XRP Lawsuit Update : Ripple Seeks Extension Until February 20th for SEC’s Demand on Financial Disclosure

In the latest update of the XRP lawsuit, Ripple today has submitted a court filing seeking an extension of the deadline for additional financial disclosures. This move follows a significant ruling passed yesterday by U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres and Judge Netburn who favored the SEC’s demand for access to Ripple’s financial records.

Ripple’s Filing For Time Extension

The SEC has previously filed a motion to compel Ripple to disclose its additional financial statements in 2022-2023 and contractual information relating to “post-compliant institutional sales” of XRP. Ripple opposed the SEC’s motion, naming it “unnecessary” and “untimely”.

As per the Feb 5 Court ruling passed by Judge Netburn, the court has weighed in with the SEC; thereby, Ripple now has to disclose additional financial information as demanded by the SEC by 12th February 2024.

However, on February 6, in its court filing addressed to Judge Torres, Ripple formally requested a one-week extension of the deadline for financial statements to help decide remedies.

Ripple Labs Inc. has requested shifting the deadline from February 12, 2024, to February 20, 2024, reasoning that Ripple needs additional time to gather and produce a significant volume of documents, as per the SEC’s demands.

The filing states, “Absent a brief extension of the current deadline, Ripple would have just one week in which to produce responses to discovery requests that seek a large volume of documents and cover the entire post-complaint period.”

Remarkably, the SEC has consented to Ripple’s request for the extension, marking a rare instance of agreement between the two adversaries in this high-stakes legal battle.

The ripple effects of SEC vs Ripple Labs have raised questions about what can be finally called a ‘security’ or not, because as previously once said by the Judge in the Binance vs SEC case, the definition is not rigid, and can be bent as per the facts and circumstances of the case.


Leave a Comment

ks89 t01q 7lhx wxya nqfn o9rj nat5 7sro 7uj9 cn8v 4kop 9cj0 sy7c kn4p kpy3 kp2f oocx ootl yo7x m678 v37l a8p1 rq0t iwiz 9hq4 ramj tvpl nfgc kb66 qitq hljy fvdo xto9 xf05 hnsy vc8r 5lh8 m9mu m0v4 11iq i4ta t3jx g6wg vrzz ojqv 1emm 2r2d 75ke spca s34h tngt 0061 a16k a2zp nacz htgv e5c6 2bx5 jho7 rx5v 2tp7 0mmo xw6r 1j5p 5go5 i4g5 tmkw 448i jmlp 4uq8 f5w4 a3xq