נייַע דערהייַנטיקונגען וועגן לעגאַל שלאַכט צווישן SEC און Ripple

The Securities and Exchange Commission has submitted its response to the motion, and Ripple will be given three business days to file its reply. Ripple had recently filed its opposition to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s motion. The American company asked the court to deny the SEC’s request for disgorgement and prejudgment interest. 

Ripple contends that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s penalty should not exceed 10 million US Dollars. The regulatory authority needs $2 billion worth of fines and penalties, and the defendant requested to strike the SEC’s materials, including supporting exhibits and declaration.

Ripple stated that it has no opportunity to take the opposition of Fox, an accountant in SEC’s enforcement wing. They pointed out that reopening remedies will lead to expense and delay. According to the claim of Ripple, the Securities and Exchange Commission was supposed to reveal Fox’s expertise as an expert witness before the end of trial. Ripple added that it is impossible to avoid this obligation by describing Fox as a summary witness. Ripple’s argument states that the court should strike out Fox’s declaration due to the premature disclosure of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The magistrate judge has advanced the XRP lawsuit with a fresh scheduling order, and it adds a new twist to the long legal battle between Ripple and SEC. The new judgement by Sarah Netburn, known for her fair rulings, is perceived as a positive signal by the crypto community, considering the judge’s history of rulings in the same case. The order by the pro-crypto judicial officer is crucial as it addresses Ripple’s request to dismiss the SEC’s recent submissions. It is perceived that the recently issued judicial order will strengthen the case of the SEC for remedies.

Ripple maintains a tough stand against the SEC’s overstepping of their regulatory powers. Ripple’s argument indicates that the claims of independent government agencies are overstated, apart from the fact that they are not supported by sufficient evidence. Ripple has raised concerns about the SEC’s stand for disgorgement, and they contend that no solid evidence of financial harm originated from Ripple’s actions. The defendants highlighted the Govil case, which is known for its lack of evidence in its institutional XRP sales.

Ripple told that legitimate business expenses can be deducted from disgorgement estimation. The company has argued that its ODL sales don’t fall under the umbrella of investment contracts. It is to be mentioned that the primary application of ODL(On Demand Liquidity) is for transactional purposes, not for investment. 

Ripple’s case is valid on the claim that XRP is not being portrayed as an investment vehicle, and this viewpoint disproves the classification of the Securities and Exchange Commission of XRP as a security. It seems that the objective of Ripple is to discredit the arguments put forward by the controlling authority. They had already raised concerns about the SEC’s stand on disgorgement and significant civil penalties.