🔥 【ETF 杠杆代币交易嘉年华】火热进行中!总奖池 $100,000,单人最高 $5,000
📅 活动时间:2025/06/16 08:00 - 2025/07/02 08:00(UTC+8)
⏳ 倒计时:仅剩 7天,速来参与!
🚀 活动一:新用户专属奖池 20,000 USDT
✅ 新手福利:活动期间,首次交易任意一笔 ETF,立领 5 USDT
✅ 进阶奖励:ETF 交易量 满 500 USDT,再领 5 USDT
💸 活动二:交易激励奖池 80,000 USDT
🏆 交易越多,奖励越高!单人最高奖励 $5,000
📢 立即行动,锁定收益
👉 立即参与:https://www.gate.com/campaigns/1180
#ETF交易 # #杠杆代币#
Breaking: Judge Torres Denies Ripple And SEC’s Joint Motion In XRP Lawsuit
In a major development, Judge Analisa Torres has ruled on Ripple and the SEC’s joint motion for an indicative ruling, denying the request from both parties. This provides a setback for both parties, which had earlier reached a settlement agreement in the long-running XRP lawsuit.
Advertisement Advertisement
Judge Torres Denies Request For Indicative Ruling In XRP Lawsuit
In an X post, defense attorney James Filan revealed that Judge Torres has denied Ripple and the SEC’s joint motion for an indicative ruling. The court refused to grant both requests to dissolve the permanent injunction against the crypto firm and to reduce the monetary penalty.
This ruling comes just two weeks after Ripple and the SEC refiled their motion for an indicative ruling after Judge Torres rejected the first one on procedural grounds. However, this time around, the Judge indicated that the arguments from both parties didn’t show ‘exceptional circumstances’ to warrant an indicative ruling.
Judge Torres noted that the rule, which provides for District courts to only modify judgments in extraordinary circumstances, requires strict interpretation if the justice system is to preserve the finality of judgments. She also cited a Supreme Court ruling that emphasized that a court’s judgment isn’t just merely the property of private litigants but one that “belongs to the legal community as a whole.”
The judge suggested that a settlement agreement between Ripple and the SEC in the XRP lawsuit isn’t sufficient grounds to modify her judgment. She also alluded to the fact that the Supreme Court had declared that a final judgment should stand unless the court concludes that the public interest would be served by a “vacatur.”
Advertisement
✓ Share:
