TapJets, a private jet charter service and payment processing company I-Remit, filed motions to serve as “amicus curiae” in the case in support of Ripple in the ongoing U.S. SEC v. Ripple Labs, et al. case.
However, The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is moving to block the two companies from commenting on the SEC’s lawsuit against Ripple.
In an October 4 letter to the presiding judge, U.S. District Court Judge Analisa Torres, the SEC claimed that the two companies could not provide any additional legal evidence and that their briefs would be speculatory in nature.
TapJets And I-Remit Claims
The companies in question, TapJets and I-Remit, offered their input in the case as an “amicus curiae” to provide the court with an industry perspective on the general use of XRP, Ripple’s native cryptocurrency.
I-Remit claims it, and businesses like I-Remit do not use XRP to speculate and do not consider XRP as an investment that will accrue value but rather as a means of cross-border value transfer.
TapJet claims to want to provide the courts with insight into its business practices in regards to XRP, stating, “if TapJets loses its ability to accept XRP as a fiat currency substitute, TapJets will lose significant income, including but not limited to, investment in technology developed to accept XRP as a form of instant payment for the flights, significant business growth opportunities, as well as goodwill.”
In the letter, the SEC stated that “Because [TapJets and I-Remit] do not support their briefs with any evidence, the SEC would be prejudiced by being unable to evaluate the factual veracity of their claims or show that [TapJets and I-Remit] ‘s “facts” are disputed.”
A decision has yet to be made on whether or not TapJets and I-Remit can present their case in support of Ripple to the courts.
The Lawsuit In Question
In late 2020, Ripple and two other executives were sued by the SEC. In the suit, the SEC defines Ripple’s XRP as an “investment contract. In light of the definition, the SEC added that Ripple was in infringement of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which requires registration with regulators and disclosure to the SEC and the public of the company’s business model, risks, and financial condition. Where Ripple would purportedly be in infringement is that it allegedly did not obtain a securities license for many years.
The SEC additionally alleged that Ripple had an internal manipulation team that used algorithms to develop strategies for peddling XRP, such as price and quantity, and violated investor protection laws when selling XRP.
Brad Garlinhouse, Ripple’s CEO, vehemently objects to the SEC’s stance, stating to the public that the SEC is wrong on both the law and the facts. In a public announcement, the CEO stated that he was confident of winning the case after reviewing the SEC lawsuit because XRP is not an investment contract and is thus a non-security, as the SEC has determined for BTC and ETH.
More on the U.S. SEC v. Ripple Labs lawsuit:
SEC Fails Attempt to Bar XRP Holders from Ongoing Ripple Lawsuit
Dissecting The Request For Summary Judgment By Ripple Labs in SEC Battle
