- Ripple has filed a new motion reiterating why the court must seal its confidential documents in the ongoing lawsuit with the SEC.
- The firm argues that its most sensitive financial information was sealed in confidence and should remain protected.
- The Ripple versus SEC case remains at the remedies stage, with significant implications for the crypto industry.
Ripple files a new motion to protect its confidential documents in the ongoing lawsuit with the SEC. Discover the latest developments and insights.
Ripple Lawsuit: Firm Wants To Guard Confidential Financial Information
Blockchain payments firm Ripple Labs Inc., through its lawyers, has submitted a new response to Judge Analisa Torres concerning the motion to seal documents in the ongoing lawsuit with the SEC. The letter, dated May 29th, 2024, attempts to address some of the arguments put forward by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in its previous motion for judgment and remedies. Ripple noted that several arguments in the Commission’s brief were already addressed in the company’s opening paper.
The SEC has argued that Ripple’s current financial condition is crucial for the court’s determination of remedies related to the firm’s historic conduct. Ripple disagrees, stating that some of its financial details are irrelevant to the court’s analysis. The firm emphasized that there is no justification for the SEC’s argument, especially since Ripple has never contested its ability to pay any potential penalties. Furthermore, Ripple contends that the SEC should not be allowed to force the disclosure of highly sensitive and confidential financial records based on unsubstantiated claims.
Ripple also highlighted that the court could dismiss the sensitive financial information without considering the alleged important facts contained within it. If the SEC maintains its stance, Ripple argues it has established a valid and commonly accepted basis for sealing its confidential financial information.
Ripple Argues Against SEC Stance on XRP Sales
Next, Ripple mentioned that the SEC incorrectly asserts that its historical contracts have no continuing relevance because the company has changed how it sells XRP. In response, Ripple explained that the terms of its contracts are confidential. The popular crypto payments firm also argued that future counterparts could gain substantially from learning all of the individually negotiated terms of Ripple’s past contracts.
Regarding the sale of XRP, Ripple recalled that the court already ruled that XRP is not a security. Therefore, the amount Ripple sold XRP for was not the same as the price at which the company sold the investment contracts described in the court’s summary judgment order.
Conclusion
With all its arguments laid out, Ripple urged the court to grant its narrowly tailored request to seal the confidential information that was submitted. This case continues to be a pivotal moment for the crypto industry, as the outcome could set significant precedents for how financial information is handled in regulatory disputes. As the case progresses, it remains crucial for stakeholders to stay informed about the latest developments.
