The XRP lawsuit has taken an interesting turn with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) officially filing an appeal, bringing Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse and co-founder Chris Larsen back into focus. This move has sparked debate in the crypto community, particularly regarding the SEC’s motives in revisiting previously dismissed claims.
SEC Targets Ripple Execs in XRP Lawsuit Appeal
The SEC’s appeal in the XRP litigation has been formally filed and docketed in the Second Circuit’s PACER system, according to defense attorney James K. Filan, who made this revelation on X. In its latest appeal filed with the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the SEC has named Garlinghouse and Larsen.
Legal experts, including former SEC lawyer Marc Fagel and pro-XRP lawyer Bill Morgan, believe that the SEC aims to challenge the dismissal of the charges against the Ripple executives. This development suggests that the agency is trying to revisit these claims as part of a broader strategy.
XRP enthusiasts and legal experts have questioned why Garlinghouse and Larsen are back in the spotlight. Some argue the SEC’s move is part of its broader agenda, while others express frustration, noting that Garlinghouse is no longer directly involved in the lawsuit. As discussions unfold, it’s clear that this appeal could extend the legal journey for XRP holders.
XRP Price Rallies Amid Appeal
Despite the SEC’s appeal, XRP’s market performance remains resilient. The price surged nearly 2% to $0.5337, with a trading volume decline of over 32%, showing growing market confidence. Ripple’s On-Demand Liquidity (ODL) system has also resurfaced in discussions, with some questioning its relevance to the allegations. However, Bill Morgan clarified that ODL sales were not part of the accusations directed at Garlinghouse and Larsen.
Ripple’s Chief Legal Officer Stuart Alderoty has hinted at a potential cross-appeal, which could introduce further complexities to the case. Meanwhile, the SEC’s appeal has faced strong backlash from the crypto community, although it was expected.
In response to the controversy, Ashley Prosper’s X post highlights three key statements that could appear in a court order dismissing the SEC’s case as lacking merit or being frivolous: “We do not agree with the SEC,” “We are not persuaded,” and “The SEC’s counterarguments are unavailing.”
Prosper suggests that such a strong rejection would significantly undermine the SEC’s crypto enforcement agenda.
Are we moving anywhere in the Ripple vs. SEC case? The case seems to be endless, and for many it’s baseless. What is your thought on this? Tell us your views.
