Ripple News: SEC’s Form C Filing Sparks Backdating Controversy; Here’s The Truth
Anjali Belgaumkar18 Oct 20242 min read
Today, the SEC shared specific details about its appeal regarding the Ripple XRP lawsuit. For the past two weeks, it was clear the SEC intended to appeal, and they have now filed a Form C to outline their arguments.
What the SEC is Appealing
The SEC is focusing on Ripple’s programmatic sales of XRP on digital asset trading platforms. They are also bringing Ripple executives Brad Garlinghouse and Chris Larsen back into the case, alleging that they aided and abetted these sales. However, it’s important to note that the SEC is not appealing the court’s ruling that XRP is not a security, nor are they contesting the $125 million monetary penalty imposed on Ripple.
The fact that the SEC isn’t appealing the classification of XRP as a non-security is seen as a positive development for the market. However, there are still challenges ahead for Ripple and its executives.
Market Reaction and Legal Concerns
Following the SEC’s filing, some pro-XRP lawyers expressed concerns on social media, claiming that the SEC backdated their filing. They raised questions about the timing and ethics of the filing. However, former SEC lawyer Marc Fagel pointed out that the SEC downloaded supporting documents just before submitting the filing, which raises suspicions about whether they were fully aware of their obligations.
Attorney Bill Morgan questioned the reasoning behind waiting a day to submit the documents and suggested that if they prepared the filing on the 17th but dated it the 16th, it could indicate ethical issues. Marc agreed, questioning why they would download the documents on the 16th and delay submitting them. While there could be a filing error, there’s currently no evidence to support that theory.
Marc replied and said, “Backdating is bad. I don’t think anyone would disagree (hell, I spent several years at the SEC on backdated stock option cases). But we can speculate all sorts of things which would be bad without benefit of evidence.”
