The latest agreement between Ripple and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has caused speculation. Ripple’s Letter Motion to Seal Exhibits could have a positive impact on the price of XRP, which was traded at $1.04 recently.
The price of XRP experienced a massive dump due to the filing of the lawsuit at the beginning of the year. Due to the ongoing lawsuit, crypto exchanges in the United States were unable to provide XRP on their platforms. However, a new deal may open the way for relisting.
Positive news could trigger the XRP bull run!
The lawsuit between the SEC and Ripple has been going on for about 8 months and the parties still could not reach a conclusion. Therefore, the positive market mood and outlook towards the lawsuit could have a potential bullish effect on the XRP price. Defendant Ripple currently has more advantage in the XRP lawsuit against the SEC. XRP managed to get public support against the SEC. And it also offered an honorable exit to the SEC from the case.
Ripple’s Motion to Seal has generated speculation of compromise, particularly because of the ex-SEC director William Hinman’s deposition documentation. In a recent development, Ripple has offered to seal the necessary parts of William Hinman’s testimony to win the case.
Thus, Ripple’s effort to protect the SEC officials named in the case gave rise to the deal rumors. However, Ripple still defends itself by saying that the sealing move is to prevent the XRP lawsuit from becoming just a trend plug.
A letter requesting a seal motion reads as follows:
“Each discovery materials exchanged between the parties through “compulsory process to facilitate orderly preparation for trial, not to educate or titillate the public.”
SEC’s Misuse of DPP
Following the preliminary motion to seal, Ripple’s attorney submitted a motion challenging the SEC’s claim of improper negotiation deliberative process privilege (DPP). He said the misuse of the DPP by the SEC can be filed from the SEC over pending documents related to the case. Ripple claims that the plaintiff did not produce data despite two consecutive orders.