Ripple Responds to SEC’s Motion to Compel, Strongly Opposing it
Ripple Labs Inc. has filed a response to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) motion to compel, as the legal battle between the two entities continues. James K. Filan, a former federal prosecutor and defense lawyer, shared the latest filing on Twitter, shedding light on Ripple’s stance.
Ripple’s legal team has outlined two main objections in response to the SEC’s motion. Firstly, Ripple argues that the SEC’s requests are untimely, emphasizing that the SEC had ample opportunity to seek the information during fact discovery. Reopening discovery at this stage is seen as unfair and could unnecessarily prolong the legal proceedings.
Secondly, Ripple asserts that the SEC has failed to justify the relevance of the requested information to the court’s determination of remedies. The SEC’s demands include audited financial statements for 2022 and 2023, details of post-complaint contracts for XRP sales, and information on XRP Institutional Sales proceeds. Ripple questions the necessity of this information, stating that it does not impact the court’s decision on penalties.
James K. Filan and WrathofKahneman, known for their insights on Ripple’s legal battles, have shared their interpretations of Ripple’s court filing on Twitter. They highlight Ripple’s objections regarding the untimeliness of the SEC’s requests and the lack of merit in the demands. The procedural aspects of the case, such as the closure of fact discovery and potential unfairness, are also discussed.
The response from the Twitter community has been varied. Some users, like Mark, humorously imagine a wrestling-style showdown between Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse and SEC Chair Gary Gensler, with Ripple emerging as the winner. Others, such as Kyle, focus on the procedural aspect and applaud Ripple’s attempt to prevent the SEC from obtaining irrelevant information.
As the legal battle between Ripple and the SEC continues, Ripple’s latest response demonstrates a firm opposition to the SEC’s motion. The arguments put forth by Ripple emphasize procedural fairness and question the necessity of the SEC’s information requests.