Ripple SEC Lawsuit Is In Conflict Over Deadlines

Key Points:

• Ripple SEC lawsuit is in a legal dispute over deadlines, with the SEC seeking extensions for brief submissions.
• Ripple is accused of violating securities laws by selling XRP without registration, but the company denies these allegations.

In the ongoing legal battle between Ripple Labs and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), recent developments indicate a tussle over deadlines and legal strategies.

Ripple SEC Lawsuit Clashes Over Deadlines

Former federal prosecutor James K. Filan revealed that the SEC sought an extension for the deadline to submit the remedial measures brief, pushing the defense brief deadline to March 22, 2024. Ripple promptly opposed this, advocating for an extension until April 22, 2024, while the SEC requested a further extension for the defense response brief until May 6, 2024.

Ripple and its CEO Brad Garlinghouse face allegations of selling XRP without proper registration, a violation of securities laws. The lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of California, targets the period between July 3, 2017, and June 30, 2023, accusing Ripple of federal and state securities law breaches.

Ripple contends that XRP doesn’t classify as a security and disputes the necessity for registration. Ripple SEC lawsuit holds broader implications for the cryptocurrency market’s regulatory landscape, with Ripple receiving support from senators and legislative allies.

Ripple’s Legal Battle Shapes Cryptocurrency Regulation Landscape

The company faces multiple legal fronts, including a 2020 SEC lawsuit alleging an unregistered $1.3 billion securities offering through XRP sales. Recent motions, such as Kraken’s move to dismiss the SEC lawsuit, further complicate the Ripple SEC lawsuit, drawing attention to Judge Analisa Torres’s ruling on programmatic sales.

Despite these complexities, Ripple appears to be gaining ground, securing three significant court victories in 2023. Judge Torres’s ruling in July deemed the company’s programmatic sales to secondary trading platforms as not constituting investment contract offers, providing a favorable precedent in the contentious legal battle.