Marc Fagel suggested that Judge Torres did not dismiss the XRP lawsuit because Ripple raised hundreds of millions from the sale of unregistered securities.
Judge Analisa Torres has not yet closed the historic legal battle related to the XRP token , raising several questions and hypotheses. Among the different opinions on the judge's work, the opinion of former SEC lawyer Marc Fagel stands out , who revealed his opinion on the case.
Why did Judge Torres deny the motion?
As the XRP community grapples with Judge Torres’ decision, former SEC attorney Marc Fagel has published a post on X, giving his take on the matter.
His hypothesis is that the judge did not dismiss the case because Ripple had raised hundreds of millions from the sale of unregistered securities. According to Fagel , this illegal fundraising justified intervention.
In practice, Fagel refers to the first ruling, when Judge Torres had acquitted Ripple from the second-level sale, that is, the one carried out through exchanges such as Binance and similar, but had condemned it for the first-level sale, that is, the one carried out as an ICO.
Roger McCarthy , however, raised questions about whether the lawsuit and the huge resources spent served the SEC 's primary goals : protecting investors and maintaining fair and efficient markets.
Fagel replied that this was the law and that XRP cannot decide on its own which laws to respect and which not to respect. If you don't like a law, you should try to change it and not break it.
To a user who asked why the same fate did not befall Ethereum (which sold tokens via ICO just like XRP, ed.) Marc Fagel explained that the judge could not do so: his role is limited to the specific case before him, and in this proceeding Ethereum was not involved. Therefore, a direct pronouncement on the legal nature of ETH could not be expected.
Furthermore, Fagel added an important detail about the case: Judge Torres' role is essentially over. In fact, his ruling will become legally final only after a formal step: the SEC must vote internally to approve the withdrawal of the appeal, and then submit the official document to the appeals court. Only at that point will the case be closed for all intents and purposes.
In other words, the judge's decision is already there, but the formal approval of the SEC is still needed to make it final and legally unassailable.
How will Judge Torres' injunction impact XRP sales?
Previously, XRP lawyer Bill Morgan said that Ripple was already preparing for a permanent injunction on “historic institutional sales .”
In practice, Morgan underscores a fundamental concept of law: prohibitory injunctions serve not to punish the past, but to prohibit future behavior that the court deems illegal or inappropriate.
In this case, if the sale of XRP to institutional investors was deemed a violation of securities laws, then the injunction serves to prevent Ripple from repeating this behavior unless it complies with the regulatory framework (e.g. by registering the offering with the SEC).
In short, it does not end here, Ripple could also be bound in the future by what has been established in the ruling.
🚀Appreciate the work. Thank You. 👍 FOLLOW BeMaster BuySmart 🚀 TO FIND OUT MORE $$$$$ 🤩 BE MASTER BUY SMART 🤩