Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by our writers are their own and do not represent the views of U.Today. The financial and market information provided on U.Today is intended for informational purposes only. U.Today is not liable for any financial losses incurred while trading cryptocurrencies. Conduct your own research by contacting financial experts before making any investment decisions. We believe that all content is accurate as of the date of publication, but certain offers mentioned may no longer be available.
The legal dispute between Ripple and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is nearing a critical moment as both parties await a pivotal ruling from the court.
According to Bill Morgan, an XRP enthusiast and legal expert, "Judge Torres might need to rule on the SEC ‘s motion to compel quickly given the February 12 deadline for completion of remedies-related discovery."
The next key date in the Ripple-SEC lawsuit is Feb. 12, which is when the parties are expected to complete all remedies-related discovery. Along these lines, a pivotal ruling on the SEC's motion to compel Ripple to produce certain financial information might shape events.
On Jan. 11, the SEC requested an order compelling Ripple to produce two narrow categories of documents: (a) its financial statements for the years 2022-2023, and (b) its post-complaint contracts governing "institutional sales" — held to be unregistered offers and sales of securities pre-complaint.
Relatedly, the SEC seeks to compel Ripple to answer a single interrogatory, setting forth the amount of XRP institutional sales profits that it received after the filing of the complaint for contracts entered into pre-complaint.
The SEC stated it was seeking this information in determining whether the court should impose relief such as injunctions and civil penalties and, as to the latter, in what amount.
This issue has gone back and forth among the parties: Ripple filed its reply in response to the SEC. The SEC has submitted another reply in further support of its motion to compel. Ripple also filed a motion to file a sur-reply, which has been granted.
Ripple’s opposition to this motion makes clear its position that Judge Torres’ Institutional Sales ruling does not apply to Ripple’s current ODL sales.
SEC, on the other hand, claims the discrete post-complaint contracts it seeks are probative evidence as to this argument.
The agency further claims it is not asking the ruling Judge Torres to conduct a mini-trial as to the legality of Ripple’s post-complaint institutional sales since it agrees that any such determination cannot be made at the remedies stage.
The SEC argues it intends to prove the question at the remedies stage on whether there is a "reasonable likelihood" of new violations.
Ripple, on the other hand, argues that its planned future XRP sales do not conflict with Judge Torres’ summary judgment. The XRP community keeps their fingers crossed for a favorable outcome on the issue.
Godfrey Benjamin
Gamza Khanzadaev
