Ripple Labs and the Securities and Exchange Commission have submitted a joint motion to hold appeal and cross-appeal in abeyance in the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The motion reveals that the parties “have reached an agreement-in-principle, subject to Commission approval, to resolve the underlying case, the Commission’s appeal, and Ripple’s cross-appeal.”
Ripple And SEC Need More Time
The filing underscores that both sides seek additional time to secure final Commission approval and to potentially return to the District Court for an indicative ruling, stating: “An abeyance would conserve judicial and party resources while the parties continue to pursue a negotiated resolution of this matter.”
Signed by counsel for the SEC as well as attorneys representing Ripple, Bradley Garlinghouse, and Christian A. Larsen, the motion is unequivocal: “The Securities and Exchange Commission, Appellant-Cross-Appellee, Ripple Labs, Inc., Appellee-Cross-Appellant, Bradley Garlinghouse, Appellee, and Christian A. Larsen, Appellee, jointly move to hold these appeals in abeyance in light of the parties having reached an agreement-in-principle, subject to Commission approval.”
It further references the procedural posture of the case, explaining that the SEC filed its notice of appeal on October 3, 2024, followed by Ripple’s notice of cross-appeal on October 10, 2024. The Commission filed its opening brief on January 15, 2025, and under normal circumstances, Ripple’s responsive brief was due April 16, 2025. Citing good cause, the motion states that “no party would suffer prejudice as a result of the abeyance,” and all parties consent.
Importantly, the filing also clarifies that “The parties require additional time to obtain Commission approval for this agreement-in-principle, and if approved by the Commission, to seek an indicative ruling from the district court.” Such a procedural move allows the District Court—in this case, the Southern District of New York—to weigh in on the proposed settlement terms even though the matter currently sits in appellate posture.
Throughout the filing, the parties emphasize that “there is good cause” for the Court of Appeals to adopt their proposed course, highlighting that the settlement would put to rest every facet of the litigation: “The parties have reached an agreement-in-principle, subject to Commission approval, to resolve the underlying case, the Commission’s appeal, and Ripple’s cross-appeal.”
Following the filing’s release, members of the pro-XRP lawyer community offered swift commentary. James “MetaLawMan” Murphy wrote on X that “this tracks with what [Ripple CLO] Stuart Alderoty previously reported publicly. Both sides are, for the first time, representing to the Court that an agreement-in-principle has been reached. There is no reason to believe there will be any problem getting Commission approval for the deal.”
Echoing that sentiment, Fred Rispoli, founder of Hodl Law, remarked via X: “And…a few hours later we get an appellate filing that (2) has been resolved. Formally, it is not resolved until we see the notice of withdrawal but today’s filing publicly states the settlement is done pending Commission approval.”
The text of the joint motion also lays out the next steps in no uncertain terms. Concluding the request for relief, the filing states: “Accordingly, the parties request that this Court place this appeal and the cross-appeal in abeyance, with the Commission directed to file a status report within 60 days of the stay order.”
In essence, this means the SEC will need to update the Court within two months of any order granting the stay, presumably reporting on whether the Commission’s internal approval has been obtained and whether the parties will then present the agreement to Judge Torres for a final seal of judicial approval.
No brief will be filed on April 16, the original deadline for Ripple and its executives to submit their response in the appellate phase.
At press time, XRP traded at $1.99.
