Home - News - U.S. Judge Partially Grants Ripple’s SEC Expert Reports Motion


July 12, 2022

U.S. Judge Partially Grants Ripple’s SEC Expert Reports Motion

Ripple request against the U.S. SEC’s extraordinary action to seal the names and views of its experts in the complaint was somewhat granted and rejected.

Ripple Labs, the fintech startup behind the Ripple payment technology and XRP cryptocurrency, filed a petition last week to dissolve the SEC’s motivation to withhold expert witness identities.

In its lawsuit filed Sunday, the business claimed the Commission had persisted in sealing three of its experts’ statements until the judge determines whether to protect the view of the fourth expert, who the regulator alleged had experienced threats and harassment.

Ripple said the SEC abused a shielding order to prohibit criticizing its experts.

The SEC’s effort to protect the names and views of its experts is unusual, the company’s attorneys argued.

The complaint said the three SEC employees whose names are being hidden played a key role in the litigation.

In 2020, the SEC sued Ripple for selling unregistered securities to American investors via XRP coins. Ripple said XRP should be considered like Bitcoin and Ethereum.

Monday, the SEC replied to Ripple’s request to identify the three officials. Since last week, the Commission said, both sides have been negotiating the secrecy of expert material under the Protective Order.

Ripple rejected the idea and asked the agency for suggested redactions, reports, and transcripts. The company won’t do the same for security watchdogs.

Contrary to Ripple’s claim that it’s attempting to avoid public examination of its officials, the SEC is just requesting more time for the parties to clean up hundreds of pages of expert findings.

Also Read:  What You Should Know About Basic Attention Token (BAT)

Judge Torres allowed the SEC’s motion to redact wording but dismissed Ripple’s request to amend Exhibit O. The court allowed the Commission’s motion to redact the Defendants’ Letter, except for footnote one.

The judge refused additional applications from both parties and ordered the clerk to trash ECF Nos. 498 and 508.