Why Has The Ripple-SEC Case Still Not Been Dismissed Like Other Cases? A Renowned Lawyer Proposes an Unusual Theory as to Why

A new theory has emerged regarding the long delay in dismissing the lawsuit filed by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against Ripple.

Prominent crypto lawyer MetaLawMan suggests that the delay may be due to Ripple itself negotiating with the SEC for better settlement terms.

In a recent statement, MetaLawMan suggested that Ripple may be pressuring the SEC to agree to overturn part or all of Judge Analisa Torres’ decision. While Torres’ decision was seen as a significant victory for XRP holders, it also included findings of securities law violations and a preliminary injunction containing “bad boy” provisions, factors that could pose challenges to Ripple’s future plans, including a potential initial public offering (IPO) or exempt securities offering.

“Torres’ decision was unquestionably great for XRP holders, but (a) the finding of securities law violations and (b) the injunction (with its ‘bad boy’ provisions) are not so great for Ripple,” MetaLawMan wrote.

The lawyer theorized that the SEC might have been willing to accept a simple settlement in which both parties dismissed their objections and Ripple paid the $125 million fine. But Ripple may have been pushing for a more favorable outcome by trying to erase some of the legal precedents set by Torres’ decision.

“This is all pure speculation on my part. I could be wrong. This wouldn’t be the first time,” MetaLawMan said, adding that there’s no guarantee that a judge will get approval to overturn a previous ruling. While such agreements used to be more common in the past, federal judges have increasingly resisted the practice in recent years.

*This is not investment advice.