360

The SEC may lose credibility as the “personal opinion only” argument becomes invalid in the XRP lawsuit. At the hearing, Ripple’s requests for documents that it wanted to be considered drew attention. Details Cryptocoin. com

at .

Recent developments in the XRP case

Here’s the latest update on the XRP case: The defense appears to have submitted a letter after the August 31, 2021 phone conference requesting the attachment of three documents for review based on a “privilege diary” (a type of document summary) provided by the SEC. These documents also include an email chain that potentially rejects the old “just an opinion” argument regarding the SEC’s 2018 Hinman speech and supports Ripple’s “fair notice” stance.

https://twitter. com/FilanLaw/status/14441486176955736067

Third Evidence contains an e-mail trace that sparks the SEC’s confusion

Ripple claimed that the three documents could be quite relevant to this case if they are added to the trail of the belatedly produced franchise diary. The first two documents relate to SEC meetings with law firms and discuss the unprecedented turmoil in the market over the SEC’s view on the status of digital assets under federal securities laws. The third and final piece of evidence is an email chain displaying discussions with a third party, highlighting the SEC’s confusion about the legal structure of securities.

The defense further stressed that if this franchise diary had been provided before Ripple submitted its first move to sign the series, then Ripple should have included it in Appendix A. In addition, the defendants asked the plaintiff to voluntarily attach the three aforementioned documents to their submission to the court on September 14. Ripple claimed that the SEC did not consider the defendants’ request and gave the briefing. Later, the SEC denied the request, arguing that the defendants “had no specific direction from the Court.”

SEC acknowledges that it does not inform XRP as a security. Earlier this month, Ripple strengthened its fair notification argument with the announcement of its first admission request (No. 99) to the SEC. The document confirmed that the SEC had not notified any third party that XRP was a security until the lawsuit was filed. This information was officially accepted in the case. If the SEC had responded to Ripple’s Request for Acceptance No. 99:

Subject to all objections above, the Commission acknowledges that some third parties received information about the legal status of XRP prior to filing this lawsuit. However, the Commission did not express an opinion one way or the other in response.


Like it? Share with your friends!

360
Michael Lewis

0 Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *