In a recent decision by United States District Court Judge Analisa Torres, a motion by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to delay the deadline for a critical submission in its ongoing litigation against Ripple Labs has been approved.
The legal documents, filed on March 1, have allowed the SEC additional time to submit discovery materials related to remedies against Ripple.
This extension sets new deadlines, giving the SEC until March 22 to file its opening brief, Ripple until April 22 to submit its opposition brief, and the SEC a final deadline of May 6, 2024, for a reply.
The case between the SEC and Ripple Labs has been a focal point of regulatory discussion since December 2020.
It was then that the SEC charged Ripple and its leading executives, CEO Brad Garlinghouse and co-founder Chris Larsen, with orchestrating a $1.3 billion unregistered securities offering via the sale of the XRP token.
The SEC argues that XRP qualifies as a security, necessitating adherence to stringent regulatory guidelines, a classification Ripple disputes by maintaining that XRP is not a security and criticizing the SEC for not providing adequate notice of its status.
This lawsuit has traversed various legal avenues and arguments, particularly focusing on the Howey test, a criterion to assess if a transaction constitutes an “investment contract” and thus, a security under U.S. law.
READ MORE: Elon Musk Takes Legal Action Against OpenAI Over Alleged Nonprofit Agreement Breach
The SEC posits that XRP satisfies the Howey test conditions, a stance contested by Ripple.
A pivotal moment in the litigation came in July 2023 when Judge Torres delivered a mixed verdict.
She ruled that XRP did not qualify as a security in its sales on digital asset exchanges through programmatic sales, marking a partial victory for Ripple Labs.
However, she also determined that sales of XRP to institutional investors did classify the token as a security, highlighting the nuanced and complex nature of the legal and regulatory challenges facing cryptocurrency and digital assets.
This ongoing case continues to be a significant point of interest for the cryptocurrency industry, regulatory bodies, and legal observers, as it may set important precedents for the classification and regulation of digital assets.
