Leading blockchain company Ripple has submitted a redacted move to strike SEC Expert 2’s testimony and related exhibits from the public docket.
The Defendants asserted that the expert denied having any view of whether Ripple offered unregistered securities, even though the lawsuit’s main focus was whether the company’s XRP sales constituted investment contracts.
Ripple’s Objections to the Testimony
According to Ripple, SEC Expert 2’s testimony offered the jury a tutorial on the registration and disclosure requirements for security offers under the SEC Act of 1934 rather than delivering a conclusion about whether its XRP sales qualified as securities.
According to the top blockchain company, the testimony has no bearing whatsoever on the key points that the SEC needs to establish to win the lawsuit.
“His testimony has no bearing on the questions before the Court. It would confuse and distract the jury, inviting them to reach a verdict on the improper basis of whether Defendants’ XRP distributions should be considered investment contracts as a matter of policy rather than whether they were investment contracts as a matter of fact and law,” Ripple added.
Furthermore, SEC Expert 2’s assertion that Ripple failed to provide investors with important disclosures amounted to an illegal assumption that XRP constituted an investment contract.
Why Ripple’s Request Should Be Supported
The blockchain company proposed that SEC Expert 2’s testimony be omitted for various reasons. Ripple asserts that the expert must have exposure to digital assets. Additionally, the expert did not examine the variety of information that XRP buyers had access to, which is where Ripple believes a materiality analysis should begin in accordance with Second Circuit and Supreme Court law.
“As such, [SEC Expert 2] opinions are nothing more than a series of ungrounded assertions and are therefore inadmissible. The Court should exclude [his] testimony in its entirety,” Ripple concluded.