Connect with us

Ripple

XRP Lawsuit: Ripple responds to SEC’s repetitive “privileged documents” argument

Published

on

ripple-v-SEC

The latest update in the XRP lawsuit saw Ripple file a letter responding to the SEC’s brief regarding allegedly privileged documents that the SEC has redacted or withheld. Ripple has argued against SEC’s repetitive “privileged” stance to prevent discovery and review of evasive and responsive documents to the case. Ripple has asserted that the SEC continues to devote much of its response to arguing “targeted letter briefs on those documents” that the Court has already rejected on several occasions.

XRP 2018 Legal Analysis

The case saw one of the most explosive pieces of information that were revealed by Ripple, which comprised of the plaintiff’s 2018 XRP analysis proving that the SEC’s manifold versions of the privileged argument do not stand. Ripple noted that an SEC division’s legal analysis of XRP was made available to “certain individuals at the SEC”, just a day before the controversial Hinman speech of 2018.

Advertisement

“The SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance—a division that operates distinctly from the Division of Enforcement—wrote a memorandum containing a “legal analysis of XRP.” That memorandum was then circulated to certain individuals at the SEC on the day before former Director of Corporation Finance Bill Hinman gave a speech publicly declaring Ether not to be a security.”

Ripple further discredited the SEC’s logged privilege documents, specifically the XRP legal analysis under three claims. The defendants discard the attorney-client privilege argument by the SEC stating that the mentioned documents are not protected by work privilege as they are not working documents. According to Ripple, the documents in question were never part of the SEC’s investigative file, as the SEC now seems to assert. The defense notes that investigative documents are already covered by the SEC’s categorical privilege log, and unlike these documents, they would not have required any further logging.

“The very logging of this document suggests that it was not part of the investigative file and raises questions about what it is and why it was prepared.”

Furthermore, the XRP legal analysis documents’ author remains anonymous, and the drafting timeframe is also not disclosed by the SEC. The only information available about it is that it was drafted before the 2018 Hinman speech and that it was sent by the Office of the Chief Counsel of the Division of Corporate Finance.

Lastly, the SEC does not assert that the memorandum was drafted at the direction of Enforcement counsel given litigation, only that it was sent to a single enforcement counsel—along with nine other people who are not in the Division of Enforcement.

Advertisement

“There is every reason to believe that the Division of Corporation Finance was looking at XRP’s status under the securities laws independently of considering whether the Division of Enforcement might recommend an action to the Commission.”

News Source

Ripple Vs SEC

XRP Lawsuit: Ripple appeals the Court to Disclose SEC’s in-camera review documents

Published

on

ripple-v-SEC

The latest update in the XRP lawsuit saw Ripple respond to SEC’s letter with the explanation for its privilege assertions along with a redacted version of the three additional documents requested by the defendants for in-camera review. Ripple has requested the court to disclose these documents to the defense and has further continued to argue against the plaintiff’s repetitive “privileged” stance.

Ripple objects to SEC’s entitlement to keeping secrets under DPP

Ripple has contended SEC’s “pre-decisional” or “deliberative” argument for the three additional documents, noting that the commission has failed yet again to identify any specific policy process related to these or other documents, as it is required to when seeking protection under DPP. Ripple argued that the SEC claims against disclosure of discussions are weak and do not stand any legal relevance.

SEC asserts that “how to structure a forum the SEC intends to use to communicate with industry participants” is deliberative or would reveal its “mode of formulating or exercising policy-implicating judgment,”. However, the defense objects to the plaintiff’s assertions’ insufficiency to invoke DPP and states that if this argument is considered valid in the court, then that would extend the invalid privilege to virtually every document or communication in a federal agency.

Advertisement

“The fundamental problem with the SEC’s approach is that the agency apparently believes that it is entitled to operate in secret, and to withhold from actual litigants, whose reputations and livelihoods are at stake due to its own affirmative litigation choices (as opposed to the general public pursuant to FOIA), any internal documents that relate to its mission, broadly defined. This approach finds no basis in law because it turns on its head Congress’ lawfully enacted presumption of openness in government documents, subject to circumscribed, narrow exceptions.”

While the Court granted Ripple’s September 24 appeal, seeking the addition of three documents by the SEC for in-camera review, it still has not permitted disclosure of mentioned data to the defendants. These documents include the two documents related to the SEC’s meetings with law firms, along the email trail concerning discussions with a third party who received guidance from the SEC to analyze its digital asset under the framework set forth in Hinman’s June 14, 2018, speech.

News Source

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Ripple

Ripple (XRP) Committed to the Crypto Climate Accord (CCA) To Provide for Sustainability

Published

on

With cryptocurrency becoming mainstream, to provide for a long-term future together sustainability practices are very important.  Major Fintech companies like PayPal, Visa, Tesla, and several others leverage this technology.  This in turn has led to increased energy consumption to already unsustainable levels. To break even, the industry has a choice to make.  Either continue down the unsustainable path to be doomed or work together and reduce the collective environmental impact.

Decarbonizing public blockchains is about bringing down the carbon footprint.  In2020, Ripple partnered with Energy Web (EW) and the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) in their efforts to decarbonize public blockchains beginning with the XRP ledger. Further, Ripple has pledged to achieve carbon net-zero by 2030 or sooner.

Ripple is committed to the Crypto Climate Accord (CCA), which is a new initiative organized by EW, RMI, and the Alliance for Innovation Regulation (AIR) to ensure that the cryptocurrency industry is 100% renewable.

Advertisement

Ripple will also be joining more than 20 supporters from different industries and blockchains, which consists of the United Nations, CoinShares, Compass Mining, the XRP Ledger Foundation, and ConsenSys to provide for sustainability and scalability, thus creating value for all.

The cryptocurrency market cap is at $2 trillion, which is twice the previous all-time high that was reached about three months ago, thus underscoring how quickly this industry is growing.

The growth of the cryptocurrency industry comes at a cost.  The damages caused by climate change cover for nearly 3% of GDP by 2060. The challenge to sustain global financial prosperity without compromising on the environment is a thing to be considered.

Advertisement

Emissions reduction and renewable energy use are steps to ensure progress in the right direction.

The Paris Climate Accord, fintech, and crypto industry leaders have partnered to set the objectives to ensure sustainability.

Key objectives include: “Enable all of the world’s blockchains to be powered by 100% renewables by the 2025 UNFCCC COP Conference; Develop an open-source accounting standard for measuring emissions from the cryptocurrency industry; Achieve net-zero emissions for the entire crypto industry, including all business operations beyond blockchain and retroactive emissions by 2040.”

Advertisement

Ripple’s journey in ensuring sustainability consists of recognition of financial technologies like blockchain and cryptocurrency to position financial empowerment without compromising on the sustainable future. Thus, providing for the critical years of commitment in the process of cryptocurrency adoption. Reverse engineering the characteristic of the technology after progress has been achieved can be tricking and sustainability will, in turn, have to wait longer.  Therefore, Ripple is leading the effort and they feel it is time to solve the problem now.

Ripple is committed to progressing this effort by a strategic partnership with organizations like Rocky Mountain Institute, Energy Web, and AIR, eventually contributing to policy ideas and financing for innovations to help achieve the long-term objectives of Accord.

The attempt is expected to save the global economy an estimated $26 trillion by 2030, contributing to a robust and sustainable global financial system leading to a sustainable world.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Ripple

SEC v. Ripple – Court orders plaintiff to ‘answer Ripple’s interrogatories’

Published

on

ripple-v-SEC

Within 24 hours of the court approving the Securities and Exchange Commission’s request to postpone the discovery deadline to January 2022, Judge Sarah Netburn has responded to two pending motions in the SEC v. Ripple Labs lawsuit.

One of the motions was from defendants Ripple Labs and Chris Larsen to compel the SEC to supplement its responses to eleven of its interrogatories and two of Larsen’s. Meanwhile, the other motion from the SEC sought a protective order to relieve it of the obligation to respond to 29,947 separate requests for admission, as per the filing.

Judge Netburn has now granted and denied both motions in part.

Advertisement

The judge ordered the SEC to answer Ripple’s interrogatories and identify the specific terms of the “investment contract” from XRP sales. The order added,

“Ripple’s interrogatory is relevant (and precise) and will clarify whether the SEC contends that the terms of any contract identified in response to Ripple’s Interrogatory No. 1 created an expectation of profits by the purchaser of XRP.”

“Accordingly, Defendants’ motion regarding Ripple Interrogatory No. 2 is GRANTED, and the SEC must supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 2 to identify any specific contractual terms and not just implicit and explicit promises as previously identified.”

Advertisement

The SEC must also respond to whether it contends that “efforts by Ripple were necessary to effect any increase in the price of XRP.” The court granted most of the defendants’ motions to compel answers on interrogatories, except one.

This was the motion from Chris Larsen on when XRPL is fully functional. Judge Netburn denied it without prejudice for being “too vague,” with the parties ordered to confer clarity terms.

Meanwhile, the SEC’s motion for protective orders was also partially granted and denied. The judge granted protection on Defendants’ 28,849 RFAs, noting that “it is hard to view this stunt as anything more than theater.” The order added,

Advertisement

“The motion for a protective order is GRANTED on burden grounds. Having granted the motion to compel a response to Ripple’s Interrogatory No. 2, the protective order is also GRANTED as cumulative and duplicative of another form of admissible evidence.”

As the SEC and Ripple filed their responses, the timeline for the case may extend due to the postponement of the discovery deadline. This deadline was pushed so that the parties could complete the expert depositions and beef up their preparations.

Original Source

Advertisement
Continue Reading