Lawyer James “Metalawman” Murphy of Ludlow Street Advisors, LLC provided a detailed theory on the reasons why the rejection of the SEC of the Ripple case was inexplicably delayed. According to Murphy, rather than the delay being only due to the internal dry processes, Ripple could be engaged in intense negotiations aimed at revising the key components of the Judge Torres decision.
Ripple, not dry, could block cases resolution
Murphy explained that if Judge Torres’ decision was undoubtedly beneficial for XRP holders – in particular with regard to aspects that have a positive impact on the feeling of the market – the decision also contained elements that could compromise future strategic movements of the company. “Torres’ decision was undoubtedly excellent for XRP holders, but the conclusion of violations of the securities law and the injunction with the provisions of” Bad Boy “which are not so excellent for Ripple,” said Murphy via X.
He also issued that if Ripple envisaged a future offer of exempt titles or an IPO, the current judgment would represent an operational and significant reputation obstacle. He continued: “I believe that the dry would have accepted a settlement – where the two parties reject their calls and the SEC underwent the penalty of $ 125 million – at a heart rate. It is therefore logical that Ripple does not negotiate for a better deal than that. Although he recognizes the speculative nature of his theory, Murphy’s comments offer an overview of potentially complex legal maneuvers.
Completing the prospect of Murphy, the pro-XRP lawyer, Jeremy Hogan, plunged into the complex legal process of dissolution of the injunction imposed by Judge Torres. Hogan stressed that the court order effectively prohibits Ripple from making direct sales to customers – a restriction that Ripple would undoubtedly prefer.
“Ripple prefers not to have the injunction at all,” said Hogan. He pulled an analogy between the judicial process and the personal prohibition orders, stressing that once a court issues an injunction, the parties themselves cannot just get along with each other so as not to take into account the injunction. “He also illustrated the point with a strong comparison: many people have faced legal consequences to assume that an order of prohibition could be ignored with casualness when personal relationships have improved.
Hogan’s analysis has extended to procedural challenges that Ripple and the SEC must navigate in order to modify the existing judicial order. He has developed the role of the Federal Rule 60, which governs “repairing a judgment”, noting that any request for canceling the injunction must convincingly demonstrate a significant change in circumstances.
“The court based its decision on the Howy test, and not on the changes in the dry rule, and the SEC cannot” prevail over the law of the US Supreme Court, “said Hogan. This point underlines the rigidity of the precedent in the securities, which complicates any attempted Ripple to negotiate a decline in the injunction only on the basis of the evolution of regulatory standards.
Ripple will first have to convince the dry to sign on a carefully written request which seeks to dissolve the injunction. Following this, the two parties should stipulate to reject their calls, then the court of first instance should rule favorably on the request. Hogan suggested that “that is why I think that the case is not just before April, when all these other cases have already been rejected”. He also left open the possibility that if the request is designed and executed with exceptional care, calls could be rejected even earlier – potentially in April, before the brief date of maturity of Ripple.
At the time of the press, XRP exchanged $
Star image created with dall.e, tradingView.com graphic
