By refusing the SEC’s Motion for Reconsideration of the DPP ruling in the current court order, Sarah Netburn, the Judge presiding over the SEC versus Ripple lawsuit, has lived up to expectations. The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) motion was deemed a “major decision in the Ripple lawsuit” because of the results it would produce for the case outcome and the future of the SEC and Ripple.
Ripple’s big win may stimulate a sudden end to the lawsuit as the majority of the people involved in the case believe that the SEC would not hand over its documents but rather settle. The SEC had 14 days to file an objection to the court’s decision to Judge Torres, the district Judge. The court’s ruling may be a more significant triumph for ripple as an order comes with an “attack-proof section” that’s believed to impede any appeal that can compel the SEC into a settlement much sooner.
Securities And Exchange Commission (SEC) Could Not “Have It Both Ways”
Judge Sarah elaborated that she directed the production of some SEC documents – after her conclusion that the documents were not under protection by the DPP. This action enabled the defendants to go against the SEC’s allegations that Garlinghouse and Larsen were careless in thinking that XRP is not a security. The court went on to say that reconsidering a previous ruling is an “extraordinary remedy” that should be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conserving limited judicial resources.
The SEC argued that the court overlooked Bill Hinman’s 2018 speech on Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH) to communicate the SEC’s division of corporation finance’s approach. And that the speech was the result of “significant collaboration” among many SEC staffers, as evidenced by the 68 drafts and associated commentary in the SEC’s privilege logs. The lawsuit argued that the DPP should protect such discussions.
It stated that the SEC’s argument that the speech was supposed to represent Corporation Finance’s approach to regulating digital asset offers is discordant with the SEC’s and Hinman’s previous positions that the speech was intended to and did reflect Hinman’s personal opinion.
“The SEC wants it both ways, but the speech was either meant to reflect agency policy or not.” Since they insisted that Hinman’s personal beliefs were considered, the SEC can no longer deny its position. The privilege of officialdom protects neither the speech itself nor the content of its considerations.”
“SEC failed to show that the court ignored any factual issues in assessing whether the privilege applied to Entry 9 of Appendix A.” The court did not accept its request for reconsideration. However, in light of the privilege’s “important public interests,” the court recognizes that clarity will benefit the parties. As a result of the court’s judgement on January 13, all emails and drafts referring to the speech on the SEC’s privilege log must be made public, except for discussions between staff addressing how it affects other, unconnected agency debates.
