Regulatory clarity for XRP has been reaffirmed, with its non-security classification remaining unaffected, as confirmed by Ripple’s chief legal officer, despite a recent court setback that halted a proposed settlement with the SEC.
Ripple’s Legal Head Calms Fears After Court Blocks SEC XRP Deal
The crypto community was addressed on Thursday by Ripple’s chief legal officer, Stuart Alderoty, after a court ruling rejected a joint motion by Ripple Labs and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to modify a prior judgment in their continuing legal dispute over XRP. It was clarified by Alderoty, via a post on the social media platform X, that the court’s decision does not reverse Ripple’s significant legal wins, stating:
Nothing in today’s order changes Ripple’s wins (i.e. XRP is not a security, etc).
It was explained by Ripple’s chief legal officer that the ruling pertains to procedural matters related to the dismissal of Ripple’s cross-appeal, rather than addressing any substantive determination regarding XRP. “This pertains to procedural concerns involving the dismissal of Ripple’s cross-appeal,” he stated.
His remarks came after a ruling was issued by Judge Analisa Torres of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in which a joint motion by Ripple and the SEC was denied. The motion had sought to dissolve an injunction and reduce a $125 million penalty to $50 million. It was determined by Judge Torres that the motion was “procedurally improper,” emphasizing that such a request should have been filed under Rule 60, which addresses relief from final judgments and mandates evidence of “exceptional circumstances.” As the case proceeds, the injunction preventing future securities violations by Ripple, along with the full penalty, remains in force.
It was emphasized by Alderoty that alignment remains between Ripple and the SEC in seeking a resolution regarding the sale of XRP, stating:
Ripple and the SEC are fully in agreement to resolve this case and will revisit this issue with the court, together.
A provisional agreement was reached by the parties on May 8 to resolve the issue by lowering the penalty and removing the injunction. Although that plan has been paused by Judge Torres’ recent decision, the possibility remains for a revised and correctly submitted motion.
