It would seem that not one day passes without a development in the ongoing case between the SEC and Ripple Labs.
Over a week after John Deaton, an XRP holder, filed a request for leave to file a motion to intervene on behalf of other XRP Holders in the present case, both the plaintiffs and the defendants have now responded to the same in separate letters to Hon. Justice Analisa Torres. Needless to say, both parties have come out with opposing statements and requests.
Ripple Labs agreed that the “Intervenors should be permitted to proceed with their motion to clarify” the issues improperly explained by the SEC’s amended complaint.
According to the San Francisco-based blockchain firm, the intervenors’ concerns about the lack of clarity in the SEC’s case are “well-founded.” In its reply to Deaton’s motion, the defendants also argued that SEC’s attempts to shut down XRP trading in the United States are based on a theory of liability that is ambiguous, and perhaps, deliberately misleading. It concluded,
“If the SEC continues to equivocate and refuses to clearly state its position on these issues, Intervenors’ interest in the outcome of this litigation could be different. Whatever the SEC’s position, Defendants do not object to Intervenors filing their motion under Rule 24.”
On the contrary, the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission claimed that such an intervention would “create an avalanche of claims and near-certainty of undue delay, complexity, and confusion.” In its letter to Judge Torres, SEC argued that the “movants would fail to meet the requirements of an intervention,” with the regulatory agency adding that courts have generally ruled against such motions since it has been a long-held belief that the “SEC is fully capable of adequately protecting investors’ interests.”
Claiming that the consolidation or coordination of claims without the SEC’s consent and sovereign immunity bars such an intervention, the agency concluded its plea by stating,
“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.”
John Deaton, the man behind the aforementioned motion to intervene was quick to comment on the matter as soon as the responses were filed by the two. He tweeted,
I haven’t spoken to @Ripple or it’s lawyers about what I’ve been trying to do, although some of you have tweeted that I should.
But Ripple’s lawyers sent a message in their response. They hinted that maybe there is a role for us even if it’s not intervention.
They write: https://t.co/kiHEqPBTEF
— John E Deaton (@JohnEDeaton1) March 27, 2021
In his initial motion to Judge Torres, Deaton had asserted that XRP Holders’ interests “are not adequately represented” as the “holders of XRP cannot objectively rely on Ripple’s efforts.”