Ripple Vs SEC Update: Lawyers Evaluate SEC’s Final Remedies Reply

The discussions on the Ripple Vs. SEC lawsuit has intensified as the SEC has filed its redacted remedies reply along with the supporting briefs with the court. Notably, a prominent lawyer in the crypto space, James K. Filan has shared the update on the X platform, sparking discussions in the crypto market.

So, let’s explore the reply brief of the SEC and see how it may impact the ongoing legal battle.

Unveiling The SEC’s Reply Brief

Amid the Ripple-SEC legal saga, the SEC has filed its redacted remedies reply brief along with supporting exhibits, marking a significant development in the case. The SEC’s argument primarily revolves around the recurrence of Ripple’s alleged violations and the necessity of injunctive relief to prevent future infractions.

The SEC’s primary focus is on Ripple’s history of unregistered sales of its XRP token, dating back to 2013, and its plans to issue a new unregistered crypto asset. The SEC contends that Ripple’s past actions pose a continued risk, warranting the need for regulatory intervention to safeguard investors and maintain market integrity.

Meanwhile, the SEC rebuts Ripple’s arguments, highlighting the dismissal of similar defenses in previous cases like in Coinbase. Besides, it asserts that Ripple’s changes to avoid future violations are inadequate.

In addition, the SEC challenges Ripple’s objections to the disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, emphasizing the harm inflicted on institutional investors due to undisclosed financial terms. The ongoing legal discourse underscores the complexity of the Ripple-SEC dispute and the pivotal role of regulatory clarity in shaping the future of the cryptocurrency landscape.

Also Read: Grayscale GBTC Outflows Resume As Fed Official Hints At Keeping Interest Rates High

A Look At The Experts’ Comment

In response to the SEC’s latest filing, pro-XRP lawyer Bill Morgan scrutinizes key issues raised, particularly concerning financial harm and the potential for a permanent injunction. The SEC argues for a broad definition of financial harm, challenging Ripple’s interpretation. Notably, Morgan doubts the likelihood of disgorgement but anticipates an appeal. 

Meanwhile, regarding the permanent injunction, the SEC contends that Ripple’s primary business involves XRP sales to institutions, warranting an injunction. In addition, the SEC asserts that Ripple’s defense on ODL sales lacks merit, potentially leading to a broad permanent injunction. 

However, Morgan expresses concern over the court’s previous classification of ODL sales as investment contracts and foresees challenges for Ripple on appeal. Considering that, the focus now remains on demonstrating that ODL sales involve immediate consumptive use, crucial for Ripple’s defense.

On the other hand, legal expert Jeremy Hogan suggests the SEC’s arguments lack substance. Hogan notes the SEC’s failure to address key issues such as Ripple’s On-Demand Liquidity (ODL) sales and the absence of new information regarding damages. Besides, he emphasizes the SEC’s seeming lack of effort, implying a weak stance in the legal battle. 

With both parties’ briefs now submitted, anticipation mounts as the case awaits the judge’s decision, marking a crucial moment in the legal proceedings surrounding the Ripple Vs. SEC lawsuit.

Also Read: Ethereum Whales Move 150K Coins Amid ETH Retreat, What’s Next?