The Ripple-SEC litigation hasn’t advanced particularly recently. Undoubtedly, the judge has made decisions on a few motions, but most of them have only resulted in approval or denial for the parties concerned. There have also been a number of pile-ups.
One member of the community highlighted:
SEC and Ripple war
In order to limit or omit the testimony of 10 experts who were hired by Ripple Labs and their CEOs, Garlinghouse and Larsen, the SEC requested permission to file a “omnibus” petition on Wednesday.
They want permission to write up to 120 pages. The same is not a problem for Ripple. They have, however, requested that they be granted the same privilege when it comes to registering their opposition. The SEC, once more, has no issues with the defendants’ counter-request.
The experts have provided findings and rebuttals covering several topics pertaining to the ongoing case, according to the SEC. With exhibits excluded, the same is longer than 500 pages. Therefore, the plaintiffs have suggested to “combine” and file one lengthy brief instead of 10 individual motions in order to save judicial and SEC resources.
The filing further stated,
“The proposed 120-page limit is less than the total number of combined pages under the Order’s 15-page limit per expert and is sufficient to adequately inform the Court of the applicable facts and law in support of the SEC’s positions.”
Will Ripple have an easy win post last hearing?
The SEC lawyers have received criticism for their conduct on numerous occasions. Listeners felt that the SEC attorney in one of the most recent court decisions had no idea what was being argued. The SEC argued its position in an essentially “embarrassing” manner.
John Deaton has really consistently raised warning signs and said that the plaintiff’s attorneys lack a coherent plan of attack. He claims that their most recent request exemplifies their continued “wet noodle strategy,” in which they throw everything at the wall and wait to see what sticks.
John Deaton has really consistently raised warning signs and said that the plaintiff’s attorneys lack a coherent plan of attack. He claims that their most recent request exemplifies their continued “wet noodle strategy,” in which they throw everything at the wall and wait to see what sticks.