XRP's attorney, Mark Feigel, maintained that XRP's case is not over yet as the SEC still needs to vote to dismiss its appeal.
Despite Ripple's withdrawal of its cross-appeal against the SEC, the protracted XRP lawsuit is far from over.
While the $XRP community celebrates the long-awaited settlement of the Ripple vs. SEC case, attorney Mark Feigel emphasized that the case will not be completely over until the commission rejects its appeal.
Why isn't the XRP lawsuit over yet?
Former SEC attorney Mark Feigel has offered the opposite view to happy claims that the $XRP lawsuit is over, saying that the case is far from settled.
According to him, Ripple's lawsuit will continue until the SEC votes to dismiss his appeal.
However, in an X post, he expressed confidence that the SEC will eventually dismiss its appeal, resulting in a final decision on the case.
The development has raised questions about the scope of the SEC's previous vote, particularly whether it included permission to drop an appeal when it agreed to a settlement.
XRP lawyer Bill Morgan asked Mark Feigl about this, wondering if a new vote was needed because the settlement agreement was conditional and its terms had not been met.
Interestingly, Feigl clarified that the SEC’s vote to allow a settlement agreement does not necessarily mean they also voted to drop the case. Acknowledging the unusual nature of the situation, he highlighted the uncertainty surrounding the SEC's vote. He said,
They voted to authorize a settlement agreement; simply dropping the case is a different action. That said, we don’t know what exactly they voted on—it would be unusual for them to have simultaneously voted to approve both options, but nothing about this is normal.
Notably, Feigel's statement reportedly comes amid growing celebration of the settlement of the XRP lawsuit in which Ripple dropped its appeal.
His words have sparked controversy, prompting many to back down from their claims that Ripple’s lawsuit has been fully resolved.
For example, $XRP attorney Bill Morgan, who previously said that the "SEC v Ripple case is finally, finally, over," later provided a "modest qualification" pointing to Feigel's statement.
Was the settlement with the SEC a mistake at trial?
While many applaud the reported settlement in the Ripple vs SEC case, others are criticizing it, interpreting it as an admission of fault by the platform. However, rejecting these arguments, Morgan claimed,
Settlement is not an admission of fault. Most settlement agreements are made without admission of liability. Ripple has never admitted that its sales to institutions were investment contracts.
In addition, Morgan disputed the argument that a key win for Ripple is the conclusion that "XRP = no security in retail use." Mistaking that interpretation, he added that Ripple's key win came from Judge Torres' ruling that XRP itself is not a security, a conclusion based on the court's reasoning.
Earlier, while the two sides awaited Judge Torres' ruling on their joint motion, Morgan asserted that the ruling would not affect the legality of XRP.
Furthermore, Morgan suggests that this reasoning implies that XRP, independent of the circumstances of its sale or offering, is more akin to a commodity.
This distinction is significant, as it indicates that the court's decision hinged not on the details of retail sales or secondary market transactions, but on the inherent nature of XRP.