U.S. SEC opposes in part Ripple’s request to seal information relating to its confidential business information, including discounts offered to institutional buyers of XRP.
According to an update shared by seasoned defense lawyer James K. Filan, the U.S. SEC has filed its opposition to Ripple’s omnibus sealing motion.
#XRPCommunity #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP The @SECGov has filed its response to @Ripple’s Motion to Seal. pic.twitter.com/zH9XYWbSsh
— James K. Filan 🇺🇸🇮🇪 (@FilanLaw) May 21, 2024
The SEC’s opposition comes a week after Ripple filed an omnibus motion to seal certain exhibits regarding its confidential business details, especially those relating to its XRP sales.
In Particular, Ripple asked the court to seal its financial statements, discounts offered to institutional buyers of XRP, and other confidential business information.
SEC’s Opposition
In the SEC’s opposition, the regulatory agency noted that it partially opposes Ripple’s omnibus sealing motion. The SEC argued that Ripple failed to overcome the strong presumption that court filings should be made public by seeking to redact highly relevant information to the parties’ remedies-related briefs.
“Ripple invites the public to form opinions about the merits of the SEC’s position. [Thus,] it cannot simultaneously hide from the evidence on which that position is based,” the SEC contended.
According to the SEC, some of Ripple’s sealing requests would conceal pertinent information crucial to the court’s determination of the remedies litigation from the public.
While the SEC did not completely challenge Ripple’s request to seal its recent financial statements, the regulator asked the court to make public financial figures and terms used to calculate and justify remedies requests.
“The general deterrence of a civil penalty rests on the public understanding of the facts supporting the penalty amount,” it contended.
SEC Objects Ripple Request to Seal Discounts Offered to Institutional Buyers of XRP
Furthermore, the SEC objected to Ripple’s requests to seal the financial terms regarding the discounts offered to XRP institutional buyers.
The regulator argued that Ripple made the request to hide how it offered XRP at discriminatory prices. The SEC referenced Ripple’s argument, which claims that if the discount’s financial terms become public, it could damage the company’s negotiating position with counterparties.
“Ripple has not shown how old discounts would cause substantial harm, especially where it claims it has not offered discounts in years,” the SEC said.
The SEC specifically objected to the redaction of certain Ripple’s financial statements, such as the company’s current assets amount, revenue from non-XRP sales, and post-complaint ODL-related sales of XRP.
It contended that these data points are relevant to the court’s decision regarding Ripple’s penalty and injunctive relief.
The court will issue a decision regarding which exhibit and document requires sealing. This decision could be issued at any time, and the parties will be required to publicly file redacted versions of the documents within 14 days after the ruling.
Only Thing Stopping Judge Torres’ Final Judgment
Meanwhile, popular XRP community figure Ashley Prosper speculated that the “only thing” stopping Judge Torres from issuing the final judgment is the decision about whether Andrea Fox, a top-level SEC accountant, is an expert or summary witness. Prosper asserts that this issue could lead to more delays in the case.
#XRP #XRPCommunity
Now the only thing left in the #Ripple v #SEC case before Judge Torres’s can make her final ruling is for Judge Netburn to issue her ruling on whether Andrea Fox is a summary or expert witness. Lol, I say the only thing. That alone could open up another can of… https://t.co/p4qyJBa1PA— Ashley PROSPER (@AshleyPROSPER1) May 21, 2024
Recall that the SEC submitted Fox’s declaration in support of its opening remedies-related brief on March 22. While the agency claimed that Fox was a summary witness, Ripple argued otherwise. Consequently, the company asked the court exclude her testimony as the SEC did not tender her declaration during discovery.
