Ripple looks to have one less legal battle to worry about following a recent revelation that it had reached a settlement in one of its long-running legal battles. This comes at a time when the crypto firm’s case against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has intensified once again.
Ripple Settles With GCC Exchange
In a recent interview, Yash Rajesh, the Director of GCC Exchange, a global Money Transfer Service provider, revealed that his company had settled with Ripple. Rajesh stated that both parties had entered into a “confidential settlement with no admission of liability.” The ‘no admission of liability’ means that Ripple and GCC chose to settle without either party admitting any wrongdoing.
Bitcoinist had previously reported how Ripple instituted a lawsuit against GCC Exchange for the latter’s failure to fulfill its financial obligations. The company had accused the foreign exchange company of failing to pay for over 40,000 XRP transfers, which amounted to over $15 million. The case was set to be heard before the High Court of Justice in England.
SEC Counters Arguments
In a letter addressed to Judge Sarah Netburn, the SEC responded to Ripple’s opposition to the motion to compel. The regulator argued that its requests aren’t untimely like Ripple suggested and are “procedurally proper.” It further noted how both parties had agreed that permissible discovery could cover post-complaint matters.
The Commission also stated that Ripple’s claims that it agreed that post-complaint matters were irrelevant to the case were false. In the filing, the SEC highlighted how it had sought contracts, emails, and other documents relating to Ripple’s post-complaint XRP sales as far back as May 2021.
Meanwhile, citing a precious case, the SEC rebutted Ripple’s argument that its financial condition was irrelevant to penalties because it didn’t intend to argue its inability to pay. The Second Circuit is said to have ruled that the extent of a defendant’s wealth was a relevant consideration when calculating the size of penalty necessary for deterrence.
Deterrence seems to be what the SEC is most concerned about and not another full-blown litigation like Ripple had claimed in its opposition to the Commission’s motion. The SEC says that it won’t ask Judge Analisa Torres to give a further ruling on Ripple’s post-complaint institutional sales.
Instead, it is only concerned about taking the necessary steps to ensure that there are no new violations from Ripple. That is why it is seeking to take a look at the terms of the post-complaint institutional sales contracts, as the SEC says they are “plainly relevant” to the likelihood of repetition.
