Ripple Vs. SEC Case Sees Unexpected Action With New Amicus Filing

Q: How long will it take to read this news story?

The story "Ripple Vs. SEC Case Sees Unexpected Action With New Amicus Filing" has 574 words across 31 sentences, which will take approximately 3 - 5 minutes for the average person to read.

Q: Which news outlet covered this story?

The story "Ripple Vs. SEC Case Sees Unexpected Action With New Amicus Filing" was covered 13 hours ago by Bitcoinist, a news publisher based in Hungary.

Q: How trustworthy is 'Bitcoinist' news outlet?

Bitcoinist is a fully independent (privately-owned) news outlet established in 2014 that covers mostly crypto news. The outlet is headquartered in Hungary and publishes an average of 14 news stories per day. It's most recent story was published 9 hours ago.

Q: What do people currently think of this news story?

The sentiment for this story is currently Neutral, indicating that people are not responding positively or negatively to this news.

Q: How do I report this news for inaccuracy?

You can report an inaccurate news publication to us via our contact page. Please also include the news #ID number and the URL to this story.<ul><li>News ID: #25366740</li><li>URL: https://beamstart.com/news/ripple-vs-sec-case-sees-17376373671453</li></ul>

Bitcoinist 13h ago

Ripple Vs. SEC Case Sees Unexpected Action With New Amicus Filing - Bitcoinist

Quick Summary:

The legal dispute between Ripple Labs, Inc.and the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) witnessed a surprising development as Better Markets, Inc., a prominent nonprofit dedicated to promoting public interest in financial markets, filed an amicus curiae brief on January 22.

The brief notes, “Ripple conducted a sales campaign through a wide variety of primers, brochures, market reports, public interviews, press conferences, and social media platforms…Most were publicly disseminated or publicly available.

This latest submission to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vehemently supports the SEC’s appeal against a prior district court decision, which narrowly defined the term “investment contract” and its applicability to XRP.