Ripple: SEC misuses US authority to gain advantage in court

The lawsuit continues, which began with a claim by the US Securities and Exchange Commission against Ripple. To date, the leaders of the exchange have filed a petition to close the case against them, but the decision has not yet been made - until the decisive moment is about 30 more days. The question now is whether the SEC has the authority of the United States of America to pressure other governments, as Ripple claims, or not. The first court session after the submission of additional papers will take place on May 6. Among other things, it will consider the issue of the possibility of closing the case. XRP users watch with dismay how the process is progressing and what can be expected as a result.


At the last meetings, the question was raised not only about the settlement of the claim, but also about whether the SECs attempts to gain an advantage in the court over Ripple are fair. The fact is that the agency sent a request to companies in other countries that have been working with Ripple for some time. According to the leaders of Ripple, a memorandum of understanding is mandatory, and the SEC tried, first of all, to use the authority of the US government on the world stage to its advantage. While the question of voluntariness or the need for a memorandum of understanding remains open, therefore, at each regular meeting, it is necessarily raised.
The judges opinion on this matter is strikingly different from the opinion of the Ripple team. She believes that the authority of the US government cannot put pressure on foreign governments. And although foreign companies cooperating with Ripple are obliged to satisfy the request of their government, it is not obliged to satisfy the request from the SEC. According to Hogans lawyer, the judge assumes that such a turn gives equal advantages and does not distinguish one of the parties in the course of the trial. A defender representing the interests of Ripple believes that foreign companies may refuse to comply with the request, since this is done involuntarily, especially in relation to states whose economies are very different from the American one.


The case periodically moves from one judge to another, each of them considers the situation from different points of view, but lawyers agree that the case on the memorandum should not have much weight in the current claim. Recall that on May 6, a meeting will be held under the chairmanship of Judge Henry Gensler, he is considering this case for the first time and, possibly, will see new opportunities for resolving the conflict between the parties.