Crypto lawyers are seemingly divided over the significance of a recent court order from Judge Analisa Torres, who denied the United States Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) plan to file an interlocutory appeal against Ripple.
While many lawyers and commentators chalked the decision up as a substantive win for Ripple in its case against the regulator, other legal experts have urged the public to temper their enthusiasm.
Torres denied the SEC’s interlocutory appeal based on the grounds of her previous ruling, which sided partially in favor of Ripple. She said this did not necessitate an order that “involved a controlling question of law,” which is an essential condition for approving an interlocutory appeal.
Breaking: Judge rejects SEC’s motion to file an appeal against Ripple ruling
An interlocutory appeal is simply an appeal made during a trial, which, in this case, is the proceedings by the SEC against Ripple, its CEO Brad Garlinghouse and executive chairman Christian Larsen.
Bill Hughes, a lawyer at blockchain firm ConsenSys, told Cointelegraph that the rejection of the SEC’s appeal was something he’d expected, explaining that it’s not typical for such an appeal to make it through during this part of a trial.
On the other hand, crypto lawyer Jeremey Hogan was more confident that the decision was a “disaster” for the SEC. Hughes, however, disagreed.
The SEC’s motion for interlocutory appeal DENIED.
Which means, the case either goes to trial in April, or goes away.
AND, this Order allowed the Judge to explain parts of her ruling even better, making appeal that much harder for the SEC to win.
“The court says that [Torres’] ruling is limited to this case. Frankly, that’s fine for the SEC if they don’t mind one case not telling you very much about the next,” Hughes explained.
Similarly, Gabriel Shapiro, general counsel at Delphi Labs, warned crypto advocates to temper their excitement over the ruling, explaining that the decision wasn’t an all-out loss for the SEC.
In an Oct. 3 post on X (formerly Twitter), Shapiro said that while the SEC’s motion for an appeal had been denied in this instance, the SEC could still appeal the case later.
don’t get too excited about the denial of SEC’s interlocutory appeal in Ripple…it doesn’t mean the SEC “lost its appeal”…it means that if the SEC wants to appeal it has to appeal everything at once after the trial…
still, some useful clarifications of Torres’ opinion
“It doesn’t mean the SEC ‘lost its appeal’… it means that if the SEC wants to appeal it has to appeal everything at once after the trial,” he said.
Still, as Scott Chamberlain, an entrepreneurial fellow at the ANU College of Law, explained, the decision may prove more significant for Ripple than others are willing to give credit for.
“Yes, the SEC can appeal later, but it is stuck with [a] shitty factual record that makes successful appeal much more difficult,” Chamberlain wrote.
Chamberlain added that any future appeal from the commission would most likely be heard in the Supreme Court as there are no major legal questions left to decide. All that’s left is the “difficult but ultimately mundane task of applying known law to a complicated fact matrix that doesn’t support the SECs claim.”
“The law didn’t change. SEC failed to prove its case. Now it has to push shit uphill with a pointy stick if it wants to win.”
Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse also added his take to the mix, taking to social media to express his enthusiasm.
The SEC’s request to file an interlocutory appeal is DENIED. I’m not a lawyer but it seems the Court just told the SEC: You asked me to apply the “Howey” test, I did, and like it or not, you lost. https://t.co/0E4MS0iuRYpic.twitter.com/bkhCpum17n
As set out in the most recent court order, the trial on the matter is currently scheduled for April 23, 2024. If the SEC wishes to lodge an appeal, it must do so after the trial has concluded.
The controversial assisted dying bill is still very much alive, having received a second reading in the House of Lords without a vote.
But that doesn’t tell the whole story. Day two of debate on the bill in the Lords was just as passionate and emotional as the first, a week earlier.
And now comes the hard part for supporters of Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, as opponents attempt to make major changes in the months ahead.
The Lords’ chamber was again packed for the debate, which this time began at 10am and lasted nearly six hours. In all, during 13 hours of debate over two days, nearly 200 peers spoke.
According to one estimate, over both days of the debate only around 50 peers spoke in favour of the bill and considerably more than 100 against, with only a handful neutral.
The bill proposes allowing terminally ill adults in England and Wales with fewer than six months to live to apply for an assisted death. Scotland’s parliament has already passed a similar law.
Image: Pro-assisted dying campaigners outside parliament earlier this month. Pic: PA
In a safeguard introduced in the Commons, an application would have to be approved by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior lawyer and psychiatrist.
The bill’s sponsor in the Lords, Charlie Falconer, said while peers have “a job of work to do”, elected MPs in the Commons should have the final decision on the bill, not unelected peers.
One of the most contentious moments in the first day of debate last Friday was a powerful speech by former Tory prime minister Theresa May, who said the legislation was a “licence to kill” bill.
That claim prompted angry attacks on the former PM when the debate resumed from Labour peers, who said it had left them dismayed and caused distress to many terminally ill people.
The former PM, daughter of a church of England vicar, had claimed in her speech that the proposed law was an “assisted suicide bill” and “effectively says suicide is OK”.
But opening the second day’s debate, Baroness Thornton, a lay preacher and health minister in Tony Blair’s government, said: “People have written to me in the last week, very distressed.
“They say things such as: ‘We are not suicidal – we want to live – but we are dying, and we do not have the choice or ability to change that. Assisted dying is not suicide’.”
Throughout the criticism of her strong opposition to the bill, the former PM sat rooted to her seat, not reacting visibly but looking furious as her critics attacked her.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:06
Assisted Dying: Reflections at the end of life
There was opposition to the bill, too, from grandees of the Thatcher and Major cabinets. Lord Deben, formerly John Gummer and an ex-member of the Church of England synod, said the bill “empowers the state to kill”.
And Lord Chris Patten, former Tory chairman, Hong Kong governor and Oxford University chancellor, said it was an “unholy legislative mess” and could lead to death becoming the “default solution to perceived suffering”.
Day two of the debate also saw an unholy clash between Church of England bishops past and present, with former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey claiming opponents led by Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell were out of touch with public opinion.
While a large group of bishops sat in their full robes on their benches, Lord Carey suggested both the Church and the Lords would “risk our legitimacy by claiming that we know better than both the public” and the Commons.
“Do we really want to stand in the way of this bill?” he challenged peers. “It will pass, whether in this session or the next. It has commanding support from the British public and passed the elected House after an unprecedented period of scrutiny.”
But Archbishop Cottrell hit back, declaring he was confident he represented “views held by many, not just Christian leaders, but faith leaders across our nation in whom I’ve been in discussion and written to me”.
And he said the bill was wrong “because it ruptures relationships” and would “turbocharge” the agonising choices facing poor and vulnerable people.
Image: A campaigner in opposition of the bill. Pic: PA
One of the most powerful speeches came from former Tory MP Craig Mackinlay, awarded a peerage by Rishi Sunak after a dramatic Commons comeback after losing his arms and legs after a bout of sepsis.
He shocked peers by revealing that in Belgium, terminally ill children as young as nine had been euthanised. “I’m concerned we want to embed an option for death in the NHS when its modus operandi should be for life,” he said.
And appearing via video link, a self-confessed “severely disabled” Tory peer, Kevin Shinkwin, was listened to in a stunned silence as he said the legislation amounted to the “stuff of nightmares”.
He said it would give the state “a licence to kill the wrong type of people”, adding: “I’m the wrong type. This bill effectively puts a price on my head.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:09
Assisted Dying vote: Both sides react
After the debate, Labour peer and former MP Baroness Luciana Berger, an opponent of the bill, claimed a victory after peers accepted her proposal to introduce a special committee to examine the bill and report by 7 November.
“The introduction of a select committee is a victory for those of us that want proper scrutiny of how these new laws would work, the massive changes they could make to the NHSand how we treat people at the end of their lives,” she told Sky News.
“It’s essential that as we look at these new laws we get a chance to hear from those government ministers and professionals that would be in charge of creating and running any new assisted dying system.”
After the select committee reports, at least four sitting Fridays in the Lords have been set aside for all peers – a Committee of the whole house – to debate the bill and propose amendments.
Report stage and third reading will follow early next year, then the bill goes back to the Commons for debate on any Lords amendments. There’s then every chance of parliamentary ping pong between the two Houses.
Kim Leadbeater’s bill may have cleared an important hurdle in the Lords. But there’s still a long way to go – and no doubt a fierce battle ahead – before it becomes law.
The UK and Irish governments have agreed a new framework to address the legacy of the Northern Ireland Troubles.
The framework, announced by Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn and the Irish deputy prime minister, Simon Harris, at Hillsborough Castle on Friday, replaces the controversial Legacy Act, introduced by the Conservative government.
“I believe that this framework, underpinned by new co-operation from both our governments, represents the best way forward to finally make progress on the unfinished business of the Good Friday Agreement,” said Mr Benn.
He added that it would allow the families of victims killed during violence in Northern Ireland between the 1960s and 1990s, to “find the answers they have long been seeking”.
The proposed framework includes a dedicated Legacy Commission to investigate deaths during the Troubles, a resumption of inquests regarding cases from the conflict which were halted by the Legacy Act.
There will also be a separate truth recovery mechanism, the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, jointly funded by London and Dublin.
“Dealing with the legacy of the Troubles is hard, and that is why it has been for so long the unfinished business of the Good Friday Agreement,” said Mr Benn.
More on Politics
Related Topics:
Mr Harris described the framework as a “night and day improvement” on the previous act. Scrapping the Legacy Act, introduced in 2023, was a Labour government pledge.
What this means
A section of the Legacy Act offered immunity from prosecution for ex-soldiers and militants who cooperate with a new investigative body. This provision was ruled incompatible with human rights law.
The 2023 law was opposed by all political parties in Northern Ireland, including pro-British and Irish nationalist groups.
Image: The agreement replaces a controversial law. (Pic: PA)
The Irish government, which brought a legal challenge against Britain at the European Court of Human Rights, also opposed it.
Both governments said the new plans will ensure it is possible to refer cases for potential prosecutions.
Image: Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government had pledged to improve relations with Ireland. (Pic: PA)
It will ‘take time’ to win families’ confidence
Irish Foreign Minister, Simon Harris, said in a statement that the framework could deliver on Ireland’s two tests of being human rights-compliant and securing the support of victims’ families, if implemented in good faith.
He added that winning the confidence of victims’ families would take time.
Dublin will revisit its legal challenge against Britain if the tests are met, it said.
Restoring strained relations
The UK’s Labour government had sought to reset relations with Ireland, after they were damaged by the process of Britain leaving the European Union.
The Conservative government had defended its previous approach, arguing prosecutions were unlikely to lead to convictions, and that it wanted to draw a line under the conflict.
A number of trials have collapsed in recent years, but the first former British soldier to be convicted of an offence since the peace deal was given a suspended sentenced in 2023.
The former SEC chair and Paul Atkins, the current head of the agency, both made media appearance this week to address significant policies proposed by US President Donald Trump.