Türkçe
Español
Ripple 
$2 Labs and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) submitted a significant joint filing after reaching a mutual agreement. The filing requests that the court suspend proceedings while awaiting the final decision. Previously, it was announced that both parties decided to refrain from taking new steps in line with prior agreements.
Why Did the Ripple Case Conclude?
The case has been submitted for evaluation by the U.S. Court. Ripple’s CEO Brad Garlinghouse and co-founder Chris Larsen are among the relevant parties in the case. Both parties aim to use their resources more efficiently by agreeing not to take further action in the upcoming process.
The joint filing, based on the previous agreement, aims to prevent resource wastage from the prolonged process. The filing emphasizes that the case should await reevaluation in court, ensuring that neither party will take new initiatives against the other. This situation demonstrates both institutions’ commitment to adhering to the existing agreement.
Changes in Regulatory Approach
With the filing, the next document review phase anticipated for April 16 will become unnecessary. This development indicates that the request to suspend the case could directly influence its progress. The process will conclude based on the final decision from the relevant court.
The joint stance of both parties will contribute to a fair process within the framework of the recent agreement. The documents submitted in the case and the decisions made are seen as indicators that the legal process will reshape after the final court approval.
In summary, the SEC is eliminating lawsuits until regulations mature, aiming for a smooth rule-making process. Once rules are established, the SEC might revisit cases against Ripple or crypto companies when necessary. However, the anticipated scenario suggests that future lawsuits will focus solely on fraudulent activities.
The process regarding the case is progressing in line with the mutual agreement of both parties. Despite uncertainties in legal steps, the final decision from the court could clarify the case’s trajectory. The changing regulatory approach may provide significant insights into optimizing resource usage in similar cases.
