XRP: CREATOR GREAT REVEALS BY XRP LION DAVE

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.