Monday, November 28, 2022
 

‘SEC Can Prove Ripple Sold XRP’ Says New York Court Letter

  • The SEC said it takes no position on the Chamber of Digital Commerce in filing an amicus brief.
  • The SEC may seek relief from the court in such an event.
  • The SEC can prove that Ripple promoted and sold XRP tokens.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) stated that it takes no position on the Chamber of Digital Commerce in filing an amicus brief in the XRP vs. SEC lawsuit. However, the regulator has asked to respond and requested more time or pages if additional amicus briefs are permitted.

Defense lawyer James K. Filan shared a copy of the letter on Twitter:

Meanwhile, John Deaton, an amicus curiae in the lawsuit, spoke on the possibility of the two parties striking a settlement agreement. Deaton stated that the settlement in the case depends on the SEC as well as on the revelation of the Hinman speech drafts, emails, and other related documents.

Additionally, there is also speculation doing the rounds on the internet stating that in the summary judgment, XRP and ETH would be compared. However, the discovery of the Hinman speech document holds a crucial factor. While confirming the tweet, Filan said the letter may be targeting Deaton, as the court may have more additional amicus curiae briefs allowed.

The letter from the Southern District Court of New York read:

The SEC may seek further relief from the Court, including additional time for its response and/or additional pages for its October 18 opposition brief, in the event additional amicus curiae briefs are allowed.

In Deaton’s defense, he took to Twitter stating that the case is down to a promotion and marketing case. “The SEC can prove Ripple promoted Ripple. The SEC can prove Ripple promoted and sold XRP tokens.” According to him, the only specific sales the SEC can prove are to accredited investors, which are not securities.

Earlier, Ripple, in its motion judgment summary, argued that XRP couldn’t be considered a security because there was no investment contract granting investors rights or requiring the issuer to act in their interests.

  • The SEC said it takes no position on the Chamber of Digital Commerce in filing an amicus brief.
  • The SEC may seek relief from the court in such an event.
  • The SEC can prove that Ripple promoted and sold XRP tokens.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) stated that it takes no position on the Chamber of Digital Commerce in filing an amicus brief in the XRP vs. SEC lawsuit. However, the regulator has asked to respond and requested more time or pages if additional amicus briefs are permitted.

Defense lawyer James K. Filan shared a copy of the letter on Twitter:

Meanwhile, John Deaton, an amicus curiae in the lawsuit, spoke on the possibility of the two parties striking a settlement agreement. Deaton stated that the settlement in the case depends on the SEC as well as on the revelation of the Hinman speech drafts, emails, and other related documents.

Additionally, there is also speculation doing the rounds on the internet stating that in the summary judgment, XRP and ETH would be compared. However, the discovery of the Hinman speech document holds a crucial factor. While confirming the tweet, Filan said the letter may be targeting Deaton, as the court may have more additional amicus curiae briefs allowed.

The letter from the Southern District Court of New York read:

The SEC may seek further relief from the Court, including additional time for its response and/or additional pages for its October 18 opposition brief, in the event additional amicus curiae briefs are allowed.

In Deaton’s defense, he took to Twitter stating that the case is down to a promotion and marketing case. “The SEC can prove Ripple promoted Ripple. The SEC can prove Ripple promoted and sold XRP tokens.” According to him, the only specific sales the SEC can prove are to accredited investors, which are not securities.

Earlier, Ripple, in its motion judgment summary, argued that XRP couldn’t be considered a security because there was no investment contract granting investors rights or requiring the issuer to act in their interests.

 

Latest news