Court Orders Ripple, SEC To Agree On Possible Settlement Dates

Court Orders Ripple, SEC To Agree On Possible Settlement Dates

Table of Contents

US Judge Sarah Netburn has ordered the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Ripple to agree to possible settlement dates should both parties believe them to be constructive at this stage. 

Following Judge Netburn’s order, several members of the XRP community have speculated that both parties will settle soon. 

New Settlement Order 

The order came shortly after Judge Analisa Torres of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York referred the next phase of the court proceedings in the Ripple vs. SEC suit to Judge Netburn. Court documents filed on the 17th of July reveal that Judge Netburn will be presiding over the General Pretrial. The judge indicated that the concerned parties reach an agreement regarding settlement dates 6-8 weeks beforehand, pointing to the court’s hectic schedule. The judge’s order stated that the parties involved in the matter must agree to three mutually convenient dates. 

“NEW: Judge Sarah Netburn orders both @Ripple and the @SECGov to agree on 3 mutually convenient dates to schedule a settlement conference, “if they believe it to be productive at this time.” Also recommends scheduling 6-8 weeks beforehand due to the court’s busy schedule.”

The order also stated that the court would not agree to or tolerate any last-second requests for settlement conferences and also told the parties not to expect any adjournments on litigation deadlines. 

Do Ripple And The SEC Want To Settle? 

The pretrial phase includes aspects of the matter pertaining to scheduling, discovery, and non-dispositive pretrial motions. It is also the stage when most parties in a case would look to settle instead of going to trial. While many believe that the United States Securities and Exchange Commission would want Ripple to settle, the coming few days will reveal if either side wishes to take the settlement route. 

Eleanor Terrett, business journalist at Fox, shared her outlook, stating that Judge Netburn’s order does not mean a settlement would occur within the next 6 to 8 weeks, noting that the order only pertains to the parties scheduling a settlement conference. 

“To be clear: Judge Netburn is suggesting that both sides agree on some possible dates for a settlement meeting, *IF* “they believe it to be productive at this time. This doesn’t mean we’ll see a settlement in 6-8 weeks. It means that if they do decide on a date, it will have to be scheduled 6-8 weeks in advance of the desired date due to the court’s busy schedule.”

She also added that both sides could also refuse to schedule a settlement conference or fail to reach an agreement within the stipulated time frame. Terrett has been following the Ripple vs. SEC lawsuit since the beginning of the case. 

Pro-XRP Lawyer Believes Conference Will Be Scheduled 

Pro-XRP lawyer Fred Rispoli stated that he believes that Ripple and the Securities and Exchange Commission will schedule the settlement conference in a bid to avoid angering the court. However, he also stated that the conference would end just like how the previous meetings ended, with both sides failing to reach a compromise acceptable to each other. 

“They will likely schedule one so as not to anger the court. But it will go about as well as the last two settlement conferences before it went. Settlement only happens when both parties finally reach the compromise each can stomach.”

If what Rispoli believes would play out, then one or both parties could also appeal Judge Torres’ summary decision. In a landmark ruling, Judge Torres effectively stated that XRP was not a security, triggering a massive rally for the token and the larger crypto market. While the outcome of the case is still up in the air, market watchers believe that Ripple’s partial victory is a critical moment and could help in formulating much-needed regulatory clarity in the US crypto markets. 

Reacting to the judgment, the Securities and Exchange Commission stated at the time that it was still assessing the order and would identify its next course of action.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

You may like