In a recent turn of events, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has moved to request the court's approval for an appeal in the ongoing Ripple case, potentially leading to a suspension of proceedings until a final decision is reached. The SEC argues that the court's ruling on XRP retail sales not constituting an investment contract has broader legal implications.
Previously, SEC head Gary Gensler had maintained that the digital assets industry required no further regulation, asserting that the existing framework was sufficient. However, this recent appeal request contradicts that stance.
The XRP community has been engaged in a vigorous debate since this news surfaced. An XRP supporter took to social media to indirectly question Marc Fagel, an ex-SEC official and specialist in securities law enforcement, asking whether the regulatory request for an interlocutory appeal might be granted. The supporter emphasized the significance of the case for the industry, citing novel legal aspects and conflicting rulings as key factors.
I agree with those points, and think they should factor in. However, the specific requirements for interlocutory appeal are hard to meet. I think the odds are against granting the request unless the court looks to the points you raise.— Marc Fagel (@Marc_Fagel) September 9, 2023
In response, Fagel acknowledged the importance of these factors but also highlighted the challenging requirements for interlocutory appeals. He expressed doubt about the request's chances of approval unless the court considers the raised concerns.
Another XRP enthusiast joined the conversation, indirectly questioning the novelty of the legal issues involved, suggesting that the SEC's enforcement actions might not be as triumphant as claimed. Fagel countered this argument by pointing out the SEC's track record of success in cryptocurrency enforcement actions. He underscored that while the SEC faced formidable battles ahead, particularly in cases involving crypto exchanges, characterizing the mixed ruling in a single case as indicative of a losing trend was an overstatement.