Rewrite Here is a rewritten version of the article with clearer structure and language while preserving all factual details:
Title: Ripple’s Legal Wins Stand Firm Despite Court’s Denial of Settlement Motion in XRP Case
– Stuart Alderoty, Ripple’s Chief Legal Officer, reaffirmed that the company’s key legal victories—particularly the ruling that XRP is not a security—remain unaffected by the latest court decision.
– U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres rejected a joint motion from Ripple and the SEC, stating it was procedurally improper and failed to meet the standards required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60.
Ripple’s Legal Chief Responds to Court Ruling
Ripple’s Chief Legal Officer, Stuart Alderoty, has spoken out following a recent court order denying a joint request by Ripple and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). On May 15, Judge Analisa Torres declined to issue an indicative ruling that would have undone a court injunction against Ripple and reduced its $125 million civil penalty related to alleged securities law violations.
Despite the denial, Alderoty emphasized that the decision does not overturn Ripple’s prior legal triumphs. Taking to X (formerly Twitter), he stated:
“Nothing in today’s order changes Ripple’s wins (i.e., XRP is not a security, etc). This is about procedural concerns… Ripple and the SEC are fully in agreement to resolve this case and will revisit this issue with the Court, together.”
Judge Torres’s Ruling: Procedural Grounds and Legal Threshold
Judge Torres concluded that the motion submitted under Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was “procedurally improper.” She highlighted that for the court to approve a settlement of this type, it must determine whether the proposal is both “fair and reasonable” and “in the public interest,” referencing the case SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
Ripple and the SEC jointly requested the court to:
– (1) Dissolve a court-issued injunction that prohibits Ripple from unlawfully offering and selling securities.
– (2) Reduce the imposed civil penalty from $125,035,150 to $50 million.
However, Judge Torres viewed this as a request to “vacate significant portions of the Final Judgment,” which, she clarified, falls under Rule 60. That provision requires proof of “exceptional circumstances” to grant such relief—a burden the parties failed to meet. Judge Torres stated, “The parties have made no effort to satisfy that burden here; their request does not even mention the rule.”
She also criticized the legal framing, noting that by referring to the action as a “settlement request,” the parties sidestepped the more stringent requirements for vacating an existing judgment.
Background: Ripple’s Ongoing Legal Battle with the SEC
Judge Torres reiterated past court findings to clarify the context of her decision. In July 2023, the court ruled that Ripple had violated Section 5 of the Securities Act by offering and selling unregistered securities. This ruling formed the basis for the court’s final judgment in August 2024, which imposed a $125 million penalty and permanently barred Ripple from engaging in similar conduct.
In a more conciliatory move, the court paused (or stayed) the enforcement of that judgment on September 4, 2024, allowing both parties time to pursue settlement discussions. The court also ordered Ripple to place 111% of the civil penalty amount in an interest-bearing account during this negotiation window.
What’s Next for Ripple and the SEC?
While the latest motion was denied, Ripple and the SEC appear united in their intent to resolve the case. Ripple’s legal team has expressed a readiness to revisit the matter with the court, potentially under the correct procedural rule this time.
For now, Ripple maintains its key victory—that XRP is not in itself a security—while the legal dispute continues into its next phase.
Ripple’s legal victory upheld
Ripple’s legal triumphs continue to hold strong as the company reaffirms that the classification of XRP remains untouched by the court’s latest decision. Stuart Alderoty, Ripple’s Chief Legal Officer, took to social media to reassure the community and investors that the ruling which determined XRP is not a security remains intact. His statement came in response to U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres denying a recent joint motion filed by Ripple and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which sought to modify a previous judgment.
Judge Torres rejected the motion on procedural grounds, asserting that the parties failed to meet the rigorous standards required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. But despite the setback, the essence of Ripple’s earlier legal win—that XRP itself is not a security—remains unshaken. Alderoty was quick to clarify that the denial was purely procedural and did not alter the substance of the July 2023 ruling that had already sent waves through the crypto industry.
For XRP holders and crypto investors, this legal clarity is significant. The ruling in Ripple’s favor last year marked a pivotal moment in the regulatory landscape, distinguishing XRP from other digital assets that may fall under securities law. It also set a precedent that could influence future litigation involving other cryptocurrencies. The reaffirmation of this decision provides a layer of confidence that the foundation of Ripple’s legal stance is solid, even as new motions are introduced and challenged.
Ripple has consistently maintained that XRP serves as a bridge currency in cross-border payments, rather than an investment contract. The court’s decision to uphold the original classification supports this view and strengthens Ripple’s position as a legitimate player in the financial technology sector. As Alderoty noted, both Ripple and the SEC are committed to resolving the case and will revisit the matter with the court through appropriate legal channels. Until then, Ripple’s legal victory stands tall—a beacon for regulatory clarity in an often murky crypto environment.
Court denies SEC’s cross-appeal request
In a pivotal development that reinforces Ripple’s legal standing, U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres has formally rejected a cross-appeal motion that sought to challenge the court’s previous rulings in the Ripple v. SEC case. The motion, which was part of a joint request by both Ripple and the SEC, aimed to revise the court’s final judgment—including the dissolution of a prior injunction and a reduction in the imposed civil penalty. However, Judge Torres concluded that the request was procedurally flawed and failed to meet the high legal threshold required to overturn or amend a final judgment.
At the heart of the court’s rejection was the misapplication of procedural rules. The joint motion was filed under Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows a court to issue an indicative ruling on a motion that it currently lacks jurisdiction to grant. However, the court determined that the nature of the request—to vacate parts of a final judgment—actually falls under Rule 60, which demands a showing of “exceptional circumstances” such as newly discovered evidence, fraud, or a significant change in law. The parties, Judge Torres noted, made no effort to satisfy this burden, nor did they even reference Rule 60 in their filing.
Judge Torres emphasized that the motion was “procedurally improper,” stating that allowing such a request without proper justification could set a dangerous precedent. In her ruling, she drew parallels to SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., a case that underscores the judiciary’s responsibility to ensure settlements are not only fair and reasonable but also in the public interest. By bypassing this framework, both Ripple and the SEC risked undermining the integrity of judicial oversight.
While the denial may appear to be a setback on the surface, it’s crucial to understand the nuance. The court did not re-evaluate or reverse its earlier ruling that XRP is not a security when sold on secondary markets. That cornerstone of Ripple’s legal defense remains untouched. Instead, this latest ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to strict procedural standards when seeking post-judgment relief.
Stuart Alderoty, Ripple’s Chief Legal Officer, addressed the decision with a composed and forward-looking tone. In a statement shared on X, he reiterated:
“Nothing in today’s order changes Ripple’s wins (i.e., XRP is not a security, etc). This is about procedural concerns… Ripple and the SEC are fully in agreement to resolve this case and will revisit this issue with the Court, together.”
This unified stance between Ripple and the SEC may seem unusual given the adversarial nature of their long-standing legal battle. However, it signals a potentially collaborative phase aimed at finalizing the case through proper legal channels. By choosing to refile under the appropriate rule, the parties could still reach a revised penalty agreement and lift the injunction—provided they meet the court’s stringent requirements.
For investors and XRP backers, the key takeaway is that the court’s rejection of the cross-appeal has no bearing on the core victory Ripple secured in 2023. The ruling that differentiated XRP from securities remains intact, offering continued legal clarity for its use in cross-border payments and other real-world applications. With Ripple and the SEC still aligned on resolving remaining issues, the path forward, while procedurally more complex, appears navigable.
Implications for XRP and the crypto market
With the court reaffirming that XRP is not a security, the broader implications for the crypto industry—and XRP in particular—are profound. For starters, Ripple’s legal clarity offers a rare degree of regulatory certainty in an otherwise ambiguous U.S. crypto environment. That’s a big deal for institutional investors, fintech innovators, and blockchain developers who have long operated in a state of legal limbo. The ruling effectively provides a legal green light for XRP’s use in payment systems and other blockchain-based infrastructures without the looming threat of securities enforcement.
For XRP holders, this consistency in legal status is not just reassuring—it’s potentially bullish. Market participants often value clarity over ambiguity, and Ripple’s ability to retain its legal victory despite procedural setbacks reinforces confidence. In the wake of the ruling, XRP has seen renewed interest from both retail and institutional investors, with some analysts pointing to the coin’s resilience as a sign of long-term value. While short-term price fluctuations are par for the course in crypto, the legal foundation now laid offers a more stable runway for XRP’s adoption and growth.
From a market perspective, Ripple’s case has become a touchstone for how U.S. courts interpret securities laws in relation to digital assets. The court’s distinction between XRP’s institutional sales and its secondary market trading has helped define a nuanced framework that could be applied to other cryptocurrencies. This sets a precedent that may benefit projects like Stellar (XLM), Algorand (ALGO), and even Ethereum (ETH), which have also faced questions about their regulatory status.
Moreover, Ripple’s role as a cross-border payments facilitator puts XRP in a unique position compared to other tokens. Unlike meme coins or purely speculative assets, XRP has a utility function that aligns with real-world financial infrastructure. It’s already being used by financial institutions and payment providers in corridors like Asia-Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East. With the legal fog lifting, we could see accelerated partnerships and integrations, especially as banks and remittance services look for blockchain solutions that are both scalable and compliant.
Here are some key implications for XRP and the broader crypto market:
- Increased institutional adoption: With XRP’s legal status confirmed, institutional players may feel more confident integrating the token into financial services and payment systems.
- Market stability for XRP: Legal clarity reduces the overhang of regulatory risk, potentially leading to more stable price action and increased investor interest.
- Precedent for other crypto cases: The court’s framework may influence how future cases involving other tokens are judged, especially concerning secondary market sales.
- Boost to RippleNet and ODL: Ripple’s On-Demand Liquidity (ODL) service, which uses XRP to facilitate instant cross-border payments, could see expanded adoption without regulatory constraints in the U.S.
- Legislative momentum: The case highlights the need for clearer crypto regulations, potentially accelerating legislative efforts like the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act (FIT21).
Ripple’s courtroom success also underscores the importance of strategic legal defense and regulatory engagement in the crypto sector. By fighting the SEC’s allegations rather than settling early, Ripple not only defended its position but also paved the way for a more informed legal discourse around digital assets. For crypto entrepreneurs, the message is clear: regulatory resistance isn’t futile if you have the facts, the function, and the legal firepower on your side.
And for XRP? It’s more than just surviving—it’s evolving. With regulatory headwinds finally shifting to tailwinds, XRP may be poised to reclaim its place among the top-tier digital assets, not just in market cap but in real-world utility. As Ripple continues to expand its global footprint, the token’s role as a bridge currency in the emerging digital economy looks more secure than ever.
Next steps in the ongoing litigation
With the court’s latest order shutting down the joint motion from Ripple and the SEC, both parties now find themselves at a procedural crossroads—but not a dead end. According to Ripple’s Chief Legal Officer, Stuart Alderoty, the company remains committed to resolving the case and intends to re-engage with the court under the correct legal framework. In other words, while the recent setback was a hiccup in legal process, it hasn’t derailed the broader goal of finalizing the saga.
The most immediate next step is a procedural recalibration. Since Judge Torres ruled that the original motion should have been filed under Rule 60—not 62.1—Ripple and the SEC will likely prepare a revised motion that meets the “exceptional circumstances” threshold required to vacate or amend a final judgment. This will involve more rigorous legal justification, possibly including new evidence, significant changes in law, or compelling public interest arguments. The court made it clear: if the parties want a different outcome, they’ll need to do their legal homework.
What’s especially intriguing is the continued alignment between Ripple and the SEC. After years of bitter litigation, the fact that both sides are working in unison to bring the case to a close is notable—and perhaps a sign that the regulatory winds are shifting. It’s possible that the SEC, under increasing political and public scrutiny, is more open to collaborative resolutions that don’t stifle innovation. For Ripple, this cooperation could pave the way for a more favorable settlement that allows the company to fully focus on scaling its global operations.
Looking at the timeline, Ripple and the SEC have a window of opportunity to refile their motion and present a more robust argument to the court. Legal analysts suggest that they may also explore alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as a consent decree or a revised settlement agreement that better aligns with judicial expectations. If successful, this could result in the lifting of the injunction and a reduction of the civil penalty—both of which would be significant wins for Ripple without compromising its earlier court victories.
Meanwhile, Ripple continues to comply with the court’s order to hold 111% of the penalty amount in an interest-bearing account. This not only demonstrates good faith but also positions the company well for any negotiated outcome. The funds are essentially earmarked, removing financial uncertainty from the equation and allowing Ripple to focus on its operational and strategic goals.
In the broader legal landscape, Ripple’s next moves could shape how crypto companies approach litigation and regulatory negotiations. A successful resolution here might encourage other projects facing SEC scrutiny—such as Coinbase, Kraken, or Binance.US—to pursue stronger defenses or negotiate settlements that don’t involve blanket admissions of wrongdoing. It also places added pressure on lawmakers to define clearer rules for digital assets, especially as the courts continue to play a central role in interpreting outdated securities laws in a rapidly evolving industry.
Investors and XRP holders should keep a close eye on court filings over the coming weeks. Any new motion under Rule 60 will be critical in determining whether Ripple can officially close this chapter—and possibly reclaim the million difference in the proposed penalty reduction. If the court accepts the revised motion, we could see Ripple emerge not only vindicated but also financially and operationally stronger.
In the meantime, Ripple is unlikely to hit the brakes. The company has already hinted at expanding its product lines, deepening partnerships in Asia and the Middle East, and even exploring IPO options. With regulatory clarity on its side and a streamlined legal path ahead, Ripple is positioning itself for a post-litigation growth phase that could redefine its role in the global financial ecosystem.
As Alderoty aptly put it, “This is about procedural concerns.” The substance of Ripple’s legal win remains untouched, and the company is now preparing to navigate the last few legal hurdles with precision. For XRP enthusiasts and crypto investors alike, the final showdown may not be a courtroom drama, but a strategic playbook in legal finesse and regulatory negotiation.