Ripple Vs Sec

In a court filing on Wednesday, the Securities and Exchange Commission has filed an  “interlocutory appeal” against the judge’s ruling regarding Ripple’s programmatic sales of XRP. The SEC is requesting permission to appeal a specific portion of the decision within the Ripple lawsuit, while the remaining aspects of the SEC’s case move forward to trial. 

Ever since the announcement of the interlocutory appeal, the XRP community has been abuzz with speculation on the potential implications for the future of XRP. Lawyer and crypto influencer Bill Morgan has provided clarification on this matter. 

Morgan’s Analysis of the SEC’s Appeal and Judge Torres’ Ruling

On Twitter, Lawyer Bill Morgan discussed the growing concerns about the potential impact of a successful SEC interlocutory appeal against Judge Torres’ ruling on XRP’s programmatic sales not being considered investment contracts. The focus is on how this could influence the Judge’s determination that XRP itself is not a security.

There is a lot of concern being expressed about what a successful interlocutory appeal by the SEC on the finding by Torres J. that programmatic sales are not investment contracts means for the Judge’s finding that XRP itself is not a security. /1

— bill morgan (@Belisarius2020) August 10, 2023

Morgan explains that he doesn’t think there’s any real chance the Judge’s view that XRP isn’t a security will be changed. This opinion by Judge Torres, which was more of an additional comment, won’t be the focus of the appeal, regardless of how much critics of Judge Torres might hope for it.

Morgan further pointed out that the legal analysis found on pages 14-15 of Judge Torres’ decision, which resulted in the determination that XRP itself isn’t a security, isn’t a mandatory component of the legal reasoning behind concluding that Ripple’s programmatic sales of XRP weren’t investment contracts.

Although the judge determined that XRP isn’t a security, her subsequent rulings on various sales categories identified by the SEC were flexible. She could have declared all categories as investment contracts, none as investment contracts, or, as it occurred, a mix of both. These options align with her initial conclusion about XRP’s security status. In essence, her decision on XRP’s nature wasn’t tied to a specific outcome regarding the sales categories.

Morgan’s Insights on Aspects Unlikely to Be Reconsidered in Appeal

Morgan points out that excluding Part A from pages 14-15 wouldn’t affect the decision’s coherence. He suggests the Judge could have started directly with Part B, as Part A seems like a digression.

If you read the decision without Part A on pages 14-15, you can see that if that section was removed or had never been included, the decision wouldn’t seem unusual or incomplete. The Judge could have started her ‘Anslysis ‘ with what is part B. Part A. is almost a digression /6

— bill morgan (@Belisarius2020) August 10, 2023

Importantly, the reasoning on pages 14-15, considered obiter by Morgan, wasn’t vital to the conclusions on institutional and non-institutional sales being investment contracts or not. Thus, it’s not a key part of the necessary legal rationale for those conclusions.

Morgan underlines that this won’t need reconsideration in an appeal against the Judge’s findings on programmatic sales and other non-institutional sales.

Amidst the Ripple lawsuit turbulence, Bill Morgan’s insights bring clarity to the SEC’s appeal impact. As the interlocutory appeal unfolds, the ripple effect on XRP’s future remains a topic of intense discussion within the community.

Was this writing helpful?

No Yes

Photo of Nidhi Kolhapur

Nidhi Kolhapur

Nidhi is a Certified Digital Marketing Executive and Passionate crypto Journalist covering the world of alternative currencies. She shares the latest and trending news on Cryptocurrency and Blockchain.