The long-standing litigation war between Ripple and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is yet to come to an end, with the regulatory agency recently dropping several high-profile crypto cases. The lengthy litigation has been subject to much speculation with some analysts pointing to the possible intention of Ripple to slow down settlement talks for a better deal.
Murphy Proposes Ripple Is Playing For Time
Lawyer James Murphy, who is also MetaLawMan on social media site X, has proposed that Ripple is in negotiations with the SEC to have major decisions in the case overturned. His thesis is based on Judge Analisa Torres’ ruling, which, although helpful in some ways, also convicted Ripple of breaking securities laws. The verdict was accompanied by some injunctions that may hamper Ripple’s future ability to make securities offerings or an IPO, as well as the increasing chances of an XRP ETF approval in 2025, as reported earlier.
Murphy surmises that Ripple is using the ongoing process to negotiate for changes in the court’s conclusions prior to settling for a final settlement. “It’s highly possible that Ripple may be dragging out the lawsuit to try and buy more time to negotiate a better deal with the SEC,” he said.
He feels the SEC would be amenable to a solution where both sides withdraw their appeals, and Ripple pays its $125 million fine. From his viewpoint, though, the party delaying is not the regulatory commission but Ripple.
Rispoli Refutes Murphy’s Viewpoint
Conversely, attorney Fred Rispoli has a different opinion. He argues that the delay is on the part of the SEC and not Ripple. In earlier remarks, Rispoli intimated that the commission’s reluctance to seal the settlement could be due to internal issues regarding amending the financial penalty imposed on Ripple.
Rispoli quoted SEC commissioners Mark Uyeda and Hester Peirce as not wanting to own the job of amending Ripple’s $125 million penalty. “My best guess is that, given the $125M judgment, that is real money that Uyeda and Pierce do not want to have responsibility for modifying,” he stated in an X post published on February 25.
He went on to suggest that the delay might be the result of no desire to take an unpopular decision, which he characterized as an act of “cowardice.” Regardless of the disagreement on who is responsible for the delay, both legal analysts appear to concur on one point: the case is drawing to a close, as highlighted in our previous story. Murphy puts the possibility of the issue being resolved prior to April 16, the deadline for Ripple’s last appeal brief, while Rispoli anticipates a dismissal within the next few months.