SEC continues to insist that the legal status of Bitcoin or ETH is not relevant to the Ripple case

According to the latest update from an attorney who closely follows the lawsuit between Ripple and the SEC, James K. Filan, SEC has filed its Opposition to the Motion to Compel it to answer interrogatories identifying its theory of how the Howey Test applies to virtually all of Defendants’ transactions in XRP over the last 8 years. In addition, SEC refuses to provide further responses to Ripple’s Contention Interrogatories.

sec-continues-to-insist-that-the-legal-status-of-bitcoin-or-eth-is-not-relevant-to-the-ripple-case

Source: James K. Filan

Deficient answers, the SEC fires back with Ripple

Specifically, in a letter to Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn, Mark Sylvester, senior trial counsel at the SEC, asked the court not to force the agency to provide additional answers to Ripple’s contention interrogatories.

“There is no dispute that the SEC has never filed an enforcement action against issuers of Bitcoin or Ether contending that they engaged in securities transactions at the time of those transactions”, SEC is accusing the defendants of trying to “trap” it into answering questions about the legal status of Bitcoin and Ether. They also point to the fact that it has never brought an enforcement action against either of the two cryptocurrencies.

The SEC then added that it generally does not make independent decisions regarding whether certain financial instruments are securities.

Before, Ripple’s lawyers filed a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer interrogatories that identify the regulator’s theory on how the Howey Test can be applied to all transactions made by the executives over the course of eight years. The defendants argued that the agency had refused to provide the information sought by various interrogatories.

Disputing parties often rely on disputing interrogations to determine whether the adversary’s consent is supported by facts. But, that doesn’t mean the SEC can’t identify all the contract terms that purport to lead to profit expectations.

“The SEC should not be permitted to play cat-and-mouse on this issue”, Ripple stated.

But finally, the SEC still refuses to answer questions regarding the determination of Bitcoin and Ether as securities the meaning of Section 2 of the 1993 Securities Exchange Act. Because they stated that the legal status of the aforementioned cryptocurrencies was not involved in the Ripple case.

And in addition, the SEC went on to claim that Ripple made a similar objection to its own interrogations.

“While Defendants accused the SEC of acting improperly by sometimes incorporating its responses to other interrogatories, Defendants had engaged in the very same practice in responding to the SEC’s interrogatories”, the SEC Letter to Defendants also noted that.

The SEC said that it did provide the defendants with the term “contracts,” claiming that it shouldn’t accept Ripple’s “incorrect reading.” In addition, it has identified “a variety” of ways in which the company’s efforts resulted in XRP price spikes.

Read more:

Follow us on Telegram

Follow us on Twitter

Follow us on Facebook

You might also like

LATEST NEWS

LASTEST NEWS