Lawyer Dismisses Rumors of SEC Closed-Door Meetings on Ripple Appeal

Marc Fagel has dismissed speculation about closed-door meetings at the SEC surrounding the Ripple appeal. While Ripple confirmed it had taken steps to withdraw its appeal, the SEC has yet to announce a similar move.

Fagel Debunks SEC Closed-Door Talks

Former SEC lawyer Marc Fagel recently addressed speculation circulating on social media about purported closed-door meetings regarding Ripple’s appeal. Responding on X, Fagel firmly denied claims that the SEC had already held four such meetings, clarifying that any vote to drop an appeal would typically happen once.

They will meet on the topic of dismissing the appeal a single time. Obviously hasn’t happened yet. And since the agenda is confidential, nobody outside the SEC will know they have approved dismissing it until they file papers. Everything else people are saying is make-believe.

Fagel had earlier explained that both Ripple and the SEC have appealed different aspects of Judge Torres’s ruling: the SEC appealed the part it lost, and Ripple cross-appealed other parts it disputed. For the ruling to become final, both sides must withdraw their respective appeals. 

While Ripple appears ready, the SEC is still undergoing an internal review process that involves a formal vote by commissioners. This procedure, as Fagel noted, is standard for enforcement cases and can take weeks or even months.

Earlier this month, some XRP community members speculated about an imminent settlement, suggesting that a deal could be finalized before July 14. Fagel dismissed this idea, saying there was no evidence of a weekend resolution. He emphasized that, under normal circumstances, the SEC must vote on dismissing an appeal, a process that usually takes one to two months.

Why the SEC’s Vote Matters for Ripple and XRP

If the SEC ultimately votes to withdraw its appeal, the judge’s ruling would become final. That could remove a significant legal cloud over Ripple and potentially clear the path for fresh institutional products tied to XRP. For now, however, the process remains in the SEC’s hands.

Fagel stressed that while the resolution is being delayed, it’s routine for cases that reach court. Enforcement staff cannot simply drop appeals on their own; a formal vote is required. This guarantees consistent and thoroughly vetted decisions, but it also raises the possibility of process delays.

Some critics believe that Ripple’s earlier statement may have contributed to the delay. They pointed out that the release sounded too definitive, implying that the SEC had already agreed to drop its appeal. In legal matters, it’s better to use more careful and measured language.

They highlighted that Ripple should have typically indicated that enforcement staff recommend withdrawal, rather than asserting it as a done deal. This misstep may have complicated perceptions around the case, underscoring the importance of precision and restraint in legal communications, especially during sensitive proceedings.