On July 13, 2023, Ripple received a significant boost following a ruling by United States judge Analisa Torres, who determined that the company’s XRP token was not considered a security in its legal dispute with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
With the final verdict still pending and its potential impact on the broader cryptocurrency market, this case continues to draw substantial interest within the digital asset sphere.
It’s important to note that this ruling did not signify the case’s conclusion but instead set off a sequence of events involving both parties. In light of this, Finbold has compiled a list of three key events that have transpired since the initial ruling in this case.
Picks for you
#1. SEC’s interlocutory appeal
As anticipated, the SEC filed a motion, requesting the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York to certify for interlocutory appeal. The agency argued that the case was ‘wrongly decided.’ The SEC contended that opting for an interlocutory appeal rather than a conventional one is imperative due to the belief that swift appellate resolution of the two rulings enhances the likelihood that this court can comprehensively address the remedies for all potential violations for which Ripple and its executives may ultimately be found liable.
Legal representatives for the SEC asserted that these rulings could exert a “significant influence on numerous ongoing legal proceedings.” It is worth noting that the regulator is pursuing cases related to securities laws against notable entities like Coinbase and Binance, among others.
“The Programmatic Sales ruling could have significant persuasive value in various pending SEC enforcement actions where issuers offered and sold crypto assets indiscriminately to public investors over crypto asset trading platforms, including cases pending in this district,” the SEC said.
#2. Objection to the appeal
Ripple objected to the regulator’s decision to pursue an interlocutory appeal, arguing that no substantial legal issues are at stake and that an appeal would not accelerate the overall case resolution. Ripple further stated that the SEC has not demonstrated that other judges would disagree with the ruling or that an appeal would hasten the case’s conclusion, which are prerequisites for the judge to approve an appeal.
It is worth noting that an interlocutory appeal happens when a trial court decision is appealed while the case is ongoing, but it’s only permitted in specific circumstances. Ripple’s legal team suggested that the SEC should wait for a final judgment and a complete record before seeking an appeal.
However, the SEC fired back and asked the court not to consider Ripple’s objection, citing complex legal issues related to the court’s interpretation of the law, particularly the Howey test, necessitating a thorough review. The SEC requested the court to approve its interlocutory appeal motion and “suspend further proceedings until the appeal is resolved.”
“The SEC respectfully requests certification for appellate review now because the issues raised by the Court’s order on summary judgment (D.E. 874) (‘Order’) present precisely the kinds of ‘knotty legal problems’ that led Congress to provide for interlocutory review,” the agency stated.
#3. Trial date against Ripple executive
In addition to the lawsuit against Ripple, the SEC also initiated legal proceedings against the company’s top executives, including CEO Brad Garlinghouse and co-founder Chris Larsen. The presiding judge in this case has indicated her plan to arrange a jury trial commencing in the second quarter of 2024. She asked both prosecutors and defense attorneys to provide blackout dates for the trial but is targeting a start date between April 1 and June 30, 2024.
Considering the events highlighted, both Ripple and the SEC are now preparing for the second phase of the case, which is expected to provide comprehensive clarity regarding the status of XRP and the classification of securities within the broader cryptocurrency market. Simultaneously, the value of XRP remains closely tied to the case outcome.
