Ripple-SEC Settlement Faces New Legal Hurdles After Indicative Ruling Denied
The post Ripple-SEC Settlement Faces New Legal Hurdles After Indicative Ruling Denied appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Judge Torres’s denial of Rule 62.1 motion raises questions on settlement enforceability. SEC may need a new vote if Rule 60 motion is pursued outside approved procedures. Failure to follow Clause 1 could void the Ripple-SEC agreement due to lack of alternatives. Uncertainty has surfaced over the future of the Ripple and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) settlement agreement following a decision by Judge Analisa Torres. The court’s denial of a motion for an indicative ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 has triggered renewed legal analysis about the procedural validity and enforceability of the agreement. Attorney Bill Morgan has outlined several legal and procedural concerns in a public statement, questioning how the failure to secure the indicative ruling may impact the agreement and the parties’ roles. These concerns now shift focus to the possibility of filing a motion under Rule 60 and the authority granted by SEC commissioners during the settlement process. Rule 60 Motion Raises Fresh Questions The primary question now is whether the parties involved can initiate a new motion under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule allows for relief from a judgment or order under limited and exceptional conditions. In this case, the original settlement outlined a Rule 62.1 process, which the court has declined to advance. Morgan asked whether this failure opens the door for a Rule 60 motion or whether the specific process approved by the SEC’s commissioners is binding. Since Rule 60 motions typically demand a higher standard of proof, including demonstrating exceptional circumstances, it remains uncertain if such a path would be viable under current conditions. SEC Approval Scope in Question Morgan also highlighted ambiguity regarding the vote by the five SEC commissioners. While the commissioners approved the original settlement agreement, including a Rule 62.1…
The post Ripple-SEC Settlement Faces New Legal Hurdles After Indicative Ruling Denied appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com.
Judge Torres’s denial of Rule 62.1 motion raises questions on settlement enforceability. SEC may need a new vote if Rule 60 motion is pursued outside approved procedures. Failure to follow Clause 1 could void the Ripple-SEC agreement due to lack of alternatives. Uncertainty has surfaced over the future of the Ripple and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) settlement agreement following a decision by Judge Analisa Torres. The court’s denial of a motion for an indicative ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 has triggered renewed legal analysis about the procedural validity and enforceability of the agreement. Attorney Bill Morgan has outlined several legal and procedural concerns in a public statement, questioning how the failure to secure the indicative ruling may impact the agreement and the parties’ roles. These concerns now shift focus to the possibility of filing a motion under Rule 60 and the authority granted by SEC commissioners during the settlement process. Rule 60 Motion Raises Fresh Questions The primary question now is whether the parties involved can initiate a new motion under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule allows for relief from a judgment or order under limited and exceptional conditions. In this case, the original settlement outlined a Rule 62.1 process, which the court has declined to advance. Morgan asked whether this failure opens the door for a Rule 60 motion or whether the specific process approved by the SEC’s commissioners is binding. Since Rule 60 motions typically demand a higher standard of proof, including demonstrating exceptional circumstances, it remains uncertain if such a path would be viable under current conditions. SEC Approval Scope in Question Morgan also highlighted ambiguity regarding the vote by the five SEC commissioners. While the commissioners approved the original settlement agreement, including a Rule 62.1…
What's Your Reaction?
