Ripple CEOs Brad Garlinghouse and Chris Larsen’s legal team filed serious claims in court yesterday in their legal dispute with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
According to the statement, both sides hit a “deadlock” after “three long video conferences and a letter exchange” regarding the SEC’s refusal to seek and produce information on key issues in the case.
Ripple’s lawyers therefore want to stop the SEC from “hiding inappropriately relevant, potentially exonerating evidence”. Ripple asked judge Analisa Torres to force the SEC to produce similar files on Bitcoin and Ethereum as well. But according to Ripple, the SEC refuses to produce documents related to Bitcoin or Ethereum and any “internal communications”, including those directly related to the state of XRP. At this point, the SEC claims, for its part, that Ripple’s claims have nothing to do with the lawsuit. It also denies access to the files of former SEC Chairman Jay Clayton and the two commissioners.
In particular, Ripple wants to access SEC documents regarding communications from and to third parties, as well as the classification of Ethereum and Bitcoin as non-securities. In summary, the SEC refuses to hand over explanatory evidence to Ripple’s lawyers during the discovery phase.
In addition, Ripple claims that the SEC is “a central player in market-wide debate, analysis, and practice” on whether the sale of digital assets will be the sale of securities. In this context, it highlights the SEC’s behavior in the eight years before the case was filed:
“According to the information collected so far; Many valuable market participants have submitted information to the SEC that XRP is not a security, and demanded that the SEC make a public statement if there is a contrary. However, the institution did not make any statements on the subject until the lawsuit filed in December 2020. Learning all that can be learned about this situation, whether internal or external, is a consistent act for the defense and it is very important for us that such matters critical to the case are understandable by the court ”.