On May 13, 2022 — Ripple Labs sent a response letter regarding William Hinman’s e-mails. On May 18, 2022, the SEC replied to Ripple’s response, and there are key items to focus on. In this latest XRP lawsuit update, you’ll discover what the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) said in its response and what some legal experts are saying. The SEC v Ripple case is a long and grueling one, especially if you’re a part of the XRPL or XRP community. That said, let’s take a look at the key bits of information in the SEC’s reply to response to motion, as well as the letter motion filed by Ripple Labs, Christian Larsen, and Bradley Garlinghouse.
XRP Lawsuit News: What’s Inside The Latest Court Documents
In the latest SEC court documents, the SEC noted:
Dozens of attorneys across the SEC’s offices and divisions used their legal expertise and knowledge
of confidential SEC matters to draft and edit the Speech—something these attorneys could not do in response to a personal, non-work-related request. Therefore, regardless of whether the final Speech contained “personal views,” as opposed to official agency policy, the attorney-client privilege protects the legal advice Director Hinman obtained from SEC counsel during the development of the Speech.Case 1:20-cv-10832-AT-SN – #488 in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ripple Labs Inc. (S.D.N.Y., 1:20-cv-10832).
Here are the key points in the document:
1) Director Hinman communicated with SEC staff to obtain their legal advice.
2) Director Hinman and SEC staff were necessarily acting in their official capacities when they drafted and commented on the speech.
3) Disclosure would reveal SEC confidences.
4) The SEC has standing to assert the attorney-client privilege.
The SEC concluded the reply with:
The attorney-client privilege protects the Speech drafts reflecting legal advice that Director
Hinman sought and that attorneys in Corp Fin and other offices provided, as well as portions of final drafts and emails transmitting legal advice regarding the content of the Speech. The SEC
stands ready to submit its proposed redactions for in camera review at the Court’s direction.Case 1:20-cv-10832-AT-SN – #488 in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ripple Labs Inc. (S.D.N.Y., 1:20-cv-10832).
Ripple’s Letter Motion
That wasn’t the only XRP lawsuit update that came out.
In Ripple’s letter motion, there were a number of key items inside.
Nevertheless, the SEC refused to admit or deny the authenticity of the recorded
statements, responding in conclusory fashion that the “information known and currently
available is not sufficient” for the SEC to respond. Rule 36 requires more, and nowhere does the
SEC “state in detail” why it cannot truthfully admit or deny the authenticity of the recordings
after reasonable inquiry.Case 1:20-cv-10832-AT-SN – #484 in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ripple Labs Inc. (S.D.N.Y., 1:20-cv-10832).
The SEC’s responses are also inconsistent with each other. Despite claiming not to have
sufficient information to admit or deny the authenticity of the recordings, the SEC denied RFAs
asking the SEC to admit that it has no basis to challenge the authenticity of the relevant
recordings (RFAs 565, 648, 932, 938, 943, 990, 995). The SEC cannot have it both ways—it
cannot contend that it has a basis to challenge the authenticity of the recorded remarks while also
claiming it lacks information sufficient to assess their authenticity.Case 1:20-cv-10832-AT-SN – #484 in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ripple Labs Inc. (S.D.N.Y., 1:20-cv-10832).