Ripple CLO Discusses What’s Next, Remains Hopeful About Atkins

Ripple’s ongoing legal battle with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has drawn attention within the crypto industry. The case, which began in 2020, centers around allegations that Ripple Labs failed to register its XRP token as a security with the SEC. However, Ripple’s Chief Legal Officer (CLO), Stuart Alderoty, recently shared his thoughts on recent regulatory shifts on the case.

In an interview with CNBC, when asked about the latest developments in the case, Alderoty said that Ripple was not accused of fraud, market manipulation, or consumer harm. In fact, he pointed out that the SEC has not been able to identify any specific victims of the alleged wrongdoing or any evidence of financial loss. Instead, the lawsuit largely stems from Ripple’s alleged failure to register with the SEC, despite the fact that there was no clear mechanism in place for crypto companies to do so at the time.

Alderoty described the case as part of a broader “war on crypto,” a regulatory approach under the previous administration that sought to stifle the growth of the cryptocurrency industry through aggressive enforcement actions. He said that Ripple spent over $150 million defending itself in this case over the course of four years. 

What’s Next for Ripple?

Following the shift in power, the SEC’s stance has begun to change. In the final days of the Trump administration, the SEC filed an appeal in the case, submitting their opening brief just five days before the inauguration. However, with the anticipated confirmation of Paul Atkins as the new SEC chair, Alderoty hopes that the new leadership will take a more measured approach and reconsider the merit of such lawsuits.

Ripple’s legal team is still moving forward with their defense, preparing to file a responsive brief in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. However, Alderoty views the ongoing case as background noise in the grander scheme of Ripple’s strategy. He also expressed his belief that continuing with these lawsuits, particularly those that involve “non-fraud, victimless crime” allegations, is a waste of taxpayer money and regulatory resources.