- SEC partially opposed Ripple’s motion to seal financial documents.
- Ripple cited potential harm from public disclosure.
- Lawyer Bill Morgan noted that the contracts weren’t ODL, expressing surprise.
In a court filing submitted on May 20, the SEC partially contested Ripple Labs Inc.’s motion to seal and redact certain documents related to the ongoing lawsuit. The SEC specifically opposed Ripple’s request to withhold certain financial information, arguing that these records should be made public.
While the SEC did not entirely challenge Ripple’s request to seal five exhibits, it took issue with the redaction of key financial details.
“The material at issue is fundamental to the rationale behind the SBC’s requested remedies.” the agency stated, adding that “It cannot simultaneously hide from them the evidence on which that position is based. Nor do Ripple’s conclusory statements of supposed tarm suffice to carry Ripple’s burden to show “exceptional circumstances” justifying sealing or redacting.”
Ripple, however, maintains that its decision to seal the information is based on its status as a private company. The company also argues that public disclosure of its financial health, long-term business plans, and revenue streams could cause potential competitive harm.
However, the SEC contends that Ripple has not provided specific evidence to support its claims of harm. The agency argues that the concealed information is either outdated or already publicly available. Additionally, the SEC maintains that these financial records are essential for a fair and transparent legal process.
The SEC further highlighted that Ripple has previously disclosed similar financial information to prospective investors and major vendors, undermining its confidentiality arguments. On these grounds, the agency asserts that disclosing such past data would not cause significant harm.
Furthermore, the SEC argues that Ripple is legally obligated to disclose financial details concerning unregistered investment contracts. The agency maintains that Ripple’s private status does not exempt it from these disclosure requirements.
“SEC “indeed the contracts at issue are not ODL contracts.” But what the hell – let’s seek a permanent injunction to stop ODL sales too,”
Commenting on the developments, prominent lawyer Bill Morgan addressed the SEC’s position regarding sales to institutions at discounted rates. He clarified that these sales were not part of Ripple’s On-Demand Liquidity (ODL) contracts. Morgan expressed surprise regarding Judge Torres’s inclusion of ODL contracts with other institutional agreements.
Disclaimer: The information presented in this article is for informational and educational purposes only. The article does not constitute financial advice or advice of any kind. Coin Edition is not responsible for any losses incurred as a result of the utilization of content, products, or services mentioned. Readers are advised to exercise caution before taking any action related to the company.
