Judge Torres denies Ripple and SEC’s joint motion for an indicative ruling, marking a setback in the long-running XRP lawsuit.
In a significant move, Judge Analisa Torres denied both parties’ requests in her decision on Ripple and the SEC’s simultaneous motion for an indicative ruling.
Both sides, who had previously struck a settlement agreement in the protracted XRP lawsuit, suffered a setback.
Judge Torres Rejects XRP Lawsuit’s Request For Indicative Ruling
Defense lawyer James Filan disclosed in an X post that Judge Torres rejected the SEC’s and Ripple’s joint move for an indicative ruling.
The court denied both attempts to lower the monetary punishment and to lift the permanent injunction against the cryptocurrency company.
Only two weeks have passed since Judge Torres denied the initial motion for an indicative finding on procedural grounds, prompting Ripple and the SEC to resubmit it.
This time, the judge stated that neither party’s arguments demonstrated “exceptional circumstances” that would have called for an indicative verdict.
Judge Torres pointed out that if the legal system is to maintain the finality of verdicts, the rule—which allows District courts to alter judgments only in exceptional circumstances—needs to be strictly interpreted.
She also referenced a Supreme Court decision that stressed that a court’s decision “belongs to the legal community as a whole” rather than being the property of individual plaintiffs.
According to the court, Ripple and the SEC’s settlement in the XRP lawsuit is insufficient justification for changing her ruling.
She also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling that a final verdict must stand unless the court determines that a “vacatur” would serve the public interest.
Highlights Of Court’s Significant Improvement From SEC
Judge Torres also referred to the SEC’s prior arguments in the XRP lawsuit, pointing out that the Commission had claimed that a financial penalty and an injunction were in the public interest.
Given the compelling case the SEC had previously made against Ripple, she said the agency’s new arguments were inappropriate.
According to the judge, the cryptocurrency company broke the law, so the penalty was initially required.
Second, the Commission argued for a permanent injunction because it thought Ripple’s actions were reckless and would undoubtedly continue in the absence of the order, she said.
In the XRP complaint, the SEC also asserted that investors would suffer if the cryptocurrency company continued to violate securities laws without an injunction.
In a follow-up letter, Ripple contended that, with or without the injunction, it would still be governed by securities regulations.
Judge Torres, however, stated that “the parties hardly pretend that it has changed” and that nothing had changed.
