SEC Vs Ripple News: Although the legal dispute between the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and cryptocurrency firm Ripple has continued for a third year, a resolution may be close at hand. Following the submission of both parties’ final documents on the XRP lawsuit, Ripple and the SEC, together with other interested parties–have since showcased summary briefings that are likely to influence the final outcome of the case.
XRP Lawsuit’s New Update
However, before the final briefings, defense counsel James Filan disclosed that the United States-based crypto firm had submitted a motion in opposition to a filing that was made by Investment Banker Declarant trying to conceal certain facts from being made public. The data contains, among other things, his name, job title, and company name. The declarant claims he should be shielded from liability since he voluntarily filed the declaration in support of the SEC’s summary judgment motion.
According to latest reports, the “Investment Banker Declarant (IBD)” has filed a response to Ripple’s opposition to the motion. The official release states that none of the defendants’ reasons are strong enough to outweigh the substantial privacy and safety concerns of Investment Banker Declarant in allowing the specifically targeted redactions. First and foremost, the Defendants’ principal defense that IBD, an employee of an SEC-regulated entity, provided his declaration to the SEC “voluntarily” provides no legitimate justification for refusing leave to redact.
Read More: Check Out The Top Crypto Telegram Channels Of 2023
The IBD, who is employed by a broker-dealer that is registered with the SEC, was unable to refuse a request for a declaration from the SEC, which serves as his company’s main regulatory body. The SEC’s other option, had Investment Banker Declarant declined to give a statement, was to compel his testimony to verify the document in question. It goes without saying that there cannot be a truly voluntary “decision” when a witness’s two options are to make a declaration or testify. Even if there were, voluntariness is not taken into account when analyzing redactions, and the defendants provide no evidence to the contrary. If anything, historical precedent clearly shows that where there are compelling grounds to redact, especially when it comes to the safety and privacy of other individuals involved in the dispute, those concerns take precedence over all other factors.
The SEC Vs. Ripple Saga
Furthermore, the report states, the court has already acknowledged that the risks to witnesses, in this case, are significant to warrant the redaction of any identifying information that may have been included in the documents. As a publicly-named witness in this high-profile matter, Investment Banker Declarant and his co-workers would face similar risks. In conclusion, the firm representing the IBD in the ongoing SEC Vs. Ripple case — alleged that the Defendants’ arguments if followed to their logical conclusion, would make any future government inquiries more difficult. The participation of individuals who may desire or need to maintain their anonymity is extremely important to investigators.
If that confidentiality cannot be assured, cooperation will not be forthcoming.
With all the hype and discussion surrounding the XRP lawsuit, the case development is anticipated to have a substantial effect on the price of XRP; which has received some bullish signals as a result of the situation. As things stand, the price of XRP token is currently exchanging hands at $0.41. This represents a decrease of 2.47% on the day, in contrast to a gain of 6.11% during the week as per CoinGape’s crypto market tracker.
Also Read: Top 5 Cryptos With Highest Development Activity
The presented content may include the personal opinion of the author and is subject to market condition. Do your market research before investing in cryptocurrencies. The author or the publication does not hold any responsibility for your personal financial loss.
Source: https://coingape.com/xrp-lawsuit-new-update-on-ripple-vs-sec-court-case/