Ripple is intensifying its legal battle with the SEC over the categorization, timing and disclosure of expert testimony. Andrea Fox’s statement challenges her categorization and timing of disclosure. Ripple cites legal precedents to support its claim. Accordingly, he challenges the SEC’s stance on disclosure of expert testimony.
Ripple counters: Expert testimony or summary evidence?
cryptokoin.comAs you follow from , we are approaching the end of the most critical case of the crypto world. Ripple penned a long letter to prove its application, which it initially filed on April 22, 2024. Thus, he took the court battle with the SEC to new ground. This move aims to eliminate expert testimony submitted by the SEC, which Ripple deemed inappropriate. Ripple’s move follows the SEC’s letter of objection dated April 29.
Ripple’s main dispute revolves around Andrea Fox’s Statement, which the SEC claims is an expert testimony rather than merely summary evidence as the SEC claims. According to Ripple, Fox’s statement involves evaluating financial statements and making inferences that go beyond basic arithmetic. She claims that she applied special accounting knowledge for this. Ripple argues that this clearly meets the requirements of an expert witness as set forth in the Federal Rule of Evidence. Defense lawyer James K. Filan, who is following the case, announced the development with the following statements:
Ripple filed a letter in support of the petition to object to new expert materials dated April 22, 2024 and in response to the SEC’s petition to object dated April 29, 2024.
The SEC, on the other hand, says Fox provided a simple summary of Ripple’s large amount of financial data. He also argues that this, too, does not require the significant expertise inherent in expert witnesses. The SEC says Fox’s analysis was mostly basic calculations designed to make sense of the data. He also claims that he does not provide expert advice on financial matters.
Timing and disclosure disputes
Another major concern raised by Ripple is the timing of the Fox Declaration. Ripple accuses the SEC of not naming Fox as an expert witness in court-mandated programs. This is done to ensure that both parties have time to react to the evidence given during the trial. Ripple states that this carelessness prevented them from fully cross-examining. He also insists it undermines the fairness of the trial process.
The SEC counters this argument, arguing that Fox does not need to be certified as an expert because he is a summary witness based on pre-existing records and simple calculations.
Precedents and legal interpretations
Ripple’s response brief cites a number of lawsuits. These cases show courts striking down statements like Fox’s as undisclosed expert testimony disguised as summaries of fact. Ripple lawyers argue that previous decisions support their stance that failure to properly classify and disclose the nature of a witness’s testimony could mislead both the opposing party and the court, thus justifying the exclusion of such statements.
The SEC disagrees with the plaintiffs’ view. He compares this case to other cases where summary witnesses were admitted without the need for a formal expert statement. The SEC emphasizes that the procedural environment and the content of the statement determine the necessity of these disclosures. The outcome of this request is important for the case. Because it is possible that the upcoming lawsuit between Ripple and the SEC may have serious consequences. If Ripple succeeds in removing the Fox Statement from the record, it could potentially limit the SEC’s ability to assert certain penalties implied by the disputed calculations in Fox’s statement. On the other hand, a successful filing would strengthen the SEC’s case by providing a basis for its claims against Ripple.
To be informed about the latest developments, follow us twitter‘in, Facebookin and InstagramFollow on and Telegram And YouTube Join our channel!