The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed its Opposition to Ripple’s Motion to force it to respond to how the Howey Test was applied to virtually all of Ripple’s XRP transactions over the past eight years.
According to the presentation,
“The defendants waited until the end of the discovery of the facts, more than seven weeks after receiving the first interrogation responses from the SEC, to inform the SEC that they considered the responses to be deficient. The SEC then supplemented five of the responses in question, met and consulted, and asked Defendants to identify what specific information they still require. “
The defendants refused, instead filing the motion less than three hours before fact finding was closed, he added.
With Ripple’s order to produce more Slack messages, the company appears to be challenging the SEC to produce information that demonstrates the applicability of the Howey test. However, according to regulators, all four points of the test have been met.
In the aforementioned motion, the SEC added,
“The SEC has responded substantially to the interrogatories in question as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and recent guidance from this Court that a party does not need to catalog every fact or piece of evidence as long as it identifies representative samples and provides … a disclosure significant “.
In turn, the SEC also claimed that Ripple’s argument boiled down to the complaint that “no like the responses they received. “The SEC’s and Defendants’ interpretation of applicable law differs, the agency added.
Furthermore, the SEC also claimed that Ripple delayed complaints about the SEC’s interrogative responses. This, despite the fact that it offers to provide additional details about the information sought.
“In any event, the SEC provided Ripple with substantive responses to twelve of its requests for admission on the same issues at issue in Question No. 17, which Ripple will presumably use to argue that its (non-existent)” acquired a stake “requirement it was not fulfilled “.
The SEC’s opposition did not sit well with the community, with many questioning that the SEC was not explaining itself. One of those community members order,
“Wait until they have to show that the Howey test applies to these transactions, but they will not be explained, even if they have filed the lawsuit …”
Others gathered to a quick “lose / lose” scenario, one in which if the SEC wins, Ripple could still claim that “they have not yet been specifically told how they have violated the law.”
“The SEC is painted in another corner having to lay out its reasoning in specific terms (opens lanes for Ripple to counter the argument) and takes away the SEC’s current leverage of ‘it’s because we say it is.’ It’s another SEC loss / loss, right? “
This is a machine translation of our English version.