A recent court ruling in the ongoing Ripple-SEC case involving XRP has sparked intense speculation and debate within the legal and cryptocurrency communities. The decision to reject a joint motion by Ripple and the SEC to amend the final judgment, which included a $125 million penalty and a longstanding injunction, has raised questions about the motives behind the judge’s decision.
Legal Expert Provides Insight on Judge’s Rejection of Ripple and SEC’s Motion in XRP Case
Attorney Fred Rispoli took to social media to offer his analysis of District Judge Analisa Torres’ ruling, suggesting that personal frustration or political bias may have played a role in her decision. Rispoli’s comments have fueled speculation about the potential implications of the court’s stance on the case.
Rispoli proposed two possible reasons for the judge’s rejection of the motion. He speculated that Judge Torres may have been frustrated by the lengthy and contentious nature of the litigation, leading her to uphold the original judgment. Additionally, he suggested that political bias against the Trump administration could have influenced her decision, although he acknowledged that such motivations are not always clear-cut.
Despite the setback for Ripple and the SEC, Rispoli remains optimistic about the eventual outcome of the case: “While the court may have denied the motion to amend the judgment, there is still potential for a resolution outside of the courtroom. Rispoli envisions a scenario where both parties drop their appeals, agree to a reduced penalty of $50 million, and move forward with the existing injunction in place.”
When asked about the implications of the court ruling on XRP and the possibility of XRP exchange-traded funds (ETFs) gaining approval, Rispoli offered reassurance: “The injunction issued by the court should not impact the trading of XRP on secondary markets, nor should it hinder the approval process for XRP ETFs.”
In her order, Judge Torres emphasized the need for “extraordinary circumstances” to justify overturning a final judgment, noting that only an appellate court has the authority to modify or remove penalties and injunctions. Despite Ripple’s arguments about changes in its business model, the judge ultimately found no legal basis to alter the original ruling.