SEC vs Ripple Case Has Progressed to New Heights, All Details

• Despite Ripple’s opposition, the US District Court approved the SEC’s request for an interlocutory appeal.
• Investors now await Ripple’s response to the SEC motion, with legal experts like John Deaton predicting Judge Torres may further explain her decision.

The Ripple vs SEC case continues to take new turns with both sides strongly defending their stand on the matter. Over the last month, things have been quite heated following the XRP ruling. So let’s take a look at the sequence of events.

In the previous month, Judge Analisa Torres, who presided over the case, issued a significant ruling stating that secondary XRP sales do not fall under investment contracts.

This ruling was seen as a win for Ripple, causing XRP’s price to surge nearly 100 percent and peak around $0.90. However, the cryptocurrency’s value has since dropped by around 50 percent, currently standing at $0.50 after a recent 15 percent decline on Thursday, August 17.

Nonetheless, the SEC wasn’t satisfied with the decision. Last week, the Commission formally signaled its intention to appeal the Judge’s ruling through an interlocutory brief. An interlocutory appeal arises when a ruling made by a trial court is contested while other aspects of the case are ongoing. These appeals are typically permitted only in exceptional or specific situations.

Ripple, on the other hand, opposed this move, contending that there are no extraordinary circumstances warranting a deviation from the rule that mandates the resolution of all issues before an appeal can be pursued.

Court Approves SEC’s Request for Interlocutory Appeal

Contrary to Ripple’s objection, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York has approved the SEC’s petition to submit a motion for an interlocutory appeal.

A common misconception arises when people associate XRP’s decline with this verdict, assuming that an appeal has been accepted. However, it’s crucial to understand that this step only permits the SEC to seek an interlocutory appeal; it doesn’t guarantee its automatic approval. This clarification was provided by James Filan, a defense attorney, and former federal prosecutor.

Responding to the SEC’s filing, Amicus Curiae attorney John E Deaton commented, “There is no doubt 75k XRP holders are a major reason the SEC is conceding this issue. We fought to have the judge actually write that the token itself is not the security. In fact, it was the first section in our argument in the Brief.”

Now, investors must await Ripple’s counter to the SEC motion, which might come earlier than September 1. However, the final court verdict won’t be reached until the SEC responds to any Ripple opposition by September 8.

While Judge Torres swiftly ruled on the SEC’s motion for an interlocutory appeal, the decision on this matter might take more time.

John Deaton is of the opinion that Judge Torres will seize the chance to “provide a more comprehensive explanation for her decision and make it more resistant to appeal.” He also expects her to address the references Judge Rakoff made to her ruling, which is crucial.

Ripple’s native crypto XRP has seen its price come crashing down amid the current development and SEC’s filing of the interlocutory appeal. The XRP price has tanked under $0.50, back to its pre-court-ruling levels.

Best Crypto Exchange for Everyone:

• Invest in Ripple (XRP) and 70+ cryptocurrencies and 3,000 other assets.
• 0% commission on stocks – buy in bulk or just a fraction from as little as $10.
• Copy top-performing traders in real time, automatically.
• Regulated by financial authorities including FAC and FINRA.

2.8 Million Users

Get Started

 

Crypto News Flash does not endorse and is not responsible for or liable for any content, accuracy, quality, advertising, products, or other materials on this page. Readers should do their own research before taking any actions related to cryptocurrencies. Crypto News Flash is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods, or services mentioned.