Ripple Slams SEC's Opposition To Brief Motions In XRP Lawsuit
Table of contents
SEC's Opposition in XRP Lawsuit
Each company contended that XRP was essential to its unique business strategy in its letter motions. While the Filipino remittance provider I-Remit significantly relies on the on-demand liquidity (ODL) service provided by Ripple, TapJets also needs XRP to book charter flights around the clock instantly.
According to the SEC, the defendants must have introduced the evidence from the two Ripple-friendly businesses. The movers have come under fire from the SEC for trying to provide material beyond the parameters of discovery rules. Furthermore, neither TapJets nor I-Remit clarified how their use of the XRP token is influenced by the conclusion of the ongoing legal dispute. The SEC cannot think of any good arguments why the defendants couldn't have introduced the evidence that the two firms have presented.
Ripple Slams SEC
In its letter, Ripple emphasized that both businesses are independent, unaffiliated third parties who are not involved in the legal dispute. It accused the SEC of "mischaracterizing" their suggested briefs. The defendants contend that the disputed briefs potentially contradict the agency's talking points, which center on the idea that every purchase of XRP constitutes an investment. If the SEC couldn't assess the validity of such claims, Ripple concluded that the SEC shouldn't have filed the action in the first place. The dispute is nearing its conclusion thanks to the motions for summary judgment that Ripple and the SEC submitted last month.