SNEAK PEEK
- In the LBRY case, the SEC has recently filed a motion to stretch the time to respond to LBRY’s motion to restrict the SEC’s remedies.
- Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission moves the Court for an additional 5 days to respond to LBRY’s motion to restrict the Commission’s remedies.
- The counsel stated that the Commission is the sole governing entity to advance certain aspects of positions in litigation.
In a recent announcement made via Twitter, James K. Filan, a defense lawyer, and former federal prosecutor, released a tweet that addressed the SEC has filed a motion in order to stretch the duration to respond to LBRY’s motion to limit the SEC’s remedies. As revealed, LBRY objects to the motion, and there have been arguments from the SEC.
#XRPCommunity #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP #LBRY 1/2 In the LBRY case, the SEC has filed a Motion to Extend the Time to respond to LBRY’s Motion to Limit the SEC’s remedies. LBRY objects to the motion. The SEC argues that “As counsel for the Commission stated during the recent pic.twitter.com/RbiaPFzDfQ
— James K. Filan 🇺🇸🇮🇪 126k (beware of imposters) (@FilanLaw) December 12, 2022
Discussing further the Commission’s remedies, the plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission asks the court for an additional 5 days to respond to LBRY’s motion to restrict the Commission’s remedies. The Commission respectfully requested that it have until Monday, December 19, 2022, in order to respond to LBRY’s motion.
The Commission released statements in support of its motion that said that the LBRY filed an assented-to motion for an expedited briefing schedule. This was due to its financial situation. The motion was granted by the Court on December 1, 2022, and set the schedule for December 7, 2022, Wednesday, with the Commission’s response due by December 14, Wednesday.
LBRY argued in its memoranda that the law limited the remedies of the Commission and additionally requested the Court impose particular remedies on it. The Commission is the sole authority to facilitate the advancement of certain aspects of our position in litigation.
In addition to this, it should be noted that the additional five days would provide the Commission with a total of 12 days in order to respond to the motion of LBRY, which remains less than the 14 days afforded by the local rules in order to respond to a motion.
Conclusively, the Commission would consent to an equivalent extension of time for LBRY to file its reply. Counsel for the Commission conferred with counsel for LBRY. Moreover, it reports that LBRY does not consent to this motion.
