[ad_1]
Defense attorney James Filan shared the opposition filings to the SEC motion. The Ripple opposition filing focused on the ‘controlling question of law’ and the ‘pure question of law.’ Within the arguments section of the filing, the Ripple defense team noted,
“Because the questions the SEC presents for interlocutory appeal would require the Second Circuit to review this Court’s application of the law to the evidence adduced in summary (the parties’) judgment motion(s), an interlocutory appeal (is) inappropriate.”
To meet the requirements for an interlocutory appeal, the SEC must request the Court to review the ruling without studying the record. The Ripple defense team pointed out that the Second Circuit would also have to study the record, making an interlocutory appeal inappropriate.
Interestingly, Ripple raised the Court ruling on institutional sales, saying,
“Further, if the SEC is permitted to appeal, Defendants will seek to cross-appeal the portion of the Court’s Order finding Defendants’ Institutional Sales were sales of securities.”
Unsurprisingly, Ripple addressed the SEC reference to the SEC v Terraform Labs case, noting,
“Terraform, by contrast, accepted the SEC’s allegations that Terraform and its founder promised all purchasers – those who bought directly from Terraform or from some other source – ‘rates of returns of 19-20% on the coin owners’ initial investment.”
In contrast, Ripple made no such promises to purchasers in Programmatic Sales.
As per the Court Order, the SEC must file its response to the opposition filings by September 8. Upon the SEC filing, Judge Torres will deliberate and rule on the SEC motion for interlocutory appeal.
The Saturday Session
We expect the crypto community to slice and dice the Ripple opposition filing and speculate on the likely ruling on the SEC motion for locutory appeal.
Ripple Chief Legal Officer shared his immediate views on the filing, saying,
“Ripple just filed its opposition to the SEC’s request for an interlocutory (interim) appeal. Worth a read IMO, especially the footnotes. Fn. 5 is one of my personal favorites.”
Footnote 5 read as follows:
“The SEC states (at 16) it does not seek appellate review of any holding relating to the fact that the underlying assets here are nothing but computer code with no inherent value. The Court made no such ruling. To the contrary, undisputed evidence established XRP’s inherent utility as a bridge currency to facilitate cross-border transactions… Instead, the Court found that an XRP token is not, in itself, an investment contract because it does not, in itself, meet Howey’s requirements.”
In the SEC motion for interlocutory appeal, the SEC acknowledged that the ‘underlying assets here are nothing but computer code with no inherent value.’
Beyond the SEC v Ripple case, SEC v Coinbase (COIN) case-related updates will also need consideration. Ultimately, the outcome of the two cases will likely define the US crypto landscape. Significantly, the Court ruling on the Amicus Curiae filings to dismiss the SEC charges against Coinbase could prove pivotal. This week, presiding Judge Failla dismissed a case against Uniswap.
XRP Price Action
[ad_2]
Source link
