Ripple Makes Legal Move Toward Case Closure

For five years, the Ripple vs SEC case has crystallized tensions between crypto innovation and American regulation. On June 17, Ripple filed a strategic motion with Judge Analisa Torres, aiming to close the case without further judicial confrontation. If accepted, this initiative could accelerate the resolution of the dispute, but also redefine the relationship between blockchain companies and financial authorities in the United States. A legal precedent might be about to be set.

Ripple requests the lifting of the injunction

While the American justice system had rejected the agreement between Ripple and the SEC , the crypto company sent Judge Analisa Torres an additional two-page letter on June 17, requesting what is called a “guidance decision”. This is a formal statement indicating that the magistrate would be favorable to lifting the injunction imposed in the final judgment of August 2023.

The goal is to allow the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to remand the case back to the district court in order to formalize the agreement between Ripple and the SEC. Under the terms of this agreement, the fine imposed on Ripple would be reduced from $125 million to $50 million.

As the document states, this modification “does not alter Ripple’s substantial legal obligations”, since the company “like any other market participant, is required to comply with the law, whether an injunction is issued or not”.

This initiative fits into a well-defined procedural chain, triggered by both parties on June 12 through a joint motion filed under rules 62.1 and 60(b)(6). If Judge Torres issues the requested guidance decision, the following steps would be activated :

• A request to remand the case : the Second Circuit Court of Appeals would formally send the case back to the district court ;
• The dissolution of the injunction : the judge would remove the ban imposed on Ripple in the August 2023 judgment ;
• The enforcement of the financial agreement : the fine would officially be reduced to $50 million ;
• A coordinated withdrawal of appeals : both parties would end their respective appeal procedures.

The substantive ruling issued in July 2023, which excluded the programmatic sales of XRP, would not be modified. The issue concerns only the corrective provisions. This clarification is central to Ripple’s current strategy.

A committed strategy to align with other crypto actors

Although the motion filed formally aims to lift an injunction, it actually responds to a broad strategic will of Ripple : to harmonize its position with that of other crypto companies targeted by the SEC, such as Kraken, Coinbase, Consensys, or Robinhood, for which the regulator has recently ended prosecutions.

Attorney Fred Rispoli points out that this letter “may not be the strongest attempt, barely 1.5 pages, but it is an attempt”, before noting that it corrects three major omissions, including “the acknowledgment of the primacy of appellate jurisdictions” and “the fact that lifting the injunction does not change Ripple’s legal obligations”. He concludes: “I’m unimpressed, but more optimistic. This could be enough to tip the scales”.

This approach also aims to respond to external criticism regarding Ripple’s motivation. Additionally, Rispoli states that “detractors compare Ripple to blatant fraud cases” and overlook the many cases dropped by the SEC.

The goal is therefore not only procedural. It is also for Ripple to restore a certain legal fairness, or even to definitively close the chapter on a case that for five years has weighed on the legitimacy of its activity.

In the long run, a favorable decision from Judge Torres could close the case within a few weeks, according to attorney Bill Morgan, who recalls that the procedural schedule was suspended until August 15. If the judge grants the guidance declaration, the final steps could be completed this summer, possibly leading to an explosion in XRP . On the other hand, if she refuses, the case would return to the appeals circuit, delaying resolution. For Ripple as well as the entire crypto market, the outcome of this case would symbolize a new dynamic in relations between regulators and blockchain companies.