- Bill Morgan has asked Judge Torres not to grant a recent appeal by the SEC.
- The lawyer pushed for proposal denial based on the manner of approach.
- The SEC is seeking to certify the Court’s holding over Defendants’ “Programmatic” offers and sales of XRP.
Renowned lawyer and digital assets enthusiast, Bill Morgan, has asked Judge Analisa Torres, the United States District Judge of the Southern District of New York, not to grant a recent request by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Morgan asked for the proposal to be denied based on how the SEC approached the matter in question.
Morgan suggested the denial of the proposal while responding to a post by James K. Filan, a defense lawyer, on X (formerly Twitter). Filan posted about the SEC filing a letter outlining its basis for filing a Motion for Leave to File an Interlocutory Appeal regarding “Programmatic” offers and sales to XRP buyers over trading platforms and Ripple’s “Other Distributions.”
According to Filan, the SEC is seeking a stay of proceedings pending appeal in its case against Ripple. Filan referred to this latest filing by the SEC as “not unexpected”. He referred to a post he made in December 2022, predicting this exact outcome where the SEC would ask to stay the judgment pending its appeal to the Second Circuit.
Morgan kicked against this move by the SEC, noting that they waited until the judge made the pre-trial orders before filing a motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal and to stay the pre-trial orders she just made. For that reason, he is of the opinion that the judge does not grant them leave.
On Wednesday, August 9, 2023, the SEC sent a letter to Judge Torres seeking to certify the Court’s holding that Defendants’ “Programmatic” offers and sales to XRP buyers over crypto asset trading platforms and Ripple’s “Other Distributions” in exchange for labor and services did not involve the offer or sale of securities under SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946).
The SEC noted that the scenario warrants interlocutory review, and the two issues involve controlling questions of law on which there is substantial ground for differences of opinion, as reflected by an intra-district split that has already developed.
Disclaimer: The information presented in this article is for informational and educational purposes only. The article does not constitute financial advice or advice of any kind. Coin Edition is not responsible for any losses incurred as a result of the utilization of content, products, or services mentioned. Readers are advised to exercise caution before taking any action related to the company.
