The United States Securities Authorities (SEC) has responded to the letters submitted by the Ripple Defendants in the District Court concerning the supplemental authority from Voyager and the Bittner cases.

The outcome of Ripple’s latest filings in the ongoing XRP lawsuit could significantly impact securing a summary judgment in the company’s favor. Accordingly, those following the case watch the United States Securities Authority’s response to gauge its potential implications on the ongoing legal proceedings.

The United States Authorities (SEC) have recently filed a statement claiming that the Bittner versus the United States Securities case and the bankruptcy strategy approval directive in Voyager Digital Holdings does not provide any grounds for rejecting their motion for a Summary decision.

Furthermore, the agency argued that neither of the cases, as mentioned earlier, includes a reasonable notice defense, making Ripple’s request for a ruling untenable. These latest developments are part of an ongoing legal battle between Ripple and the United States Securities Agency, which has been raging for some time now.

The rejection of Ripple’s attempt to secure a ruling could have far-reaching implications for the company and its prospects. The case outcome will be closely watched by the cryptocurrency industry and investors alike, as it could set a precedent for how regulatory bodies treat digital assets.

Ripple’s Request for Ruling Denied by US SEC: Implications and Analysis

According to the commission, the Ripple and Defendants’ attempt to utilize the fair notice defense in their civil action case does not correlate with the Bittner case ruling by the Supreme Court. In addition, the commission emphasized that the principle of lenity, implied in the Bittner case, is not applicable in civil enforcement.

This statement implies that the Defendants and Ripple cannot use the Bittner case as a precedent to defend their actions in the civil case. Therefore, they must find another legal argument to defeat their liability. As per the United States Securities Agency, the lenity principle mentioned in the Bittner lawsuit only applies when a criminal statute has a “grievous ambiguity or uncertainty.”

The Securities Agency further reinforced its statement by adding that it has routinely provided guidance indicating that crypto token offerings that revolve around the liquidation and offer of a capitalization agreement violate Section 5.

This event highlights that the United States Securities Agency has been consistent regarding such cases and actively taking steps to prevent such activities. Therefore, Ripple and the Defendants’ attempts to use the lenity principle to their advantage in the civil case may not be effective.

The United States Securities Authorities have cited the Voyager decision by the court, stating that it would not benefit Ripple’s case, as the Voyager case concerned an insolvency strategy for the possible liquidation of crypto tokens to another firm.

However, the Securities Authorities had already raised a rejection of the Voyager contract. Despite this, the insolvency judge decided the Securities objection in a ruling. This situation implies that the U.S. Securities Agency’s objections and rulings in similar cases may not necessarily be consistent or conclusive, and each case may be decided on its merits.

Therefore, it is still uncertain and remains to be witnessed how the Ripple case will be decided and whether the United States Securities Agency’s objections will be upheld or overruled.