‘Big win’ after judge rejects Crypto Insider’s request

There is some positive news to report again! The judge decided that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) may not exclude certain documents in an XRP lawsuit. Attorney James K. Phelan calls it “a very big win for Ripple.”

Ripple lawsuit: SEC letter causes headache

Ripple’s lawsuit was filed by the SEC, the US financial regulator. The regulator believes that XRP is a security or investment contract. Ripple will not have the proper permits for this, so the SEC wants the company and its founders to pay heavy fines. If the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is to the right, Ripple will likely have to leave the US and XRP may not be used and sold in the country. In short, it’s an exciting lawsuit for a while now.

Every now and then we see interesting developments in the case, including yesterday. Judge Sarah Netbourne rejected the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) application. The documents relate to a speech given by former SEC Chairman William Henman, in which he stated that Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH) are not securities.

While the Securities and Exchange Commission has previously stated that these were Hinman’s personal beliefs, it recently reverted to that. However, Hinman’s statements will be based on SEC policy, which may be grounds for excluding the documents after all. So the judge does not agree:

“The SEC wants it both ways, but the letter was meant to reflect SEC policy or not. After insisting that it reflected Hinman’s personal views, the SEC now cannot dismiss its position.”

Phelan’s attorney, who is closely following the case, call it “A very big win for Ripple.” The Securities and Exchange Commission now has two weeks to challenge the judge’s decision. Despite the fact that the end is not in sight yet, this is a positive development for Ripple and XRP.

Hinman conflict of interest

Anyone who follows Ripple news has likely seen the name Hinman lately. Leaked emails show that Hinman has violated SEC recommendations. In addition, there is evidence of a conflict of interest, as can be read here.