Ripple Disputes 2 Crucial SEC Claims In New Filing As Judgment Looms

As a researcher with experience in the fintech industry and a keen interest in blockchain technology, I find Ripple Labs’ recent filing in their legal dispute with the SEC to be a significant development in the case. The company is taking a firm stance on two major contentions raised by the SEC: the relevance of Ripple’s current financial condition and historical contracts.


As a researcher examining this ongoing legal dispute between Ripple Labs and the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), I’d like to highlight that Ripple has recently taken a proactive approach in their defense by directly addressing two significant arguments raised by the SEC in their latest court filing. This submission was made to Judge Analisa Torres of the Southern District of New York.

Ripple Follows Up With New Filing

In a comprehensive letter penned by Andrew J. Ceresny of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP for Ripple, they argue against the SEC’s belief that their current financial status should impact the judge’s decisions regarding historical penalties. The SEC, in response, considered this detail as significant to the court’s considerations on the appropriate remedies concerning their past actions.

Ripple disputes the notion that its financial condition, evaluated years following the alleged offenses, holds significance for this case. The defense asserts, “Ripple is not suggesting it might be incapable of covering any assessed penalty, and there’s no cause to assume Ripple’s recent financial reports (from post-challenged behavior) should influence the court’s decision.”

The fintech firm argues that it’s not mandatory for them to reveal their confidential financial data in this case. This argument is strengthened by legal precedents mentioned by the company, like Tropical Sails Corp. v. Yext, Inc., which upholds the “legitimate right to privacy in the financial records of a privately-held business.”

As a financial analyst, I would rephrase it this way: The SEC’s second contentious point revolves around the supposed irrelevance of Ripple’s historical contracts due to changes in XRP sales methods. However, Ripple contests this characterization, asserting through the declaration of its CFO, Jonathan Billich, that these past contract terms remain confidential and carry significant commercial sensitivity.

Billich’s statement reveals that parties entering into future agreements could potentially hold significant bargaining power if they were privy to the specifics of prior contracts. Ripple emphasizes that its current sales process for XRP no longer includes the concessions given in past over-the-counter deals, such as discounts granted to sophisticated investors.

The company disagrees with the SEC’s erroneous claims that the disclosure of XRP pricing is mandatory under securities law, even if XRP were classified as investment contracts requiring registration. Previously, a court ruled that XRP does not fall under the category of securities, which distinguishes price terms in historical contracts from those pertaining to registered securities.

Ripple’s strong argument against the relevance of its present financial status and past contracts to the SEC’s case underscores the significant implications at play. As Ceresney argues in the filing, “Even if the SEC’s contentions held water, Ripple has effectively demonstrated a legitimate reason for concealing its confidential financial records.” This underlines Rippe’s entitlement to privacy and commercial confidentiality within the financial industry.

According to recent reports, the court proceedings are nearing their end. The last remaining task is for Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn to decide whether Andrea Fox will act as a summary or expert witness in this case. Once this decision has been made, Judge Torres can then issue her ruling regarding the remedies phase.

At press time, XRP traded at $0.5261.

Ripple Disputes 2 Crucial SEC Claims In New Filing As Judgment Looms

Read More

2024-05-30 10:11