[ad_1]
\n<\/p>\n
Defense attorney James Filan shared<\/a> the opposition filings to the SEC motion. The Ripple opposition filing focused on the \u2018controlling question of law\u2019 and the \u2018pure question of law.\u2019 Within the arguments section of the filing, the Ripple defense team noted,<\/p>\n \u201cBecause the questions the SEC presents for interlocutory appeal would require the Second Circuit to review this Court\u2019s application of the law to the evidence adduced in summary (the parties\u2019) judgment motion(s), an interlocutory appeal (is) inappropriate.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n 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.<\/p>\n Interestingly, Ripple raised the Court ruling on institutional sales, saying,<\/p>\n \u201cFurther, if the SEC is permitted to appeal, Defendants will seek to cross-appeal the portion of the Court\u2019s Order finding Defendants\u2019 Institutional Sales were sales of securities.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Unsurprisingly, Ripple addressed the SEC reference to the SEC v Terraform Labs case, noting,<\/p>\n \u201cTerraform, by contrast, accepted the SEC\u2019s allegations that Terraform and its founder promised all purchasers \u2013 those who bought directly from Terraform or from some other source \u2013 \u2018rates of returns of 19-20% on the coin owners\u2019 initial investment.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In contrast, Ripple made no such promises to purchasers in Programmatic Sales.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Ripple Chief Legal Officer shared his immediate views on the filing, saying<\/a>,<\/p>\n \u201cRipple just filed its opposition to the SEC\u2019s request for an interlocutory (interim) appeal. Worth a read IMO, especially the footnotes. Fn. 5 is one of my personal favorites.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Footnote 5 read as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cThe 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\u2019s inherent utility as a bridge currency to facilitate cross-border transactions\u2026 Instead, the Court found that an XRP token is not, in itself, an investment contract because it does not, in itself, meet Howey\u2019s requirements.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In the SEC motion for interlocutory appeal, the SEC acknowledged that the \u2018underlying assets here are nothing but computer code with no inherent value.\u2019<\/p>\n Beyond the SEC v Ripple case, SEC v Coinbase (COIN<\/a>) 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<\/a> to dismiss the SEC charges against Coinbase could prove pivotal. This week, presiding Judge Failla dismissed a case against Uniswap.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
The Saturday Session<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
XRP Price Action<\/h2>\n