SEC & Ripple: A Courtroom Tango

by

Ah, the eternal waltz of bureaucracy 🕺. Ripple and the US SEC, those star-crossed lovers, have once again filed a joint request with the district court to renew their indicative ruling. It’s a delicate dance, really – they’re seeking an order to dissolve the injunction and reduce the penalty, all part of their grand settlement ballet.

In a court filing that’s left lawyers aghast, the parties contend that “exceptional circumstances” exist for modification of the final judgment. One can almost hear the whispers of “but what about the shift in crypto policy?” and “have you considered the desire to avoid further litigation?” 🤔

It’s a bit like a game of chess, really. The parties are asking the court to grant their request so they can move the 2nd Circuit for a limited remand to seek such relief from this court. The filing argues that these “exceptional circumstances” – including a settlement, the SEC’s shift in crypto policy, and a desire to avoid further litigation – justify modifying the final judgment. But will it be enough to sway the judge? 🤔

Lawyer Fred Rispoli, ever the skeptic, has expressed his doubts about the filing. “I don’t like this filing based on how obvious it was from Judge Torres’ last ruling that she was, shall we say, less than pleased 😒.” He added, “I recommended a long, detailed motion explaining the SEC’s failures in crypto regulation (with Commissioner declarations) and some apologies from Ripple for what it got tagged on 🤷‍♂️.”

And then there’s Sherrie, a legal expert who’s sided with Rispoli. “While I feel there is a slightly higher chance she’ll come back with something more positive – I am more concerned than I was before 😬.” If it is denied again, Ripple must then decide if they wish to continue with their cross-appeal in 2nd Circuit or not 🤔.

But the pièce de résistance comes from former SEC attorneys James Farrell and Marc Fagel. “The extraordinary circumstances mentioned are not enough 🙅‍♂️,” they claim. And Marc Fagel, ever the wit, tweeted:

Plus, I read the NML case they cite for the proposition that a change in administration supports vacating the injunction… and laughed out loud at how off-point it is 😂. If one of my law students tried that they’d be sent back to do more research 📚.

— Marc Fagel (@Marc_Fagel) June 13, 2025

Read More

2025-06-13 06:45