XRP Lawsuit: Ripple Labs and its new strategy to battle SEC’s delay tactics
There was a development in the ever-lasting lawsuit concerning U.S’s regulatory watchdogs and the Fintech form, Ripple Labs. The interesting part was the reply time of Defendant after Plaintiff filed its latest motion. Is there any twist this time around?
On 10 February, Ripple filed itsSur-Reply regarding theSEC’s motion to strike the Fair Notice Affirmative Defense. Mainly to oppose ‘the SEC’s inappropriate request’ for judicial notice. And, to address the SEC’s ‘misleading characterization of its prior enforcement actions.’ Well, another attack emerged from Defendant to support this offensive move.
The Securities and Exchange Commission on 23 February requested to file ‘Sur-Sur-Reply’ regarding Motion to Strike. Ripple’s Sur-Reply argued the Court couldn’t consider the SEC’s public enforcement actions in the digital asset space filed before the lawsuit. Although, the document cited SEC v. LBRY decision in which New Hampshire federal judge granted judgment on the pleadings on an unrelated selective enforcement defense.
This struck an affirmative defense similar to Ripple’s in a case alleging unregistered offers and sales of digital assets, but not fraud.
“While styled as a “selective enforcement” defense, the LBRY affirmative defense alleged the SEC “treated LBRY differently from other similar blockchain companies with no rational basis for the difference in treatment.”
James K Filan, a famed lawyer highlighted this development in a tweet that read:
<p lang=«en» dir=«ltr» xml:lang=«en»>This is the LBRY decision on the motion for judgment on the pleadings on the Selective Enforcement defense raised by LBRY in New Hampshire.https://t.co/rEtF7LvNPC— James K. Filan
Read more on ambcrypto.com
