- Ripple’s CTO David Schwartz discusses U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff’s unique take on the SEC vs. Ripple case.
- Judge Rakoff’s perspective stands in contrast to U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres’ earlier ruling on a similar case.
Divergent Courtroom Views
The legal combat between Ripple and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has been a central point of interest in the crypto space. Adding a new dimension to this saga is Ripple’s Chief Technology Officer, David Schwartz. He recently offered his insights on Twitter concerning the distinction made by U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in the lawsuit.
Addressing the crypto community’s rising speculation about a potential appeal due to Judge Rakoff’s decision, Schwartz stated,
“Rakoff’s distinction seems rooted in varied facts and the individual stages of litigation. There’s no concrete evidence to suggest Rakoff is at odds with the initial ruling or indicates any discrepancy.”
His perspective highlights the subtle differences that, in his view, make the two legal cases distinct entities.
A noteworthy detail emerging from a U.Today report is that Judge Rakoff’s judgment deviates from a prior decision set by U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres. As part of the SEC’s proceedings against Terraform Labs, Rakoff refuted a key distinction emphasized in the Ripple case verdict.
Previously, Judge Torres identified a differentiation in coins’ nature based on their mode of sale. She deemed coins sold directly to institutional investors as securities. Conversely, those coins sold to everyday consumers via secondary markets weren’t labeled as securities. This distinction, however, was not acknowledged in the Terraform Labs proceedings, prompting questions about the consistency of these judgments.
Further deepening the legal quagmire, the SEC has recently elucidated its rationale for proposing an interlocutory appeal pertaining to the “programmatic” offers and sales of Ripple’s XRP on various trading platforms. Given these shifting legal sands, the crypto fraternity and legal pundits are divided in their interpretation and forecasts.