY, QNT, QUICK, RARE, REN, REP, RLC, SHIB, SKL, SNX, SOL, STORJ, SUSHI, TRB, TRIBE, UMA, UNI, XLM,  XRP , XTZ, XYO, YFI, and ZRX (collectively, the “Tokens”).

  Purbeck v. Garland CV 22 80091 MISC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2022) https://cheddar.com/media/coinbase-adds-support-for-ripple-s- xrp -despite-regulatory-uncertainty retrieved 3/27/2022

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. McDonnell 287 F. Supp. 3d 213 (E.D.N.Y. 2018)    Cited 23 times    15 Legal Analyses Holding virtual currencies are commodities subject to CFTC regulatory protections 8. State regulations. See, e.g., Press Release, DFS Grants Virtual Currency License to Coinbase, Inc., N.Y. Department of Financial Services, Jan. 17, 2017 ("DFS has approved six firms for virtual currency charters or licenses, while denying those applications that did not meet DFS's standards. In addition to bitFlyer USA, DFS has granted licenses to Coinbase Inc.,   XRP   II and Circle Internet Financial, and charters to Gemini Trust Company and itBit Trust Company.").

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. McDonnell 18-CV-361 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2018) 8. State regulations. See, e. g., Press Release, DFS Grants Virtual Currency License to Coinbase, Inc., N.Y. Department of Financial Services, Jan. 17, 2017 ("DFS has approved six firms for virtual currency charters or licenses, while denying those applications that did not meet DFS's standards. In addition to bitFlyer USA, DFS has granted licenses to Coinbase Inc.,  XRP  II and Circle Internet Financial, and charters to Gemini Trust Company and itBit Trust Company.").

   Cress v. Nexo Fin. 23-cv-00882-TSH (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2023) This Court finds that, to the extent that Cress's UCL claims are based on Nexo's deceptive conduct in the sale of NEXO Tokens and his Earn Account, these claims are barred under Bowen. As to allegations related to borrowing from Nexo, the Court finds that these claims may proceed. Nexo argues that because Cress has alleged that essentially all of his assets with Nexo were securities that he is barred from proceeding with the UCL claim regardless of whether they are determined to be securities or not. ECF No. 25 at 11. Nexo cites to no caselaw in support of this proposition, and the Court finds that Cress could proceed with a UCL claim in the alternative to the security fraud claims based on the “Leveraged Investment Instrument.” See Zakinov v. Ripple Labs, Inc., No. 18-CV-06753-PJH, 2020 WL 922815, at *23 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2020) (“In the event  XRP  were factually determined not to be a security (like ...

  IN RE JUNE v. U.S. Cause No. 3:04-CV-250-TS (N.D. Ind. Sep. 30, 2005)    Cited 1 times According to the Plaintiff, the United States government sabotaged  N.E.S.A.R.A. 's proclamation by staging the September 11, 2001, attacks. In addition, she avers that any discussion about  N.E.S.A.R.A. 's enactment is forbidden by the Supreme Court's gag order.

Woodruff v. De Facto Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP 21-cv-06862-SBA (N.D. Cal. Jul. 1, 2022)    Cited 1 times The Dismissal Order did not address “ NESARA ,” which was not raised in the Trial by Affidavit. Plaintiffs could have raised this purported “law” in their opposition to the motion to dismiss but failed to do so. Notably, insofar as “ NESARA ” refers to the National Economic Stabilization and Recovery Act, no such law has been enacted. See https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/04/13/fact-check-no-congress-has-not-passed- nesara /9515254002/ (last accessed June 28, 2022).

Cred Liquidation Tr. v. Uphold HQ Inc. (In re Cred Inc.) 20-12836 (JTD) (Bankr. D. Del. Apr. 13, 2023) On March 12, 2020, the Trading Firm notified Cred that all of its BTC futures positions and some of its  XRP  futures were liquidated as a result of a drastic move in the market overnight. That same day, in an effort to find the funds needed to reinstate its hedge position, Cred requested $10 million in cash from MoKredit as a recall of some of the approximately $38 million principal loan amount that Cred previously extended to MoKredit. MoKredit refused.It later agreed to a repayment schedule but did not follow through on all of the payments.

  Cred Inc. v. Uphold HQ Inc. (In re Cred Inc.) 650 B.R. 803 (Bankr. D. Del. 2023)    Cited 2 times Finding that the plaintiff had not pled any facts to support the conclusion that the defendant acted in a manner that suggested its intent to be bound to any contract with the plaintiff On March 12, 2020, the Trading Firm notified Cred that all of its BTC futures positions and some of its   XRP   futures were liquidated as a result of a drastic move in the market overnight. That same day, in an effort to find the funds needed to reinstate its hedge position, Cred requested $10 million in cash from MoKredit as a recall of some of the approximately $38 million principal loan amount that Cred previously extended to MoKredit. MoKredit refused. It later agreed to a repayment schedule but did not follow through on all of the payments.

  In re Celsius Network LLC 649 B.R. 87 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2023)    Cited 1 times Terms of Use § 1 (referring to particular services to be provided by Celsius EU UAB with respect to Binance Coin (BNB), Ripple ( XRP) , Tether Gold (XAUT), and WDGLD).