On one side, the SEC wants Ripple to provide audited financial statements and XRP sales contracts relating to the period after the regulator’s initial complaint. On the other, Ripple contests that post-complaint sales data should have no bearing on whatever remedies the court ultimately issues.
The latest back and forth was initiated by the SEC, which earlier this month requested a court order that would compel Ripple to provide additional documents the regulator argues are needed to determine remedies for the firm’s violations.
Recall that last year, Judge Analisa Torres found Ripple guilty of selling unregistered securities, but only in the context of direct sales to institutional investors.
While the question of XRP sales on cryptocurrency exchanges may well return to court at a later date, for now, the 2 parties are hashing out an agreement on the appropriate penalty for those sales the court deemed illegal.
Although Judge Torres’s ruling was based on evidence relating to XRP sales before 2020, the SEC wants Ripple to provide financial statements for the years 2022-2023 and XRP sales contracts used after the suit was initially filed.
Following the SEC’s appeal for evidence, Ripple filed a countermotion to dismiss the regulator’s request on the grounds that it was untimely and irrelevant.
According to Ripple’s lawyers, “the SEC had ample opportunity to seek much of the requested discovery while fact discovery was open, failed to do so, and lacks good cause to do so now”.
Moreover, “the information the SEC seeks has no bearing on the Court’s remedies determination,” they argued. What’s more, presenting new information now would risk reopening a debate the court has already considered at length, the motion claims.
In its latest riposte, the SEC contested that its request is procedurally correct, and that courts routinely consider post-complaint facts when determining remedies for securities laws violations.
“Ripple’s post-Complaint conduct is relevant to the court’s consideration of whether an injunction may be appropriate” the regulator stated , arguing that any evidence of recent violations should be taken into account when determining remedies.