“The SEC is aiming to siphon at least $ 1.38 billion in revenue generated by Ripple from the exact same contracts, but says it cannot bother to actually read them.”
Ripple has filed a letter against the SEC’s request not to respond to the nearly 30,000 regulatory filings (RFAs).
Authorization requests are “yes or no” questions aimed at moving the process forward faster, as the answers provided can resolve disputes between the parties if both sides agree on the matter.
The SEC argued that answering the RFAs was tedious as it spent more than 100 hours answering only 254 inquiries. This is around 24 minutes for a “yes or no” question. The agency wants to make sure they are giving the correct answer as the answers are under oath and can be used against them in court.
Ripple’s team of advisors pointed out that completing the RFAs exposes the SEC, as can be read in the following transcript:
“The RFAs deal with critical facts that Defendants believe are not really disputed; therefore, truthful admissions by the SEC will significantly limit the questions for a lawsuit. The SEC does not seriously argue that the RFAs are irrelevant. Instead, it focuses almost entirely on the sheer number of RFAs to argue that they are “inappropriately burdensome. That is three times wrong.
“Firstly, from a legal point of view,“ the large number of applications for approval is not in itself the basis for a protection order.
Second, defendants’ instructions will likely require the SEC to respond to only a fraction of these RFAs, as further detailed below.
Third, the amount of RFAs is proportional to the needs of the case; In fact, it’s powered by the SEC’s own process theories. The largest set, Set Six, is based on the “content” of the SEC[tion] that every offer, sale and distribution of XRP goes through [Defendants] during the relevant period [2013 through December 2020], was the offer, sale or distribution of an investment contract.
“This claim calls into question the express terms of more than 1,700 individual contracts. But the SEC is now complaining that it would be inappropriately arduous “to require the SEC to review” contracts that it claims are illegal securities offerings. This is a remarkable admission; Apparently, the SEC did not review these contracts prior to claiming in its complaint that each and every one of them was part of unlawful conduct. In fact, the SEC aims to siphon off “at least” $ 1.38 billion in revenue that Ripple generated from the exact same contracts, but says it can’t go to the trouble of actually reading them.
“Despite repeated requests to do so, the SEC has not yet identified a single contractual provision to support its claim that the Howey Test is” investment contracts “, but reserves the right to use such contracts in support of its claims appointed. “.
“Defendants are entitled to responses to RFAs specifically designed to request the SEC to identify such provisions or to admit (as we believe the SEC must do) that such provisions do not exist. The SEC should not be allowed to avoid these admissions and limit the scope of the proceedings simply because it has made extremely wide-ranging allegations that involve a variety of facts and documents. The court should reject the SEC’s application for a protection order ”.
There’s more on Ripple:
- The Ripple lawsuit raises hopes as “Crypto Mom” condemns SEC policies
- SEC v. Ripple: XRP holders make “huge profits” with Amicus Curiae status
- SEC opposes Ripple’s “flawed search” for evidence of XRP
- Ripple is running out of time when BIS “conspires” to end the crypto threat to the financial system
- SEC v. Ripple: The utility and currency value of XRP is supported by the former US treasurer
- Ripple presses SEC against the wall: “If personal opinions, then no privilege”
- Ripple buries SEC in paperwork in XRP lawsuit: nearly 30,000 inquiries
- Ripple Responds to Senator Toomey on XRP, the SEC, and How to Do Better
SEC v. Ripple: What’s Next on the XRP Lawsuits Agenda?