- Ripple responded to the SEC’s brief regarding the alleged privileged documents.
- Lawsuit was highlighted by the Ripple revelation of the plaintiff’s 2018 XRP analysis.
Ripple responded to the SEC’s brief regarding the alleged privileged documents which the SEC withheld in the latest XRP’s lawsuit update. Moreover, Ripple argues against SEC’s repetitive ‘privileged’ stance to safeguard discovery and review of evasive documents to the case.
Ripple asserts that the SEC continues to make the same argument in its response. It indicates that the Court rejected the lawsuit repeatedly for “targeted letter briefs on those documents”.
#XRPCommunity #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP RIPPLE FILES REVISED RESPONSE (#364) to the SEC’s brief regarding allegedly privileged documents SEC is withholding. Ripple hits on SEC’s continued efforts to re-argue issues the Court has repeatedly rejected.https://t.co/cCGs8z61oa
— James K. Filan 🇺🇸🇮🇪 (@FilanLaw) September 28, 2021
Overview of XRP 2018’s Legal Status
The lawsuit was highlighted by a revelation by Ripple of the plaintiff’s 2018 XRP analysis. This proved that SEC’s numerous versions of the privilege argument are unsustainable. In fact, Ripple reported that an analysis of XRP’s legality was offered to a group at the SEC. This happened just a day after the controversial Hinman speech of 2018.
Moreover, XRP legal analysis was also discredited by Ripple under three claims in the SEC’s logged privilege documents. According to the defendants, the SEC cannot assert attorney-client privilege against the mentioned documents, since they are not working documents.
Ripple maintains that the allegedly incriminating documents were never part of the SEC’s investigation file, as the SEC now appears to be claiming. More so, the documents related to an investigation are already covered by the SEC’s categorical privilege log, thus, no further documentation would be required.
As well, XRP’s legal analysis documents have an anonymous author, and the SEC has not disclosed the timeframe of the drafting. There are no details available about it, except to say that it was prepared before the Hinman speech of 2018. Also, it was sent by the Office of the Chief Counsel in the Division of Corporate Finance.
To clarify, the SEC reveals it does not assert that this memorandum was drafted upon the instruction of Enforcement counsel given the litigation. Rather, it was sent to a single enforcement counsel and nine others who were not at Enforcement.
Furthermore, the document added, that the Department of Corporation Finance had a duty to consider XRP’s status under securities laws in an independent manner from whether the Division of Enforcement had a duty to recommend an action to the Commission.