Ripple has objected to the SEC’s appeal regarding the recent ruling that its XRP token does not qualify as a security.
The attorneys representing Ripple Labs in its lawsuit with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have disagreed with the SEC’s appeal in the matter, suggesting the agency has not met the requirements to file an appeal.
SEC Arguments Rests on “Dissatisfaction”
Blomberg Law reports Ripple’s legal team filed documents with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, saying the SEC’s appeal against Judge Torres’ recent ruling declaring XRP does not qualify as a security for sales to retail investors rested on “dissatisfaction” with the decision.
Ripple’s legal teams argued that “exceptional circumstances required for interlocutory appeal” are absent in the SEC’s case and requested that the presiding judge deny any request for an appeal or stay.
Ripple said:
“The SEC has not even attempted to meet the standard for a stay, even after the Individual Defendants identified that omission in their pre-motion letter.”
Adding,
“The Individual Defendants write separately to oppose the SEC’s request. Ripple joins that opposition.”
The SEC said it intended to appeal Judge Analisa Torres’ decision that XRP is not a security concerning its sale to retail investors, in accordance with the SEC’s Howey Test.
Ripple CEO Says An Appeal Will Take Years
After the court partially ruled in favour of Ripple, its CEO Brad Garlinghouse commented that if the SEC should appeal to the ruling regarding retail sales, it would “further solidify” the verdict.
Garlinghouse said:
“As a matter of law, the law of the land right now is that XRP is not a security. Until there is an opportunity for the SEC to file an appeal, which would take years, frankly, we are very optimistic.”
Garlinghouse commented earlier this week criticising the SEC’s approach to crypto regulation:
“It’s sad that so many in the US crypto community have to resort to the legal process to prove this SEC is out of control and consistently wrong on the facts and the law.”
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.
Credit: Source link
