In a big win for those in the XRP community, Judge Analisa Torres gave Attorney John Deaton permission to file a motion to participate in the pending case between the SEC and Ripple Labs on behalf of a group of XRP buyers. Judge Torres ruled a few hours ago that the motion to interfere must be lodged no later than 19 April, in which all objection and response papers must be filed by 3 May.
While this is great news for Deaton and many XRP supporters, it is a massive setback for the SEC, particularly because the regulatory agency has previously argued that such motions to interfere should not be approved by the court. Both the appellant and defendants in the above case wrote to Judge Torres a few days back, with both sides holding opposing views on Deaton’s intended motion to interfere.
Although Ripple Labs argued that “Intervenors should be able to proceed with their motion to clarify” the concerns inappropriately clarified by the SEC’s amended lawsuit at the time, the US Securities and Exchange Commission contended,
“If the Court permitted Movants to intervene, it would be logic-bound to allow all investors and interested members of the public with differing viewpoints to intervene in the underlying actions.”
The SEC also stated that such an action would “create an explosion of arguments and the near certainty of excessive delay, uncertainty, and confusion.”
Deaton replied that the SEC was “clearly intending to make me look bad by alleging that my motive in trying to interfere is profit-taking.” The agency’s response, he claims, was “the most deceptive letter I’ve ever read sent to a Court.”
The @SEC_Enforcement letter to Judge Torres objecting to our motion to intervene is the most misleading letter that I’ve ever read submitted to a Court.
SEC Attorney Jorge Tenreiro wrote the following:
“Movants primary motivation appears to be to reinstate speculative
— John E Deaton (@JohnEDeaton1) March 29, 2021
The SEC’s arguments came in reaction to Deaton’s pre-motion letter, which was filed on March 19th and stated that XRP Holders’ rights were being harmed.
“are not adequately represented by either parties” as the “holders of XRP cannot objectively rely on Ripple’s efforts.”
256 Interactions, 14 today