SEC Files Objection to Ripple’s Letter Requesting to Review Three Additional Documents

0
60
SEC Files Objection to Ripple's Letter Requesting to Review Three Additional Documents
SEC Files Objection to Ripple's Letter Requesting to Review Three Additional Documents

Ripple versus SEC has continued with more twists to the lawsuit. The SEC has filed an objection to Ripple’s letter requesting that three additional documents will be reviewed.

Document Did not Respond to Previous Court Orders

In a post by James K. Filan on Twitter today, the regulator appealed Ripple’s letter requesting three documents to be put on camera for review based on the one received by the regulator after the August 31st, 2021 conference call.

Moreover, the regulator alleged that these documents did not respond to previous court orders. The SEC stated that the reason the above files were included in the Privilege Log is that they belong to the obviously useless category, which can lead to unnecessary disputes.

The regulator argued that these documents were owned by the Deliberative Process Privilege (DPP), claiming that the exhibits submitted were double-checked for on-camera review.

The SEC Continues to Refer Previously Sealed Data 

The regulator continues to discuss its position, referring to previously filed sealed data that has been covered by Privilege. The applicant stressed that there are significant similarities between the above documents and the other three documents. Therefore, if the court grants either of these privileges, it should extend them to both by default. However, the SEC requires the court to allow the committee to produce an opinion explaining its claims to privileges without granting privileges.

Due to the content in the three documents above, the regulator continues to contest because they contain an email chain that could abandon the SEC’s earlier argument about fair opinions on Hinman’s 2018 speech and further strengthen Ripple’s fair notice position. 

The company argued that the evidence on the email chain exposed discussions with third parties and highlighted the regulator’s confusion over the legal structure of securities.