1. Home
  2. MetaLawMan

MetaLawMan

Ripple case more crucial than ever amid Coinbase, Binance SEC crackdown: Lawyers

Whether XRP is ruled as a security or not in the Ripple case will certainly have an influence on the two latest crypto exchange lawsuits, crypto lawyers told Cointelegraph.

The judges presiding over Coinbase and Binance’s lawsuits will likely watch the results of the SEC v Ripple case closely, crypto lawyers told Cointelegraph.

Ripple has been in a legal battle with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission since December 2020, with the regulator alleging that Ripple offered unregistered securities via XRP (XRP) since 2013.

On June 6 the SEC filed a lawsuit against Coinbase also alleging that it has been offering unregistered securities. A day before it filed a lawsuit against Binance containing some similar allegations.

Lawyer James Murphy, known as “MetaLawMan” on Twitter, explained in a series of tweets on June 9 that a favorable outcome for Ripple could “undermine the entire basis for the SEC’s case” against both Coinbase and Binance.

However, he also warned that “before anyone gets too excited,” a ruling by Judge Torres in the Ripple case would not be “binding precedent” for these recent filings.

This means that the judges for the Coinbase and Binance lawsuit will “not be bound to rule the same way,” as only decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court have that influence.

Speaking to Cointelegraph, pro-XRP lawyer John Deaton believes the SEC is “well aware” that Judge Torres’ decision in the Ripple case will be published “in the very near future.”

Deaton believes that the SEC purposefully filed these new cases ahead of that result, in case the regulator faces an unfavorable outcome in the Ripple case, stating:

“I believe the SEC wanted to get those cases filed before that decision just in case it is a bad result for the SEC, possibly causing it to lose some political and legal momentum.”

Murphy believes the judge assigned to the Coinbase case, Judge Reardon, “will pay very close attention” to the determination of whether XRP is a security or not, pointing out that they serve in the same court in lower Manhattan.

He believes that Reardon would “follow the same reasoning” as to whether the 13 tokens cited in the Coinbase complaint are securities, adding that this can go “both ways,” if it’s a favorable outcome for the SEC.

XRP-friendly lawyer Bill Morgan, a consultant at Morgan Mac Lawyers, also opined that the Ripple case could have an influence over the Binance and Coinbase cases.

Morgan explained that the outcome in the Ripple lawsuit can be used as an “advantage” for either the industry or the SEC, depending on the result.

“If they lose badly in the Ripple case, they go forwards with Coinbase and Binance with a substantial judgment against them. Obviously Coinbase and Binance will use that to their advantage that the sales of XRP is not an investment contract.”

Related: Pro-XRP attorney’s phone hacked to promote LAW token

Deaton noted that he actually predicted back in 2022 that the SEC would sue Coinbase and Binance “by the way the SEC was approaching the Ripple and XRP case.”

However, he believes that the SEC will tone down its action against crypto firms once the major financial institutions adopt a greater share of the crypto market.

“Once JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs or other traditional players get a bigger slice of the crypto market then the SEC will become more reasonable” he stated.

Magazine: Pro-XRP lawyer John Deaton ‘10x more into BTC, 4x more into ETH’: Hall of Flame

Ethereum core developer departs for AI amid leadership concerns

FTX CEO fights to keep lawyers as calls for removal intensify

Numerous parties have objected to the retention of Sullivan & Cromwell as lead counsel to FTX, citing conflicts of interest and insufficient disclosures.

The CEO of crypto exchange FTX has rejected calls for its law firm Sullivan & Cromwell to be replaced as lead counsel in its bankruptcy case. 

John J. Ray III, who was appointed as the new FTX CEO on Nov. 11, filed a court motion on Jan. 17, arguing that Sullivan & Cromwell has been integral in taking control over the “dumpster fire” that was handed to him.

Ray suggested that retaining their services is in the best interest of FTX creditors, arguing:

“The advisors are not the villains in these cases. The villains are being pursued by the appropriate criminal authorities largely as a result of the information and support they are receiving at my direction from the Debtors’ advisors.”

The U.S. Trustee, Andrew R. Vara, had filed an objection to the retention of the law firm on Jan. 14, citing two separate issues.

He claimed that Sullivan & Cromwell had failed to sufficiently disclose its connections and prior work for FTX. He also pointed  out that based on publicly-available knowledge, a former partner of the law firm became a counsel to FTX 14 months prior to the bankruptcy filing.

Meanwhile, lawyer James A. Murphy, who goes by the Twitter handle MetaLawMan, suggested on Jan. 14 that the prior work it had done for FTX was not the law firm's only conflict of interest in the case.

He claimed that private equity firm Apollo Global has been buying up creditor claims from FTX customers for a fraction of their worth. Murphy notes that Apollo’s Chairman of the Board, Jay Clayton, is also employed by Sullivan & Cromwell, which has access to sensitive financial information.

The U.S. Trustee also believed that the current application to retain Sullivan & Cromwell was flawed, as they would “usurp” an independent examiner’s work and the parties would be duplicating their services at the expense of the FTX estate.

The Trustee had first called for the appointment of an independent examiner on Dec. 1, pointing to a part of the bankruptcy code which mandates the appointment of an examiner when certain debts exceed $5 million.

Related: SBF says Sullivan & Cromwell contradicted itself with insolvency claims

On Jan. 10, a bipartisan group of four U.S. representatives sent a letter to Delaware bankruptcy judge John Dorsey, requesting he approves the motion to hire an independent examiner and expressed their disbelief that the law firm could be labeled as a “disinterested” party.

Dorsey however labeled the letter as “inappropriate ex parte communication,” and said he would not take it into account when he decides whether to appoint an independent examiner or approve the retention of Sullivan & Cromwell.

Dorsey however is set to consider the objection of an FTX creditor filed on Jan. 10 when deciding whether Sullivan & Cromwell should be retained, with the creditor also suggesting that the law firm's previous work for FTX constitutes a conflict of interest.

Ethereum core developer departs for AI amid leadership concerns