$XRP

If the SEC files the opening brief by January 15th in the Ripple v. SEC case, here are the potential outcomes based on the information available:

Legal Process Continues: Filing the opening brief by the deadline would mean the appeal process continues. This would involve further legal arguments from both Ripple and the SEC, potentially stretching the case into 2025 or even 2026.
Market Reaction:
Short-Term Volatility: The markets might react with increased volatility. Some posts on X suggest there could be a sell-off or a drop in XRP's price immediately after the filing due to uncertainty, while others speculate it might trigger a buying spree if investors believe the appeal is weak or likely to fail.
Longer-Term Impact: If the SEC's arguments are perceived as strong, XRP might face bearish pressure. Conversely, if the community or analysts view the brief as not significantly challenging Ripple's position, there could be bullish sentiment.
Legal Implications:
Appeal Focus: The SEC's brief would detail why they believe the lower court's ruling on XRP's programmatic sales was incorrect. This includes arguing that these sales should be considered securities offerings.
Ripple's Response: Ripple would then have the opportunity to file their own brief in response, setting up an extended legal battle at the appeals level.
Potential for Settlement:
Despite the filing, posts on X and some analysts suggest that there's still a possibility for a settlement, especially if there's a change in SEC leadership or policy direction. However, this would depend on various factors, including political changes and the new SEC chair's approach to cryptocurrency regulation.
Regulatory Clarity: The continued case would keep the crypto community focused on the need for clearer regulatory guidelines for cryptocurrencies, with XRP's case potentially setting precedents for other digital assets.
Community Sentiment: The XRP community might remain on edge, with some members expressing frustration over prolonged legal battles, while others might see this as an opportunity for Ripple to clarify and strengthen its position against the SEC's claims.

In summary, if the SEC files its opening brief by January 15th, the legal battle would continue, possibly with increased market volatility, and the outcome would depend on the legal arguments presented and any subsequent political or regulatory shifts. However, this would not immediately resolve the case but would instead move it into another phase of appeal, with ongoing speculation about potential settlements or dismissals, especially with a possible change in SEC administration.

The post XRP Lawsuit: John Reed Stark Says Judge Torres Was ‘Mistaken,’ Slams Ripple Decision appeared first on Coinpedia Fintech News

The legal battle between Ripple and the SEC has been gaining momentum as the January 15 hearing approaches. John Reed Stark, a former SEC enforcement official and crypto skeptic, recently appeared on Docket Media LLC podcast and opened up about the historic Ripple decisions. He said that the Ripple ruling doesn’t provide broad legal clarity and should only be applied to cases with similar specific facts. 

He criticized the Ripple decision, claiming that many people misunderstand the ruling, likely because they haven’t fully read it. He argued that Judge Torres was ‘mistaken on multiple counts, a view shared by other judges who have reviewed the case.

“There’s so many things about the Ripple decision that people get entirely wrong because I don’t think they read it. It’s completely… it’s respectfully to Judge Torres, I think she was mistaken on multiple counts, as does Judge Rakoff and every single other judge that has looked at that decision (thought),” he said. 

Stark pointed out that the Ripple decision was twofold. First, he agreed that the initial offering of XRP tokens to sophisticated investors should have been registered as securities to protect those investors. However, Stark disagreed with the decision when it came to the secondary market, where XRP was traded on exchanges. 

‘Ripple Decision Created Confusion’

He argued that the lack of a direct relationship between Ripple and retail investors meant they weren’t protected, which he believes is an unfair argument. Stark compared it to buying stocks in companies, where investors don’t have a direct contractual relationship with the company but are still protected under securities regulations.

Stark also criticized the Ripple decision for creating confusion, especially after pro-crypto companies began citing it to argue that tokens were not securities. In response, the SEC sought an interlocutory appeal, hoping to stop the ongoing proceedings. However, the judge rejected the SEC’s request, stating that the Ripple decision could not be used as precedent unless the exact same circumstances were present.