Ripple protests SEC’s third-party evidence, says regulator mischaracterizing law in XRP Lawsuit
Ripple Labs is protesting the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) decision to block third-party evidence in a lawsuit the regulator has filed against them.
Listen to this article
According to evidence obtained by defense attorney James K. Filan, Ripple recently wrote to Judge Analisa Torres saying that the SEC is misrepresenting the law by challenging third-party reports filed by I-Remit and TapJets submit.
“The SEC misrepresented both the summary and the law when it asserted that the amicus brief filed by I-Remit and TapJets constituted Plaintiffs’ improper efforts to provide evidence outside the limitations of discovery.”, proof rules, and pre-discovery orders. This court...
I-Remit and TapJets are independent third parties who are otherwise not involved in this litigation. They seek permission to submit summaries to provide the Court with their critical view on whether industry participants invest in XRP, and whether they expect to profit from Defendant's efforts, or not. no and how the SEC theory of this case (if approved by the Court) will negatively affect your business.
They provide the Court with information about their business and industries to support their position. There's nothing wrong with that."
Private jet-sharing service TapJets and money-transfer company I-Remit initially registered as "amicus curiae" or "friend of the court" on October 4.
Amicus curiae can submit documents called amicus briefs to the court as long as they contain relevant information about the case and are pre-approved by the court.
TapJets says it's interested in the case because it plans to use XRP as its currency, while I-Remit says it uses Ripple's cross-border payments system.
Just two days later, the SEC objected to the companies' involvement in the case, saying it was an attempt to bring evidence into the case outside of traditional detection limitations.
According to Ripple, the SEC didn't have to sue them in the first place if they couldn't handle the review of the amicus summary when it tried to refute their claims.
“The SEC has sought summary judgment based on what they erroneously assert is the indisputable fact that every purchase of XRP is an 'investment' and that every XRP purchaser is expected to profit. from Ripple's efforts. Nothing could be more relevant than these two amicus curiae summaries refuting (or at least arguing) both points.
If the SEC could not assess the veracity of such claims, it would not have brought this lawsuit in the first place. "
The SEC first sued Ripple in late 2020, claiming that the payments platform was selling XRP as an unregistered security.
Oct 07, 2022