Forbes writer Dr. Roslyn Layton has submitted an updated petition to the court to get permission to participate in the case and access the Hinman Speech documents.
A few weeks ago, Layton made the first proposal, demanding a release of the documents. Several people working in the bitcoin business think the legal dispute between the SEC and Ripple is the most important. Supposing Ripple is successful, it is anticipated that the commission’s attitude to regulatory matters will shift.
Layton: The documents carry high stakes in the lawsuit
James K. Filan, a lawyer who supports XRP, logged onto Twitter and tweeted the updated petition that Layton had filed. Layton has emphasized in the motion to intervene that the stakes are “extraordinarily high” not just for Ripple but also for its chief executive officers and the multitudes of XRP holders who have suffered heavy losses in the billions of dollars as a result of the “SEC’s misguided attempt at supposedly protecting them.”
According to the motion, the supposed guidance that Hinman offered in that speech has proven to be incomprehensible. Layton declared one cryptocurrency asset, ethereum (ETH), to be entirely outside the securities laws. At the same time, the SEC seeks billions of dollars in penalties from Ripple’s virtually identical offering for allegedly violating those laws.
Hinman’s position in the lawsuit
Since Hinman had a financial position in promoting ethereum to the exclusion of other currencies like XRP, this discrepancy has given rise to significant worries about possible conflicts of interest. These concerns stem from the fact that Hinman had a financial investment in promoting ethereum.
The Hinman Speech Papers will reveal whether ethereum’s SEC proponents had unwarranted interference in making Hinman’s message or whether administration officials assumed the advice offered in the speech was muddled or deviated too far from predetermined norms. These questions will be answered in the affirmative if the papers are released. As a result, providing access to the general public will be a fundamental need, as mentioned in the motion.
In addition, it said that the SEC’s argument that this Court has deemed the materials irrelevant is false. Yet, it also emphasized that the SEC had stated the papers are relevant to “the summary judgment motions” when it presented them in support of its summary judgment argument. This was one of the points that the court stressed.
