In a riveting discourse, renowned legal professional James Murphy, famously recognized as “MetaLawMan” from Ludlow Street Advisors, LLC, has offered an intricate analysis regarding the staggeringly extended conclusion of the Ripple case by the SEC. Murphy’s theory suggests that this delay may not be a simple consequence of the SEC’s internal procedures. Instead, he posits that Ripple might be deeply embroiled in intense negotiations, with the intention of redefining pivotal parts of Judge Torres’ verdict.
Delay in Ripple Case Resolution: Ripple Siege, Not SEC Inaction?
Murphy elaborated his viewpoint, saying that although Judge Torres’ judgement was unmistakably advantageous for XRP holders – most notably given the elements that fuelled market positivity – certain aspects of the verdict potentially threaten Ripple’s future strategic undertakings. Emphasizing this, Murphy suggested, “The Torres’ verdict was undeniably a victory for XRP holders. However, the identification of securities law violations and the consequent injunction, complete with ‘bad boy’ provisions, may not bode well for Ripple.”
Murphy further posited that if Ripple contemplates a prospective exempt securities offering or an IPO, the current ruling could pose significant operational and reputational obstacles. He further reasoned, “I am of the belief that the SEC would have readily agreed to a settlement, wherein both parties dismiss their appeals and the SEC receives the $125 million penalty. Therefore, it is plausible that Ripple is working towards a more favourable settlement.” Despite the speculative nature of his theory, Murphy’s insights provide a rare peak into the probable legal tactics at work.
Jeremy Hogan, a lawyer championing XRP, added depth to Murphy’s analysis by examining the complex legal procedures involved in rescinding the injunction passed down by Judge Torres. Hogan elucidated that Ripple would unquestionably prefer to eliminate the court’s order that currently prevents direct sales to consumers.
“The injunction is something that Ripple would decidedly prefer to do without,” stated Hogan. Drawing parallels between the legal process and personal restraining orders, he underscored, “Once a court issues an injunction, it is not within the authority of the parties involved to simply disregard it based on mutual agreement.” He added colour to his perspective with a striking comparison, reminding that numerous individuals have faced legal repercussions for presuming that restraining orders can be nonchalantly overlooked once personal relationships improve.
Hogan’s explanation delved further into the procedural hurdles that Ripple and the SEC must surmount to alter the standing court order. He shed light on the role of Federal Rule 60, which presides over “relief from judgment”, noting that any motion to revoke the injunction must compellingly demonstrate substantial circumstantial changes.
He emphasized that the court’s decision was founded on the Howey test, not on changes to SEC’s rules. Therefore, the SEC cannot override US Supreme Court law, which stresses the firmness of legal precedent in securities law and adds complexity to Ripple’s attempts to negotiate a rollback of the injunction based on changing regulatory norms.
In order to dissolve the injunction, Ripple must first persuade the SEC to approve a precisely drafted motion. Subsequently, both the parties must agree to dismiss their appeals, followed by obtaining a favourable ruling on the motion from the trial court. In Hogan’s words, “This could be why the case doesn’t resolve until April-May, unlike all the other cases that have already been dismissed.” He also acknowledged the possibility of an early dismissal of appeals – potentially in April, before the due date of Ripple’s brief – if the motion is exceptionally well-crafted and executed.
As of the latest reports, XRP was traded at $
FAQs
Who is MetaLawMan?
James Murphy, also known as “MetaLawMan”, is a renowned legal professional from Ludlow Street Advisors, LLC.
What is the current status of the Ripple case?
As per recent reports, the Ripple case is yet to be resolved. The delay is speculated to be due to Ripple’s intense negotiations aimed at amending key components of Judge Torres’ ruling.
What is the significance of Federal Rule 60 in this context?
Federal Rule 60 governs “relief from a judgment”. In this context, any motion to rescind the injunction against Ripple must convincingly exhibit a considerable change in circumstances, as per this rule.
What is the speculated timeline for the resolution of the Ripple case?
Pro-XRP lawyer Jeremy Hogan has suggested that the case may not resolve until April-May, considering the legal and procedural complexities involved.
