Ripple Labs is protesting the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) move to block third-party evidence in the lawsuit the regulatory agency filed against them.
According to evidence procured by defense lawyer James K. Filan, Ripple recently penned letter to Judge Analisa Torres saying that the SEC is mischaracterizing the law by moving to contest third-party briefs submitted by I-Remit and TapJets.
“The SEC mischaracterizes both the briefs and the law when it claims that the proffered amicus briefs of I-Remit and TapJets constitute improper attempts by Movants to offer evidence outside the constraints of discovery restrictions, the rules of evidence, and this Court’s prior order…
I-Remit and TapJets are independent third parties, otherwise unconnected with this litigation. They seek permission to file briefs to offer the Court their important perspective on whether industry participants invested in XRP, whether they expected profits from Defendants’ efforts, and how the SEC’s theory of this case (if adopted by the Court) would adversely impact their businesses.
They provide the Court with information concerning their business operations and industries to support their perspectives. There is nothing wrong with that.”
Private jet ride-sharing service TapJets and remittances company I-Remit initially asked to serve as “amicus curiae,” or “friends of the court” on October 4th.
Amicus curiae can submit documents to the court known as amicus briefs as long as they contain relevant information about the case and are accepted by the court beforehand.
TapJets said it was interested in the case because it plans on using XRP as a currency while I-Remit said it used Ripple’s cross-border payments system.
Just two days later, the SEC objected to the firms joining the case, saying that it was an attempt to introduce evidence into the case outside the traditional constraints of discovery.
According to Ripple, the SEC had no business in suing them in the first place if they can’t handle evaluating amicus briefs that attempt to refute their claims.
“The SEC has sought summary judgment based on what it erroneously claims are undisputed facts that every purchase of XRP is an ‘investment’ and that every XRP purchaser expects profits from Ripple’s efforts. Nothing could be more to the point than these two amicus briefs refuting (or at least disputing) both points.
If the SEC cannot evaluate the veracity of such claims then it had no business bringing this litigation in the first place.”
The SEC first sued Ripple in late 2020, claiming that the payments platform was selling XRP as an unregistered security.
Don't Miss a Beat – Subscribe to get email alerts delivered directly to your inboxFeatured Image: Shutterstock/T Studio