- The SEC responds to Ripple’s letter, which references the Bittner and Voyager cases, arguing that these cases do not support Ripple’s fair notice defense.
- Attorney Jeremy Hogan asserts that the SEC’s response while addressing valid points fails to diminish the impact of the Voyager judge’s ruling on the case.
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently filed a response to a letter from Ripple, which sought to highlight the Supplemental Authority from the Bittner and Voyager cases. This letter, penned just a day prior, was addressed to Analisa Torres, the Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
James K. Filan, a former federal prosecutor and attorney closely following the legal battle between the SEC and Ripple, shared details of the SEC’s letter on Twitter. The SEC argues that the lenity rule, which two justices relied upon in their joint opinion in Bittner vs the U.S., does not apply to Ripple’s fair notice defense.
The letter discusses various points, including the SEC’s stance that the Voyager case does not aid the defendants either. It states:
“Voyager does not help Defendants either. Voyager involved a bankruptcy plan for the potential sale of a crypto asset Conglomerates to another company, which included potential rebalancing Transactions of Voyager’s holdings of a crypto asset known as “VGX.” The SEC raised an objection Relating to the particular circumstances of the bankruptcy sue of Voyager’s assets, raising the possibility that the bankruptcy sale Could raise issues under the securities law.”
Attorney Jeremy Hogan’s Take on the SEC’s Letter and its Impact on the Ripple Case
The SEC insists that its objection to the proposed sale of Voyager and VGX holdings to another institution does not impact the Section 5 claims in question. The letter further reads:
“In any event, the SEC’s objection to the proposed sale of a bankrupt company and its VGX holdings to another entity – and the bankruptcy judge’s comments on that objection – have no bearing on the Section 5 claims at issue in this case, high concern’s Defendant’s sales of XRP to the investing public. Nor do they have any bearing on Defendant’s contention that they did not receive constitutionally sufficient notice that their direct XRP sales to public investors violated the federal securities law.”
Various crypto proponents have reacted to the SEC’s letter, with attorney Jeremy Hogan suggesting that the response makes valid points about the Bittner case. He finds it amusing that the SEC attempts to argue that the Voyager Judge did not acknowledge the obvious uncertainty within the crypto industry.
Hogan appears to believe that both the Voyager and Bittner cases are detrimental to the SEC’s position. While the response from the regulatory body somewhat challenges Bittner’s decision, it does not undermine the Voyage judge’s ruling.
