In the ongoing legal saga between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Ripple, the regulatory body responded by stating that Ripple’s arguments have no merit in a new court filing. The SEC refutes Ripple’s objection to the request for audited financial statements and the drafting of contracts related to XRP sales.
In the ongoing legal saga between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Ripple, the regulatory body responded by stating that Ripple’s arguments have no merit in a new court filing. The SEC refutes Ripple’s objection to the request for audited financial statements and the drafting of contracts related to XRP sales.
The SEC, in its latest filing, rejects Ripple’s claim that the SEC’s motion is “ill-timed,” stating that seeking discovery related to remedies is not time-barred and is a routine aspect of securities law violations. . The regulatory body emphasizes that the facts after the complaint are crucial in determining solutions and refutes Ripple’s claim that such information has no bearing on the court’s decisions.
Addressing Ripple’s objections to the disclosure of post-complaint institutional sales contracts, the SEC argues that they are highly relevant to assessing the likelihood of future violations. The regulator maintains that examining these contracts is essential to determine whether Ripple’s planned XRP sales comply with the court’s summary judgment order.
Ripple’s arguments about the irrelevance of its financial situation to sanctions are also refuted by the SEC, citing precedent that considers a defendant’s wealth when calculating deterrence sanctions.
The SEC concludes that Ripple’s procedural objections are meritless and reiterates that the discovery requests are procedurally appropriate and highly relevant. The regulatory body asserts its right to obtain specific information about Ripple’s financial situation and post-complaint institutional sales contracts to make informed decisions about sanctions and remedies.
As the legal battle unfolds, both sides continue to present their arguments, shaping the narrative of a case that has major implications for the cryptocurrency industry.
