Ripple Vs SEC: SEC Files a New Motion, Attorney Bill Morgan Reacts

The post Ripple Vs SEC: SEC Files a New Motion, Attorney Bill Morgan Reacts appeared first on Coinpedia Fintech News

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has submitted a supplemental authority letter in support of its ongoing move for summary judgment in the prolonged Ripple case.

The securities regulator referred to its prior lawsuit against Commonwealth Equity Services in the letter it sent out yesterday. The Commonwealth court found that the defendant had failed to disclose certain conflicts of interest, in violation of the negligence-based requirements of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, according to the SEC.

#XRPCommunity #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP SEC files Letter of Supplemental Authority in further Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. https://t.co/rdzW3Q6SIT

— James K. Filan (@FilanLaw) April 11, 2023

The District of Massachusetts court’s decision to approve the SEC’s request for summary judgment while refusing Ripple and other defendants’ cross-motions for a decision in their favor was addressed in the article. 

“The Commonwealth court held that, unlike in Upton, its defendant received fair notice by virtue of 50-year old Supreme Court precedent regarding Advisers Act disclosure obligations.”

The SEC draws a comparison between Ripple and Commonwealth because Commonwealth also claimed that a 50-year-old Supreme Court rule on disclosure requirements was insufficient to support an honest discovery. However, the court ruled in favor of the SEC, claiming that fair notice was provided as a result.

More than a month after Ripple submitted a supplemental letter in support of its fair notice defense in its dispute with the securities regulator, the SEC sent a letter in response. With the SEC’s last letter, Australian attorney Bill Morgan made the following remarks and denied any comparisons. 

He said, “If you happen to suppose that there’s reality similarity in promoting an asset like XRP in a market which is 13 years outdated to patrons to whom it owed no put up sale obligations, & a case during which a funding adviser didn’t make all mandatory disclosure of potential conflicts of curiosity from which it benefitted to retail investor purchasers to whom it owed fiduciary duties and whose funds it managed, be at liberty to be troubled concerning the SEC bringing this case to Decide Torres’ consideration.