thecryptobasic.com
Leading crypto payments company Ripple submits a supplemental authority in its ongoing lawsuit with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
The new filing relates to the latest court decision in the SEC v. Binance lawsuit, in which the court denied and granted in part the exchange’s motion to dismiss the SEC’s charges that certain digital asset sales constitute investment contracts.
Binance Judge Observation
The payments company pointed out that the Binance judge followed the summary judgment reasoning in the SEC v. Ripple case, applying the decision to the secondary market sales of BNB, one of the assets at issue.
Additionally, Ripple argued that the Binance judge recognized the challenges in applying traditional securities laws to intangible digital assets.
The court observed that the SEC’s approach of litigating the industry through individual litigations instead of clear regulations is inefficient.
Ripple contends that the lack of regulatory clarity observed by the Binance judge further supports its position that its actions do not warrant harsh remedies.
Following Ripple’s supplemental authority regarding the Binance ruling, the SEC is expected to file its opposition in the coming days.
Ripple Still Pushing for a Lower Penalty
It bears mentioning that Ripple’s recent brief aims to support the company’s opposition to the SEC’s pending motion for remedies.
Recall that the SEC requested a nearly $1.95 billion fine as a potential penalty for Ripple’s securities law violations. The regulator also asked the court to impose a permanent injunction on Ripple’s institutional sales of XRP. In response, Ripple argued that an injunction is unwarranted, pushing for a penalty of not more than $10 million.
Meanwhile, this is the second time Ripple has submitted a supplemental authority in the remedies litigation. Last month, the crypto payments company cited the SEC v. Terra settlement to justify its pleading for a reduced penalty.
After the SEC responds to Ripple’s latest final, the court will determine the timing of the final judgment. Notably, the final verdict could be issued at any time, with top stakeholders expecting the decision this year.