In the case of Ripple and the SEC: Ripple demands non-evasive responses from the authority
The content site is one of the sites that provide the service of answering general questions and solving puzzles and crossword puzzles
Where the content site is primarily interested in answering your questions in all areas, including solving puzzles and crossword puzzles
Answer In the case of Ripple and the SEC: Ripple demands non-evasive responses from the authority
A recent development in the Ripple case and the SEC has seen Ripple file a response to the SEC’s opposition regarding the defendant’s motion regarding the interrogation and determination of the SEC’s “Howey” test application theory.
Ripple argues that the SEC’s opposition constitutes evasive responses and a refusal to comply with the basic obligations imposed on all parties under Rule 33.
Ripple highlighted that Dispute Inquiries are designed to assist parties in narrowing and clarifying disputed issues before the summary judgment or trial is exercised.
#XRPCommunity #SECGov Fifth. #ripple #XRP Ripple and Chris Larsen provided their response to the SEC’s response to Ripple and Larsen’s move to force questionable responses regarding the application of the Howey test to XRP sales over the past eight years. 7 pages in 2 tweets. pic.twitter.com/P4mZqLwWTo
Read:BTC price is testing $19,000 and threatening to break all-time high
– James K. Phelan (@FilanLaw) September 15, 2021
In addition, the defense claimed that the investigators who presented would prove that the said cases did not carry a genuine dispute as objected to by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Ripple states that the SEC’s answers are not consistent:
Ripple stated that the SEC’s answers are not consistent and do not respond to many questions, by referring to the court’s decision indicating that a party does not need to classify every fact or evidence to support the stated dispute.
The defendants argue that the SEC’s answers are inadequate because they completely fail to provide objective responses to the questions asked.
In addition, these unresponsive responses are inconsistent with the purpose of Rule 33 to narrow cases to summary judgment and trial.
Ripple’s defense added:
The SEC, like any ordinary litigant, must respond to interrogations made by defendants…
Rule 33 requires the SEC to provide complete responses to inquiries, as specific as possible and not evasive…
Ripple highlights SEC’s denial:
In its interrogation, Ripple is asking the SEC to specify specific terms and conditions in investment and trading contracts that the SEC claims were used by Ripple to conduct illegal sales of XRP.
Read:Bitcoin is on the verge of $65,000 and altcoins are strong
Ripple asserts that the questioning is based solely on contractual language and seeks only the specific terms that the SEC would use anyway in the filing.
However, the defendants asserted that the plaintiff refused to provide such basic information.
In addition, the SEC denied responding to any of Ripple’s inquiries.
Read also:
Cryptocurrency adoption has increased dramatically in Africa
Ethereum hash rate hits new highs after miners resume work outside China
And you can ask questions on the content site through the word “Ask a question” at the top of the site, where we answer your questions in a short time