Ripple vs SEC: Court Grants Pro-Ripple Lawyers Permission to Submit a Legal Brief

0
62
Ripple vs SEC: Court Grants Pro-Ripple Lawyers Permission to Submit a Legal Brief
Ripple vs SEC: Court Grants Pro-Ripple Lawyers Permission to Submit a Legal Brief

As the legal battle between the Cross-border payment company and the regulator keeps escalating, the court grants pro-Ripple lawyers permission to submit a brief regarding the case.

John E Deaton and Six Movant Grant Permission “amicus curiae” Status

The news was announced by crypto law today. The XRP lawsuit reveals that the court has granted lawyer John E Deaton amicus curiae status and has expressly supported the defendant in the lawsuit. 

Together with the six movants who filed motions as defendants in the XRP lawsuit for intervention following Article 24 of the Federal Code of Civil Procedure. The six Movants are Jordan Deaton, James Lamonte, Tyler Lamonte, Mya Lamonte, Mitchell Mckenna, and Kristiana Warner.

With the help of the amicus curiae status, lawyer John E. Deaton will raise brief legal questions and concerns on behalf of individual stakeholders. In addition, the court rejected Movants’ request for intervention, but its restoration of exclusive amicus curiae status will prove beneficial to the court in discussing the decisive proposal.

“Activists should be allowed to appear in their personal capacity as friends of the court in this operation. Therefore, Movants should be allowed to assist the court by briefly presenting the legal issues related to the case previously approved by the court. The court believes that the admission deadline for critical motions is most beneficial, but additional motions may be requested or denied at your own discretion, “the court said.

Will The Recent Court Order Favour Ripple?

With the interests of the individual Movants and the XRP community aligning, the recent court order has sparked speculation that the final verdict will favour the accused. The US Securities and Exchange Commission claimed the status of XRP and accused the defendant of violating securities laws instead of selling those digital assets. Movants countered the plaintiff’s complaint, claiming that if XRP sales were flagged as illegal, the list of culprits would go well beyond the defendant.

The individual Movants alleged that the SEC’s complaint was a direct attack at XRP holders by misrepresenting the use of XRP by XRP holders and the link between XRP and the defendant. Movants argued that the US Securities and Exchange Commission alleged that “XRP’s own nature makes it a security” and concluded that “anyone who sells XRP in the world violates Article 5.” Therefore, the outcome of this lawsuit will affect the XRP holder’s XRP.