The high octane drama continues as the upcoming trial date for another court room battle between Ripple, the maker of XRP, and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has just likely been unveiled.
On August 24, Eleanor Terrett, a journalist at Fox Business, took to X to reveal a crucial document that was shared by the SEC with Judge Torres of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, disclosing the upcoming trial might take place during the second quarter of 2024.
🚨NEW: The @SECGov has provided Judge Torres with dates they are available and unavailable for trial in the second quarter of 2024. 👇🏼 pic.twitter.com/44ipW54QpF
— Eleanor Terrett (@EleanorTerrett) August 23, 2023
Both SEC and Ripple Chalk Out Respective Calenders
As per the document, both, Ripple and SEC have signaled their intention to move forward with the appeal in Q2 2024 after the court approved the regulator’s request to file an interlocutory appeal in the case against XRP earlier this month.
In a letter to Judge Torres, Ripple pointed out an empty calendar in Q2 2024, formally informing the presiding magistrate of their unavailability from April 1 to April 14, 2024. Meanwhile, the SEC has blocked out 19 days over the quarter, approximately 21% of the period. The letter read,
“Defendant Ripple has no blackout dates and is available for trial throughout the second quarter of 2024. While, the Commission is available for trial during the months of April, May and June 2024, with the exceptions of April 15 through to April 19, May 1 through May 7, and May 27 through May 31.”
The anticipated trial commencement was targeted between April 1 and June 30, 2024. However, with blackout dates submitted from both sides, it seems the earliest start date to April 20, 2024.
Ripple Boosts Legal Defence Team
This comes hot on the heels after two prominent lawyers from the recognized law firm Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP affirmed their intent to represent Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse and executive chairman Chris Larsen in the upcoming legal battle with the SEC.
#XRPCommunity #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP Attorney Caleb J. Robertson has filed an appearance on behalf of @bgarlinghouse. https://t.co/EnqeEun3bN pic.twitter.com/VLszkcSpx3
— James K. Filan 🇺🇸🇮🇪 (@FilanLaw) August 22, 2023
The American regulatory agency had recently filed a motion regarding XRP after the regulator expressed dissatisfaction with the recent Ripple victory in which the federal judge ruled partly in favor of Ripple, stating that programmatic sales of XRP were not securities while institutional sales were.
XRP Price Rebounds
In response to the interlocutory appeal, Ripple, filed an opposition to the filing on August 17, contesting the expected appeal deviates from its previous focus.
The blockchain firm also suggested that the exceptional circumstances necessary for the interlocutory appeal do not exist, proposing several arguments in opposition to the SEC’s request.
As the tentative date for the Ripple vs SEC showndown broke out, XRP price rebounded from negative sentiment. According to CoinMarketCap, the digital token is up 0.59% in the last 24 hours to trade at $0.52. However, XRP remaind in red over the past seven days, plunging more than 10%.
Is there a need for higher court to provide clarity?
Weighing in on the legal fued, Marisa Tashman Coppel, senior counsel of the Blockchain Association, took to X to explain the “procedural labyrinth” involves multiple layers of permission-seeking such as a request to file a motion, which itself is a plea to be allowed to appeal.
2/ Judge Torres granted the SEC’s request to file a motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal. And shortly after, the SEC filed the motion for leave to appeal. That’s a lot of asking – asking to file an ask to be allowed to appeal. Woof.https://t.co/5iIcKxPT6M
— Marisa Tashman Coppel (@MTCoppel) August 22, 2023
As per a series of tweets, Coppel highlighted that while Judge Torres’s ruling favored Ripple (XRP), Judge Rakoff’s opinion in the Terraform Labs case presented a different perspective, denying a motion to dismiss that underscores the need for a higher court to provide clarity. She added,
“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.”
