“The reality is that the SEC has great difficulty reconciling what is alleged and what it can prove,” said the XRP holders’ representation.
The past few weeks and months have been a disappointment to everyone waiting for the SEC vs Ripple Labs case to end. In fact, that process also saw the participation of a new XRP support party, a group represented by lawyer John Deato. In a move to intervene filed last month, Deato had argued that the SEC was challenging the independent utility of XRP, something that required intervention to “develop understanding of the court”.
The SEC, in response on the same day on May 3, he claimed that these XRP holders were merely “reciting the defendants’ litigation position”.
The proposed stakeholders have now presented a memorandum of law in response to the aforementioned opposition. According to Deato, the SEC is using “False clues, personal attacks and irrelevant jurisprudence to distract the court from the XRP holders’ meritorious request for intervention.”
The Regulatory Agency’s opposition to such an intervention was founded on a number of points. These included – an alleged statutory and constitutional bar in the intervention, the alleged extension of the SEC’s claims, and the SEC’s claim that the defendants adequately represent the interest of XRP holders in the case.
The latest memorandum of the law filed by Deato, however, argued otherwise, with its submission alleging that the SEC used a “completely irrelevant” case to make claims that are “absurd”. Such restraint, Mol said, is “without merit”.
In addition, the request for support from XRP holders also claimed that the proposed intervention did not extend the SEC’s claims, as it would be well within the scope of the SEC’s amended complaint. He continued to say:
“Just as the SEC distanced itself from Hinman’s speech, arguing to judge NetBurn as not reflecting the” official position of the agency “, the SEC, faced with the intervention, made attempts to distance itself from its own complaint.”
“The reality is that the SEC has great difficulty reconciling what is alleged and what it can prove,” he added, with the memorandum of the law that represents XRP holders also accusing the regulator of contradicting itself over the issue of market sales. of XRP.
The personal nature of the legal battle between the parties in the aforementioned case was brought forward again this time, with the present submission also arguing that attorney John Deato was unfairly directed as an “unbalanced conspiracy cruise”.
Finally, the representation of XRP holders concluded, reiterating arguments that it had already made in the past, that is, XRP holders meet the standard to intervene in a certain and permissive way, given that such a movement to intervene “does not sow chaos in the process ”And would not cause“ undue delay ”.