Ripple has made a motion to bar into evidence new expert resources that the SEC claims to have. These refer to Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn. This request was directed to Magistrate Sarah Netburn. The timing of events is damaging Ripple‘s effective response mechanism.
The materials in question here are the SEC remedies brief, which is essential as it is in the course of an appeal. Humanize the given sentence. Ripple raised a valid reminder of the SEC allegations, which were not disclosed during the discovery stages of the proceedings. This phase is known as the ‘evidentiary stage’ and is the place where both parties are given an opportunity to share and discuss evidence, which helps the judge be more informed.
Ripple accuses SEC of concealing expert details
When the SEC entered the discovery phase of the remedies’ litigation, it deposed an expert report on disgorgement. Nevertheless, it failed to submit a declaration from its main technical specialist, Andrea Fox, an assistant chief of account in the SEC’s enforcement division. The complaint specifies an examination that is necessary for the next stage (the phase of recovery) of the litigation.
Ripple anticipated that the SEC would not submit the Fox file until shortly before the trial, so they had very limited chances to counter the capitalization of the U.S. Securities and Exchange. The SEC categorized Fox as an expert or opinion witness and not as a fact witness. Ripple dissents from this assessment, stating it was a plan to conceal details and his personal feelings away from the public eye until they became needy.
Ripple fights high SEC penalty proposals
Ripple postulates that the submitter can be a certified expert since she is knowledgeable in her field. By following Ripple’s example, we understand that Fox certainly did not just plainly and simply summarize existing evidence. She conducted a comprehensive accounting analysis that goes beyond summarizing facts. This is what Ripple says about her analysis, which in turn gives her the status of an expert witness. The contrary arguments that the SEC brought through were that her arguments did not qualify her as an expert but rather a summary witness.
The SEC opposed Ripple’s motion to let Fox cooperate with the department secretly and actively opposed the requested entry of the Fox report into evidence. The deadline for filing the dispute case has been fixed for next Thursday, with the SEC providing the formal opposition within 5 business days. Thereafter, Ripple would lose the right to file any motions to reply to this opposition within three business days.
All these disputes happen in the background of Ripple’s desire to fight the SEC’s will for a punitively high civil penalty. Ripple’s position against the penalty amount of $876.3 million and the proposal of a penalty cap of $10 million only is made clear in the involving judgment. They make no bones about it and directly challenge the pretext for SEC penalties and disgorgement, with the process still very much a point at issue.
