Motions denied for both SEC and Ripple as battle continues
Ripple CEO Garlinghouse claims a “big win” in the dismissal of an SEC motion while remaining silent about the ruling on his own motion.
Southern New York District Court Judge Analisa Torres issued two rulings Friday on motions filed in the United States Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) lawsuit against Ripple Labs.
Ripple argued that it was not given fair notice that the agency would consider Ripple‘s XRP a security, thus denying the company due process. Judge Torres denied the SEC motion filed in March to dismiss this defense and by doing so, it affirmed that the defense is viable in the suit. In other words, the defense, if accepted, could be used to win the case.
The judge also denied a motion filed by Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse and executive chairman Chris Larsen in March to dismiss the case against them for aiding and abetting the alleged unregistered securities sales. By filing the motion, the defendants claimed that even if the allegations in the suit were true, they would not comprise a winnable case.
While Garlinghouse hailed the rejection of the SEC motion as a “huge win” on Saturday, the case is still in the pleadings stage, so there are likely to be many more legal maneuvers to come. Since Friday‘s decisions, Ripple has moved to strike a supplemental report, rebutting an expert report on the market performance of XRP.
The suit alleged Ripple sold its XRP token as an investment product without SEC registration from 2013 to December 2020. Ripple has argued that XRP is “a digital asset for real-time global payments,” and not subject to SEC jurisdiction.
Related: SEC v. Ripple: Here’s how two 2012 memos can turn the tide in the milestone crypto case
The case is noteworthy because it is, so far, a rare instance of a case brought by the SEC that goes to trial, rather than being settled out of court. If no settlement is reached, the outcome of this case could set a precedent that would affect cases against crypto companies for the foreseeable future, encouraging more companies to challenge the regulator in court.
Southern New York District Court Judge Analisa Torres issued two rulings Friday on motions filed in the United States Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) lawsuit against Ripple Labs.
Ripple argued that it was not given fair notice that the agency would consider Ripple‘s XRP a security, thus denying the company due process. Judge Torres denied the SEC motion filed in March to dismiss this defense and by doing so, it affirmed that the defense is viable in the suit. In other words, the defense, if accepted, could be used to win the case.
The judge also denied a motion filed by Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse and executive chairman Chris Larsen in March to dismiss the case against them for aiding and abetting the alleged unregistered securities sales. By filing the motion, the defendants claimed that even if the allegations in the suit were true, they would not comprise a winnable case.
While Garlinghouse hailed the rejection of the SEC motion as a “huge win” on Saturday, the case is still in the pleadings stage, so there are likely to be many more legal maneuvers to come. Since Friday‘s decisions, Ripple has moved to strike a supplemental report, rebutting an expert report on the market performance of XRP.
The suit alleged Ripple sold its XRP token as an investment product without SEC registration from 2013 to December 2020. Ripple has argued that XRP is “a digital asset for real-time global payments,” and not subject to SEC jurisdiction.
Related: SEC v. Ripple: Here’s how two 2012 memos can turn the tide in the milestone crypto case
The case is noteworthy because it is, so far, a rare instance of a case brought by the SEC that goes to trial, rather than being settled out of court. If no settlement is reached, the outcome of this case could set a precedent that would affect cases against crypto companies for the foreseeable future, encouraging more companies to challenge the regulator in court.
Disclaimer
The information and publications are not meant to be, and do not constitute, financial, investment, trading, or other types of advice or recommendations supplied or endorsed by TradingView. Read more in the Terms of Use.