he latest update in the XRP lawsuit saw Ripple file an opposition against the SEC’s appeal for a telephone conference, to further seek a protective order, relieving the SEC of any obligation to respond to the Requests for Admission (“RFA”). The defendants have contended their RFAs relevance, along with accusing the SEC of seeking the disgorgement money from contracts that it claims are “investment contracts under the Howey test”.
Ripple contends its RFA’s relevance
Ripple argues that the plaintiff’s “burdensome” argument is not grounds enough to file for a protective order. The defense claims that legally, “the large number of requests to admit is not in itself a basis for a protective order”.
Furthermore, Ripple asserts that the quantity of RFAs is not only proportional to the requirements of the lawsuit; rather, they are driven by the SEC’s own litigation theories. Ripple puts forward the sixth set of RFA as evidence to prove that it’s driven by the SEC’s theories, and mustn’t be marked as irrelevant. It is based on SEC’s investment contract argument, noting that every offer, sale, and distribution of XRP by Defendants during the timeframe, 2013 through December 2020, was the offer, sale, or distribution of an investment contract.
“That contention puts centrally at issue the express terms of more than 1,700 separate contracts. Yet the SEC now complains that it would be unduly burdensome to “require the SEC to review” the contracts it alleges are unlawful securities offerings.”
Ripple accuses the SEC of seeking disgorgement money
Ripple claims that the SEC’s failure to review these contracts before alleging unlawful conduct. The defense accuses the SEC’s argument of being powered by the greed of seeking the disgorgement amount. Ripple reveals that the amount is worth a minimum of $1.38 billion, from the profits obtained through the same contracts the plaintiff is dedicatedly fighting against.
“Indeed, the SEC seeks disgorgement of “at least” $1.38 Billion in revenue generated by Ripple from those exact same contracts yet says it can’t be bothered to actually read them. Despite multiple invitations to do so, the SEC has not yet identified a Single contractual provision that supports its claim that these are “investment contracts” under the Howey test, yet it has reserved the right to rely on such contracts in support of its claims.”
Original Source :coingape.com
Want to receive the latest stock and cryptocurrency news and investing ideas that can help you make money ?! Subscribe to our newsletter. Enter your email below and hit the subscribe button.
If you want professional consultation regarding stock or cryptocurrency investing leave your information below and experts from our trusted partners will reach out to you