Epic judge controversy in SEC’s legal battle with Ripple broken down by senior counsel of Blockchain Association
In a recent Twitter thread, Marisa Tashman Coppel, the senior counsel of the Blockchain Association, delved into the unfolding legal battle between cryptocurrency firm Ripple and the SEC.
She highlighted that the SEC must obtain consent from both Judge Torres and the 2nd Circuit to proceed with the appeal. This procedural labyrinth, as she described it, involves multiple layers of permission-seeking: a request to file a motion, which itself is a plea to be allowed to appeal. This intricate web of legal actions has been playfully dubbed as “a lot of asking – asking to file an ask to be allowed to appeal.”
The SEC’s eagerness for an appeals court to intervene sooner rather than later stems from its desire to have Judge Torres’s decision reviewed. This contrasts with the option of waiting until the trial concludes.
10/ Having said that, Rakoff was not as clear as Torres that tokens do not, in and of themselves, represent investment contracts. This is why we need a higher court to weigh in.
— Marisa Tashman Coppel (@MTCoppel) August 22, 2023
Coppel noted that while Judge Torres’s ruling favored Ripple, Judge Rakoff’s opinion in the Terraform Labs case presented a different perspective, denying a motion to dismiss. The lawyer emphasized the need to reconcile these differing viewpoints, particularly regarding the treatment of different types of investors.
The essence of the ongoing controversy lies in the question of whether tokens inherently constitute investment contracts. Tashman Coppel underscores the need for a higher court to provide clarity, echoing a sentiment shared among many in the crypto community.
Source: https://u.today/ripple-v-sec-pro-blockchain-lawyer-decodes-judges-epic-controversy