Ripple vs. SEC: Attorney Fred Rispoli’s Insights, Possible Resolutions

Fred Rispoli, an attorney for the United States, highlighted the lack of communication regarding the ongoing lawsuit between Ripple Labs and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in a succession of tweets on the social media platform X.

The SEC has until February 12 to conclude the damages-related discovery, as stated in the tweet. Rispoli said that no discovery motions have been filed by the SEC as of this moment. The council, however, noted that a motion could be submitted this week or before the February 12 deadline.

If no motion is filed before that date, Rispoli believes it could indicate that Ripple and the SEC are amenable to a settlement of the lawsuit. However, the attorney proposed two possible resolutions for the ongoing legal dispute between the involved parties.

The initial approach, as described by the counsel, entails the SEC obtaining “the discovery it desires, the parties reviewing it, and reaching a settlement.” Rispoli stated that if the first option fails, the second consequence is unavoidable: the discovery will be prolonged until the damages briefings conclude on April 29.

The council claims that if the SEC pursues the second course of action, it will lose most of the objectives outlined in the lawsuit.

As a result, Rispoli stated that the regulator might choose to settle amicably with the blockchain company, given its escalating court losses. With the court’s ruling that institutional sales of XRP qualify as securities, the SEC will nevertheless emerge with a partial victory in the case.

The three-year-old SEC v. Ripple lawsuit is anticipated to conclude in the early summer of this year, and the SEC alleged at that time that Ripple’s XRP transactions violated securities law.

However, Judge Analisa Torres ruled otherwise in July 2023, concluding that XRP sales exclusively by institutions qualified as securities.

John Deaton, a renowned XRP attorney, stated that Ripple’s liability for damages after the litigation might not be significant.

The attorney arrived at this conclusion by considering specific damage assessment criteria, which encompassed the location of the sales and the existence of any monetary loss.