Ripple Slams SEC, Says the Agency Shouldn’t Have Sued If It Cannot Evaluate Third Parties Claim

Ripple criticizes the SEC’s opposition to third parties’ requests to file amicus briefs.

Ripple has responded to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s opposition to amicus brief requests filed by TapJets and I-Remit in support of the blockchain company.

The development was shared by a former federal prosecutor, James K. Filan.

“Ripple slams the SEC and the SEC’s opposition to the I-Remit and TapJets motions to file amicus briefs. “If the SEC cannot evaluate the veracity of such claims, then it had no business bringing this litigation in the first place.”

Ripple’s Response

According to Ripple, there is nothing wrong with the independent third parties, I-Remit and TapJets, requesting to file amicus briefs to provide the court with relevant information as to whether participants invested in XRP and expected profit based on the defendants’ efforts.

Independent third parties are willing to provide information about their business operations, supporting their perspectives.

Ripple stated that the rationale behind amicus briefs is to give a broader industry perspective on the issue, and independent third parties are willing to do so.

The blockchain company noted that the court has to consider whether the amicus briefs will aid the judge by providing relevant details not found in the parties’ motion.

In the SEC’s opposition to the third parties’ amicus briefs request, the securities agency cited two cases (Strasser v. Doorley and Portland Pipeline Corp v. the City of S.Portland) in support of its argument. According to Ripple, both cases are inapposite because they had contradictory rulings in the first and second circuits.

Ripple Kicks SEC

It is noteworthy that the SEC had argued in its opposition that it would be prejudiced by its inability to confirm the accuracy of the independent third parties’ claims or “prove that Movants are disputed.” 

Responding to the SEC’s argument, Ripple said the agency had sought summary judgment claiming that all XRP purchases are an investment and people bought the cryptocurrency with the expectations that they would make profits from the Defendants’ efforts.

“Nothing could be more to the point than these two amicus briefs refuting (or at least disputing) both [claims that the SEC made about XRP purchase],” Ripple said.

In conclusion, Ripple noted that if the Securities and Exchange Commission cannot evaluate the veracity of the independent third parties’ claims, then the agency should not have sued the blockchain company in the first place.

– Advertisement –