Ripple lawsuit update: They say these documents aren't important, but here's the whole story

There was yet another twist in the long-running lawsuit that people talked about.

The SEC sent a letter to the court on March 14, claiming that the court had made a mistake by not allowing the Ripple executives to appeal.  They also said that the court didn't use the deliberative process privilege (DPP) documents that were at issue in the case.

I don't agree with you.

People who work for Ripple and the people who work for the Individual Defendants filed their response on March 21 to the SEC's claim. Filan, a well-known lawyer, explained why the Hinman documents were not important because the judge who ruled on the Motion to Dismiss didn't care about them.

Filan says that the SEC was wrong to say that Judge Torres's decision not to dismiss Garlinghouse and Larsen's motions to dismiss made the communications about the Hinman speech public.

The filing said:

Individual Defendants' description of recklessness was correct and the SEC was wrong, but the 13 January Opinion didn't say that because the Individual Defendants' description of recklessness was correct, the SEC was wrong. So, Judge Torres's recent decision doesn't need to be changed. The Court's 13 January Opinion doesn't need to be changed.

As long as the court didn't question the value of Hinman's speech communications, this decision could also be used for the Estabrook notes. In other words, Hinman's speech communications were still relevant to the fair notice defense.

When the SEC suggested that communications related to the Hinman speech were only relevant to recklessness, "Defendants have never said that." The Ripple lawyer said that the SEC's internal documents were also relevant to Howey, scienter, and fair notice.

Fishy smells

Consider the play above, and one might point to the SEC's possible move to hide a very important document. It was. In a tweet on March 22, one of the country's most well-known lawyers said that this story was true.

It felt right.

Relevant or not, many people in the crypto community saw the SEC's move as a way to buy more time or delay the process. The SEC asked for an extension of time "until no later than one week" after the individual defendants filed their answers, so that the court can find out if the plaintiff wants to do more research.

The plaintiff said that Ripple had proposed a summary judgment schedule with opening briefs and other filings due in mid-May, which the plaintiff found out about.

Executives and individual defendants Chris Larsen and Brad Garlinghouse quickly agreed that this "delayed resolution" was wrong and filed a counter to say that this was unfair. However, this wasn't the first time the SEC came up with reasons why it didn't want to let the defendant post a short "extension."

** Information on these pages contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Markets and instruments profiled on this page are for informational purposes only and should not in any way come across as a recommendation to buy or sell in these assets. You should do your own thorough research before making any investment decisions. All risks, losses and costs associated with investing, including total loss of principal, are your responsibility. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of USA GAG nor its advertisers. The author will not be held responsible for information that is found at the end of links posted on this page.

Follow us on Google News

Filed under

Recent Search