Ripple Labs’ attorneys insisted that the court should deny the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) motion for an interlocutory appeal because the case is still pending and such an approach isn’t consistent with legal procedure.
Ripple Labs’ attorneys sent a letter to Judge Analisa Torres of the Southern District of New York asking to dismiss the SEC’s motion for permission to file an interlocutory appeal, pointing out legal inconsistencies.
Ripple’s attorneys don’t deny that filing an interlocutory appeal could take place while other aspects of the case are still pending and only resolved in certain circumstances. However, in the context of the current case, there’s simply no need for that, and it’s more appropriate for the SEC to file an appeal after a final decision, as is common in legal practice.
Specifically, Ripple’s attorneys have made three main arguments against the SEC’s request:
- An interlocutory appeal requires new legal issues in the case that would need to be addressed, and there are none.
- The SEC’s arguments that the court’s ruling was incorrect have no direct evidence.
- Filing an appeal will only stretch out the litigation process.
According to Stuart Alderoty, Ripple’s Chief Legal Officer, the court’s deviation from standard legal procedure simply can’t be justified in given conditions because it requires “exceptional circumstances.” And there are no such circumstances.
Earlier, Ripple achieved a partial victory over the regulator regarding the status of XRP securities, after which the case moved to the next stage of consideration. However, representatives of the SEC appealed the court’s decision, filing a request for an interlocutory appeal.
