$XRP 📄 SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
Case: SEC vs. Ripple Labs, Inc.
🔹 What Ripple and the SEC requested:
Both parties jointly asked the Court to issue an indicative ruling (under Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). Specifically, they wanted the Court to:
1. Dissolve the injunction that prohibits Ripple from selling XRP as unregistered securities.
2. Reduce the civil penalty from $125 million to $50 million, based on a proposed settlement.
They argued that this was part of an agreement to settle the litigation in the District Court and the Second Circuit.
🔹 What the judge ruled:
The judge denied the request, stating:
• The motion was procedurally improper.
• The parties used the wrong legal approach — they treated it as a settlement request, but the judgment was already final.
• Under Rule 60, which governs relief from final judgments, parties must show exceptional circumstances. The parties did not do this, nor did they even cite Rule 60 in their motion.
• Therefore, even if the Court had jurisdiction, it would still deny the motion.
WHAT THIS MEANS
• The injunction remains in place — Ripple is still prohibited from selling XRP as an unregistered security.
• The $125 million civil penalty still stands — the reduction to $50 million was not approved.
• The case is not over — there are cross-appeals pending in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
• This is not a final defeat for Ripple, but this specific legal strategy failed due to procedural errors.
🧩 IS THERE A SOLUTION?
YES - Ripple and the SEC still have options:
1. Proceed with the appeals currently pending in the Second Circuit.
2. File a new motion under Rule 60, properly arguing that exceptional circumstances justify vacating the injunction and reducing the penalty.
3. Renegotiate a new settlement and follow the correct legal process for approval.
So…NO PANIC!
Case: SEC vs. Ripple Labs, Inc.
🔹 What Ripple and the SEC requested:
Both parties jointly asked the Court to issue an indicative ruling (under Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). Specifically, they wanted the Court to:
1. Dissolve the injunction that prohibits Ripple from selling XRP as unregistered securities.
2. Reduce the civil penalty from $125 million to $50 million, based on a proposed settlement.
They argued that this was part of an agreement to settle the litigation in the District Court and the Second Circuit.
🔹 What the judge ruled:
The judge denied the request, stating:
• The motion was procedurally improper.
• The parties used the wrong legal approach — they treated it as a settlement request, but the judgment was already final.
• Under Rule 60, which governs relief from final judgments, parties must show exceptional circumstances. The parties did not do this, nor did they even cite Rule 60 in their motion.
• Therefore, even if the Court had jurisdiction, it would still deny the motion.
WHAT THIS MEANS
• The injunction remains in place — Ripple is still prohibited from selling XRP as an unregistered security.
• The $125 million civil penalty still stands — the reduction to $50 million was not approved.
• The case is not over — there are cross-appeals pending in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
• This is not a final defeat for Ripple, but this specific legal strategy failed due to procedural errors.
🧩 IS THERE A SOLUTION?
YES - Ripple and the SEC still have options:
1. Proceed with the appeals currently pending in the Second Circuit.
2. File a new motion under Rule 60, properly arguing that exceptional circumstances justify vacating the injunction and reducing the penalty.
3. Renegotiate a new settlement and follow the correct legal process for approval.
So…NO PANIC!
Disclaimer: Includes third-party opinions. No financial advice. May include sponsored content. See T&Cs.
XRP
2.3756
-0.10%