🔥 【ETF 槓杆代幣交易嘉年華】火熱進行中!總獎池 $100,000,單人最高 $5,000
📅 活動時間:2025/06/16 08:00 - 2025/07/02 08:00(UTC+8)
⏳ 倒計時:僅剩 7天,速來參與!
🚀 活動一:新用戶專屬獎池 20,000 USDT
✅ 新手福利:活動期間,首次交易任意一筆 ETF,立領 5 USDT
✅ 進階獎勵:ETF 交易量 滿 500 USDT,再領 5 USDT
💸 活動二:交易激勵獎池 80,000 USDT
🏆 交易越多,獎勵越高!單人最高獎勵 $5,000
📢 立即行動,鎖定收益
👉 立即參與: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:
