Ripple Asks SEC for a Non-circumvention Response to Lawsuit

0
60
Ripple Asks SEC for a Non-circumvention Response to Lawsuit
Ripple Asks SEC for a Non-circumvention Response to Lawsuit

The latest development in the XRP lawsuit is that Ripple has responded to the SEC’s objections. The response was related to the defendant’s motion to confirm the SEC’s Howey Test’s application theory. Ripple believes the SEC’s objection represents the fundamental obligation of all parties to avoid responding and to refuse to comply with rule 33.

Ripple stressed that the challenge was “to help the parties to narrow the issues and resolve the issues before a summary judgment is practised or proceedings are initiated”. Furthermore, the defense claimed that the interrogatories put forward by them will prove that mentioned issues do not hold a genuine dispute as objected by the SEC.

Ripple Believes the SEC’s Response Had Not Been Challenged Due to its inaccuracy

The SEC responded to its unresponsive response by citing the Phillies’ court ruling that a party need not classify all of the facts or evidence to support the argument made. However, the defense opposed the SEC’s use of Phillie’s ruling, claiming the plaintiff’s response had not been challenged because of its inaccuracy.

In fact, the defendants argued that the SEC’s response was inadequate because it did not provide substantive answers to the questions put by the defendants. In addition, these non-responses were found to be inconsistent with the purpose of Rule 33 of narrowing the question of summary judgment and procedure.

“The SEC must, like any ordinary litigant, respond to the interrogatories that the Defendants served… Rule 33 requires the SEC to provide complete responses to the interrogatories, specific as possible and non-evasive…even when (and precisely because) those responses reveal fatal weaknesses in its case, “said Ripple.

Ripple emphasizes that the SEC refuses to identify the contract language

Ripple’s interrogatory No. 2, the process requires the SEC to set the specific terms and conditions of the investment and trade agreements that Ripple has used to illegally sell XRP, according to the SEC. Ripple claimed the process was based solely on the contract language and was only looking for certain terms that the SEC would use in the document anyway. However, the defendant reiterated that the plaintiff had refused to provide such basic information.

In addition, the US Securities and Exchange Commission refused to respond to any inquiries from Ripple because “For Howey’s descendants, the structure of the investment contract can be determined not only from the ‘contract,’ but also from the nature of the statements and instruments in the deal.” According to information of the plaintiff.