In the ongoing Ripple vs. United States (US) Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lawsuit, a significant development has emerged with Judge Analisa Torres granting a “Termination Hearings and Memo Endorsement” order according to the filling.
This decision coincides with the judge’s official endorsement of the SEC’s voluntary withdrawal of charges against individual defendants, namely Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse and executive chairman Chris Larsen.
One central aspect of this development revolves around the SEC and Ripple’s shared pursuit of remedies for alleged Section 5 violations pertaining to the institutional sales of XRP.
Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 mandates that securities must be registered with the SEC before being made available to the public, including institutional investors.
The significance of this legal point cannot be overstated, as it touches upon the core of the case.
Legal expert Bill Morgan has already highlighted the substantial importance of XRP ODL (On-Demand Liquidity) sales within the larger framework.
These sales represent a critical concern for Ripple, which is poised to challenge the SEC’s stance on ODL sales.
A significant portion of the XRP community is advocating for Ripple to contest the classification of institutional sales of XRP as securities.
This determination arises from Judge Analisa’s previous ruling.
With Judge Analisa having ruled that XRP is not a security, the path forward for Ripple and the SEC is laden with intricate legal considerations.
While some observers speculate about the potential for a settlement between Ripple and the SEC concerning institutional sales, the decision to withdraw charges against Ripple’s executives adds another layer of complexity to this multifaceted case.
As the legal proceedings evolve, the XRP lawsuit continues to be a focal point in the cryptocurrency community, with implications that extend beyond the confines of this specific case.
The upcoming briefing schedule, to be jointly proposed by the parties by 9 November, holds the key to the next chapters in this legal saga.
The filling stated:
“The parties shall jointly propose a briefing schedule with regard to the remedies, or, if the parties cannot agree, shall jointly request that the court set a briefing schedule.”
The final pretrial conference initially scheduled for 16 April 2024, and the trial set for 23 April, now stand adjourned until further notice, leaving stakeholders and observers anticipating the next developments in this high-stakes legal dispute.