XRP lawsuit update: The ongoing legal battle between Ripple Labs and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has led to widespread confusion about the scope of a recent injunction. Lawyer Fred Rispoli clarified that the injunction does not impact Ripple’s institutional sales moving forward. The explanation centers around the specific context of “institutional sales” as defined in the legal proceedings.
Lawyer Breaks Down Institutional Sales Ban in XRP Lawsuit
In the XRP lawsuit, the SEC alleged that Ripple’s sale of XRP tokens violated securities laws, with particular attention paid to the $728 million in sales to institutional investors. A judge ruled that XRP sales on public exchanges were legal, but the sale to institutional investors violated securities laws. As a result, the court imposed an injunction prohibiting Ripple from engaging in those types of sales.
However, Rispoli pointed out that the term “institutional sales” is a defined term and only refers to the specific sales Ripple made from its inception through 2018. He explained that the injunction only applies to sales made in this specific time frame and does not restrict Ripple from continuing its business operations, including institutional sales moving forward.
Rispoli further emphasized that the definition of institutional sales, as it pertains to the case, only applies to the period prior to 2018. Therefore, any sales Ripple made after that time would not fall under the injunction. Ripple has also adjusted its approach to sales since then, becoming more transparent with the SEC regarding institutional transactions. The current SEC regime under Gary Gensler’s leadership may have a more favorable stance toward Ripple’s approach, making the chance of future enforcement actions less likely.
James Farrell Clarifies the Injunction’s Actual Scope
James Farrell has weighed in on the misunderstanding of the injunction’s terms. According to Farrell, the injunction does not ban institutional sales outright but prevents Ripple from violating Section 5 of the Securities Act, which pertains to the sale of unregistered securities. Farrell explained that the SEC’s concern lies in Ripple’s failure to register the securities during the disputed sales, not the sales themselves.
Farrell added that while Ripple may be prohibited from continuing these sales as they occurred prior to 2018, the company could still proceed with transactions if they comply with regulations. He further clarified that companies can request a “no-action letter” from the SEC, which provides confirmation that certain activities are consistent with the law. These letters, Farrell noted, are public and can guide companies in navigating regulatory compliance.
Marc Fagel, a former SEC lawyer, expressed confidence that the SEC will ultimately drop its appeal, which would bring an end to the legal saga. However, he pointed out that until the SEC officially drops the appeal, the case could drag on. XRP lawyer Bill Morgan also raised questions about whether a new vote would be necessary for the SEC to finalize the settlement, given that some conditions of the agreement have not yet been met.
Ripple’s Shift in Strategy Following the Legal Dispute
Since the legal battle began, Ripple has altered its sales strategies. The company has increasingly been open about its institutional sales and has sought guidance from the SEC on what is acceptable moving forward. According to Rispoli, this transparency indicates that Ripple has adapted its practices to align with what the SEC now views as compliant with securities laws.
Ripple Chief Legal Officer, Stuart Alderoty, also spoke out regarding the shift in their strategy. He described the pre-2018 sales as being historic and suggested that Ripple has since stopped this practice. Since that time, Ripple has sought to have future institutional sales be consistent with the guidance of the SEC, which may involve issuing registration statements or other options to prevent further legal conflict.
Despite the clarity provided by Ripple’s legal team, questions remain about the future of XRP sales. While the injunction limits sales in the context of institutional transactions from Ripple’s early years, it does not necessarily prevent the company from making similar sales in the future. The key issue is whether those sales are compliant with the SEC’s regulations under the current legal framework.
Rispoli noted that if the SEC were still under the leadership of Gary Gensler, there might be more aggressive scrutiny of Ripple’s current institutional sales. However, with the changing leadership at the SEC, Ripple’s current sales activities are likely to be subject to less scrutiny.
Kelvin Munene Murithi
Kelvin Munene is a crypto and finance journalist with over 5 years of experience, offering in-depth market analysis and expert commentary .
With a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Actuarial Science from Mount Kenya University, Kelvin is known for his meticulous research and strong writing skills, particularly in cryptocurrency, blockchain, and financial markets.
His work has been featured across top industry publications such as Coingape, Cryptobasic, MetaNews, Cryptotimes, Coinedition, TheCoinrepublic, Cryptotale, and Analytics Insight among others, where he consistently provides timely updates and insightful content.
Kelvin’s focus lies in uncovering emerging trends in the crypto space, delivering factual and data-driven analyses that help readers make informed decisions. His expertise extends across market cycles, technological innovations, and regulatory shifts that shape the crypto landscape.
Beyond his professional achievements, Kelvin has a passion for chess, traveling, and exploring new adventures.
Investment disclaimer: The content reflects the author’s personal views and current market conditions. Please conduct your own research before investing in cryptocurrencies, as neither the author nor the publication is responsible for any financial losses.
Ad Disclosure: This site may feature sponsored content and affiliate links. All advertisements are clearly labeled, and ad partners have no influence over our editorial content.
✓ Share: