Ripple has had a few new developments in its case. For some, the last update may be the reason for the final decision. Ripple’s initial request for admission to the SEC, attached to its latest court filing, revealed the most important information for the case to date. The document confirms that the SEC did not inform any third party that XRP is a security until the lawsuit is filed. According to the latest development, the SEC has responded to Ripple’s application, which forces it to discover the audio-visual recordings of its internal meetings. Here are the details…
New information clashes with Hinman’s statement
It is now official acceptance of the lawsuit, with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) confirming that it did not inform the third party that XRP was not a security until the lawsuit was filed. In responding to Ripple’s request for acceptance 99, the SEC said, “Subject to all objections above, the Commission acknowledges that some third parties had received information about the legal status of XRP prior to filing this lawsuit. However, the Commission did not express an opinion one way or another in response.”
SEC’s admission contradicts the testimony of former SEC executive Hinman. Cryptocoin. com
As we reported , Hinman claimed that he advised Ripple to stop selling XRP because he said the SEC considered the sales a security.
SEC opposes Ripple’s “document definition” stance
According to the latest development in the XRP lawsuit, the SEC has responded to Ripple’s letter that compelled them to discover the audio-visual recordings of its internal meetings. In its response letter, the SEC stated that, as the plaintiff’s action was declared controversial, the commission would not step in and would no longer correct “various inaccuracies” in Ripple’s opposition.
However, the SEC has argued against one of Ripple’s reasons stated in the opposition letter, rather than seeking “sound records” since the document request in January 2021. The SEC claimed that “audio recordings” were listed under the definition of “documents” by Federal Code of Civil Procedure 34.
SEC also opposed Ripple company’s sealing request
In its letter, Ripple challenged the SEC’s vague definition of “documents” in which the plaintiff accused defendants of failing to discover data through invention and opinion. Ripple stated that the SEC definition of the documents was “reasonably broad” and resulted in a “troublesome and disproportionate” discovery process. The SEC has announced that it is ready to meet and negotiate with the defendants about the scope and parameters of Ripple’s searches for additional relevant registrations.
The SEC also filed an appeal against Ripple’s request to seal the defendant’s internal records. However, this request has already been “provisionally” accepted by the court. The SEC argued that the sealed documents were due to due process and could not be recouped on the pretext of breaching business or privacy interests once publicly disclosed.