Ripple Protests Against The SEC In Latest Argument Before Summary Judgment
Key Points:
- Ripple Labs, Bradley Garlinghouse, and Christian Larsen issued a letter in response to the SEC on Thursday.
- According to the defendant’s argument, there is no prima facie evidence that market participants had fair notice of a duty to divulge economic facts.
- In order to enhance its request for Summary Judgment, the commission earlier presented a letter of Additional Authority.
Following the filing of a new argument by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to support its summary judgment motion in the widely publicized and lengthy lawsuit against Ripple, the blockchain company’s legal team refused to remain silent and filed its own argument contradicting the SEC’s reasoning.
Ripple Labs, Bradley Garlinghouse, and Christian Larsen issued a letter in response to the SEC on Thursday. In order to enhance their request for Summary Judgment, the commission produced a letter of Additional Authority.
Ripple’s lawyer, Michael K. Kellogg, wrote a response in which he argued that the proceedings from the Commonwealth case to which the regulator was referring in the argument were irrelevant to Ripple and the XRP token, as shared by a defense lawyer and popular commentator on the case, James K. Filan, in a tweet on April 13.
According to court documents, the defendants said that the commission discussed an SEC vs. Commonwealth case. It is an unpublished district court ruling from outside the circuit that gives additional authority to reject the fair notice defense. But, the defendants maintain that the opinion is not what the US SEC says it is.
According to the defendants’ response, there is no prima facie evidence that market participants lacked fair notice of a requirement to disclose economic information and conflicts of interest that fall under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
The letter made no reference to any guideline issued by the US SEC, but it did give a paid expert opinion that the guidance did not require accurate disclosures. It also said that there is a large amount of factual information from the SEC’s own files and correspondence with various third parties that show market participants are unable to grasp what is authorized or forbidden.
Lastly, Ripple’s lawyer slammed the regulator’s boast of past court rulings dismissing the defendants’ ‘fair notice’ claims, emphasizing that they had nothing to do with the Ripple case.
DISCLAIMER: The Information on this website is provided as general market commentary and does not constitute investment advice. We encourage you to do your own research before investing.
Join us to keep track of news: https://linktr.ee/coincu
Harold
Coincu News
Author
News
Ripple Protests Against The SEC In Latest Argument Before Summary Judgment
Key Points:
- Ripple Labs, Bradley Garlinghouse, and Christian Larsen issued a letter in response to the SEC on Thursday.
- According to the defendant’s argument, there is no prima facie evidence that market participants had fair notice of a duty to divulge economic facts.
- In order to enhance its request for Summary Judgment, the commission earlier presented a letter of Additional Authority.
Following the filing of a new argument by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to support its summary judgment motion in the widely publicized and lengthy lawsuit against Ripple, the blockchain company’s legal team refused to remain silent and filed its own argument contradicting the SEC’s reasoning.
Ripple Labs, Bradley Garlinghouse, and Christian Larsen issued a letter in response to the SEC on Thursday. In order to enhance their request for Summary Judgment, the commission produced a letter of Additional Authority.
Ripple’s lawyer, Michael K. Kellogg, wrote a response in which he argued that the proceedings from the Commonwealth case to which the regulator was referring in the argument were irrelevant to Ripple and the XRP token, as shared by a defense lawyer and popular commentator on the case, James K. Filan, in a tweet on April 13.
According to court documents, the defendants said that the commission discussed an SEC vs. Commonwealth case. It is an unpublished district court ruling from outside the circuit that gives additional authority to reject the fair notice defense. But, the defendants maintain that the opinion is not what the US SEC says it is.
According to the defendants’ response, there is no prima facie evidence that market participants lacked fair notice of a requirement to disclose economic information and conflicts of interest that fall under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
The letter made no reference to any guideline issued by the US SEC, but it did give a paid expert opinion that the guidance did not require accurate disclosures. It also said that there is a large amount of factual information from the SEC’s own files and correspondence with various third parties that show market participants are unable to grasp what is authorized or forbidden.
Lastly, Ripple’s lawyer slammed the regulator’s boast of past court rulings dismissing the defendants’ ‘fair notice’ claims, emphasizing that they had nothing to do with the Ripple case.
DISCLAIMER: The Information on this website is provided as general market commentary and does not constitute investment advice. We encourage you to do your own research before investing.
Join us to keep track of news: https://linktr.ee/coincu
Harold
Coincu News
Other Posts
Related Posts
News
FTX Solana Auction Prepares To Take Place After $300 Million Sale In March
News
