Crypto: Justice rejects the agreement between Ripple and Dry, despite the compromise found

The court soap opera between Ripple and Dry has just taken a new step. While it seemed that a friendly order was at hand, the federal justice dryly rejected the joint attempt of both camps. This failure rewards the uncertainty about the confrontation that has become central to the regulatory future of the Kryptos in the United States, and reaffirms the complexity of a clear result in a set that follows the entire sector.

Procedural reverse for ripple and dry

In the decision published on 15 May 2025, Judge Annala Torres from the District Court in New York rejected a joint request of the SEC and the ripple aimed at adjusting the final judgment made in 2024.

In particular, this application has proposed a reduction in financial sanctions imposed on Ripple, from 125 million to $ 50 million, as well as the cancellation of the court order that prevents him from breach of securities laws.

The judge stipulates that this approach was “procedurally inappropriateAnd was to be formulated under the auspices of Rule 60, which is a specific procedure that requires a demonstration ”exceptional circumstancesRegulate the final judgment.

She was cut without the ambiguity:

If the jurisdiction was restored to this court, it would refuse the application as procedurally inappropriate.

This decision is governed by the procedure launched in 2020, in which SEC accused Ripple of illegally proposed unemolished titles through the sale of XRP.

Although Ripple won a significant legal victory in 2023, the court ruled that the XRP program sale was not a transaction on the titles, in 2024 a $ 125 million sanction was imposed, but was suspended.

The rejection of the agreement proposed on May 8, 2025 prevents a rapid solution. To better understand what was at stake, here is the agreement:

• Cancellation of the court order: Ripple wanted to prohibit the prohibition of violating securities laws valid from the decision 2024;
• Fine reduction: The agreement set a fine of $ 50 million, originally fixed against $ 125 million, a reduction of 60 %, agrees with the court;
• In the beginning of the dispute: a compromise would allow both parties to terminate their appeal before the Court of Appeal within the accelerated procedure called “A partial recommendation of the court».

However, the judge concluded these doors and stressed that these applications could not be processed outside the laws stipulated by federal civil proceedings.

This rejection thus maintains legal uncertainty about the judicial future of Ripple, despite the already acquired recognition of XRP as a financial title.

Solution always out of reach: The consequences of court blocking

Several observers of the file, including lawyer James Filan, tried to clarify the practical consequences of this rejection from this court notice. In network x Filan reminded that the case can only be terminated if the judge “First signals its intention to remove the court order and approve the distribution of $ 50 million on the dry».

Only in this condition could both parties apply for a limited recommendation to the Court of Appeal, which is a fundamental prerequisite for ratification of the agreement. In other words, if Torres does not give this signal, litigation remains legally active and prevents the official closure of the dispute.

This situation undertakes the ripple to maintain a call strategy and extend the procedure for almost five years. The dry part of it shows this rejection that it does not intend to give up the procedures, even if a compromise is agreed.

This institutional reinforcement illustrates structural problems in obtaining legal regulatory agreements within the ecosystem, where disputes often occur against particularly strict procedural standards. By rejecting the agreement, justice sends a clear report: no acceleration of the procedure will not be accepted outside the traditional legal framework.

Renunciation

The words and opinions expressed in this article are involved only by their author and should not be considered investment counseling. Do your own research before any investment decision.