SEC Threatens Court with Far-Reaching Consequences If They Lose Ripple Lawsuit


The US SEC believes that the wrong decision in the case against Ripple could set a dangerous precedent for the regulator.

June 8, 2021 | AtoZ Markets – The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is trying to mislead the court by citing its previous lawsuits against cryptocurrency companies. This opinion was expressed by the defense of the fintech company Ripple in an appeal to Judge Analisa Torres.

Ripple asks SEC not to cite 70+ lawsuits against crypto firms

In particular, the exchange regulator refers to a study by a private consulting firm Cornerstone Research. According to the firm’s report, the SEC has filed over 70 lawsuits against crypto companies. On this basis, the regulator believes that Ripple was aware of the status of XRP as a security. However, as the Ripple defense notes, the regulator had never publicly announced such a number of claims before.

The commission is asking the court to take note of the ‘court notice’ with which it is trying to smuggle ‘more than seventy cases’ into the lawsuit, the vast majority of which were never mentioned in the opening statement,” Ripple’s defense said.

According to the fintech company, the SEC’s accusations that XRP is a security are the first in court practice. Ripple also claims that the regulator has never notified the company of a violation of the law due to XRP sales.

At the same time, the SEC claims that Ripple was aware of the status of XRP, and the company itself cannot reasonably explain the alleged lack of notification.

SEC intimidates the court with consequences in the event of a loss

The exchange regulator also believes that the loss “will harm the SEC far beyond the scope of this case.”

The court should avoid setting precedents with such far-reaching consequences,” SEC officials said.

According to the regulator, in the event of a loss, future defendants will be able to refer to the decision in the Ripple case.

As a reminder, the head of Ripple Brad Garlinghouse said that the company may go public when the trial is over. However, it remains unclear whether the outcome of the trial will affect the plans of the fintech company.

Think we missed something? Let us know in the comment section below.

  1. Kbrockm says:

    The SEC, with its revolving door of directors, doesn’t represent investors, but rather the Big Banks and Financial Sector that they all come from. Until this problem gets fixed, we will continue to see guys like Clayton use their positions for personal gain instead of meaningful regulation. I’d rather see SEC Director Positions be more permanent instead of changing with Presidential Elections and Appointments.

  2. Michael Olsa says:

    I say good if the SEC loses the case and others can reference the case. Then they will be forced to put things into laws instead of seeking out week companies for week law suits. They thought they would just throw thier weight around and everyone just rolls over. Not Ripple.

  3. Brian D Allen says:

    I’ll say we defund the SEC they are worthless to the people that they are supposed to be protecting their actions are very blatant it’s a business and they’ve been stealing from us long enough xrp holder or not defund these losers

  4. Mike says:

    SEC have got no evidence of XRP being a security so they start threatening them with Blackmail. Sounds legit ….

  5. Ash_XRP says:

    who said it? when? no proofs? I’m holder but this just makes me think the contrary

  6. Ali Amini says:

    The above-quoted single sentence, in and of itself, reflects the fact that SEC is losing its grip on the handling of the case; in other words, the SEC must really be concerned about losing the case and is trying to alarm the court of the far reaching negative impact that a decision against SEC would have on all the other would-be cases against other cryptocurrencies. Otherwise, had the SEC felt confident about its position and the legal basis of its claim, there would have been no need to cite the consequences of this case on the crypto market. The SEC’s loose grip on the file could also be signaling an increasing desire on the part of the SEC to reach a settlement on the file, lest a decision against it compromises its strength and position against real violators. In short, although the statement is single sentence, a lot can be read into it – there is a lot more than meets the eye hidden between the words. This is yet another mistake (which signals the SEC’s weak position) in the handling of the file.

Share Your Opinion, Write a Comment