- The U.S. securities and exchange commission has filed a response, to Judge Analisa Torres, concerning Supplemental Authority from the Voyager and Bittner Voyager cases.
- The crypto community responds to the SEC’s letter, stating that it has little to no impact on one of the cases.
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission has filed a response to the letter from the Ripple Defendants, regarding the Supplemental Authority from the Bittner and Voyager cases. The letter which was written yesterday was sent to Analisa Torres, the Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Attorney James K. Filan, a Former Federal prosecutor, who has been updating the general public on cases involving the SEC and crypto firms Ripple, recently took to Twitter to share details of the SEC’s letter in his usual fashion.
The SEC claims that it does not apply in Ripple’s fair notice defense that the two justices relied on the lenity rule in their collective opinion in the Bittner vs U.S. case.
Excerpts of the letter address a variety of points, and the SEC further claimed that Voyager is not in any way helping the defendants as well. The letter reads:
Voyager does not help Defendants either. Voyager involved a bankruptcy plan for the potential sale of a crypto asset Conglomerates to another company, which included potential rebalancing Transactions of Voyager’s holdings of a crypto asset known as “VGX.” The SEC raised an objection Relating to the particular circumstances of the bankruptcy sue of Voyager’s assets, raising the possibility that the bankruptcy sale Could raise issues under the securities law.
#XRPCommunity #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP The SEC has filed its response to the Ripple Defendants’ Letters regarding Supplemental Authority from the Bittner and Voyager cases. pic.twitter.com/zVbPGbmMq0
— James K. Filan 🇺🇸🇮🇪 (@FilanLaw) March 23, 2023
Attorney Jeremy Hogan responds to the SEC’s letter, saying that it does nothing to change the Voyage judge’s ruling
The SEC further maintained that its objection to the proposed sale of Voyager and VGX holdings to another institution does not have any bearing on claims for the Section 5 section of the law. The letter reads.
In any event, the SEC’s objection to the proposed sale of a bankrupt company and its VGX holdings to another entity – and the bankruptcy judge’s comments on that objection – have no bearing on the Section 5 claims at issue in this case, high concern’s Defendant’s sales of XRP to the investing public. Nor do they have any bearing on Defendant’s contention that they did not receive constitutionally sufficient notice that their direct XRP sales to public investors violated the federal securities law.
Many crypto proponents have responded to the SEC’s letter. Attorney Jeremy Hogan asserts that the response from the SEC raises valid points regarding the Bittner case. He remarks that the SEC’s attempt to suggest that the Voyager Judge did not say that the crypto industry deals with an obvious uncertainty is “smirkable.”
The SEC (finally) replies to Ripple’s supplemental authority. They must be busy with other things!
Although it raises valid points re the Bittner case, it’s attempt to argue that the Voyager judge did not say that the crypto space faces glaring uncertainty is … smirkable. 🙂 https://t.co/rImSHSB6IM pic.twitter.com/ZUGMfkX2Go
— Jeremy Hogan (@attorneyjeremy1) March 23, 2023
No spam, no lies, only insights. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Hogan seems to believe that the two cases (Voyager and Bittner) are bad for the SEC and that the response from the regulatory body slightly negates Bittner’s decision, but fails to take away from the Voyage judge’s ruling.
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.
Credit: Source link
