Ripple Labs may have neglected to submit a Notice of Appearance for its counsel in the ongoing XRP Lawsuit against the US SEC.
The XRP lawsuit has been extended by the US SEC’s appeal and Ripple Labs‘ cross-appeal. The US Appeals Court for the Second Circuit informed Ripple of a potential procedural default earlier today. This filing warned the blockchain payments firm to ensure that its attorneys are included in future Oral Arguments rather than excluded.
Defaults and Second Chances in the XRP Lawsuit
Over the past month, two distinct instances of filing defaults in the XRP lawsuit have been characterized by its rapid tempo. At first, the community believed that the US SEC had failed to file Form C, which would have further solidified its appeal against Judge Analisa Torres’ Ripple lawsuit judgment.
Last Thursday, the market regulator ultimately submitted the Form C statement. The current situation has resulted in Ripple being the center of attention instead of a default. Ripple still needs to submit its Counsel Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance, as indicated by the Second Circuit’s notification. According to the Court, this document was due on October 18.
The Court is granting Ripple Labs a 14-day grace period, unlike the US SEC, which did not fail the Form C filing deadline. If the necessary document is not submitted in the XRP lawsuit, the attorneys may be unable to present oral arguments in the appeals case.
Ripple Labs’ Next Actions
Ripple Labs has yet to violate any court’s due process known to the community, and it is unlikely that they will do so shortlysoon. Ripple CLO Stuart Alderoty informed the community that the firm will submit its response after the US SEC filed the Form C statement last week.
The firm’s objectives in the XRP lawsuit are clearly defined. The company executives observed that the cross-appeal filed will contribute to the definitive cessation of the US SEC‘s enforcement strategies. It is essential to mention that the regulator has included crypto assets in its list of exam priorities for 2025.
This case is significant because it can potentially alter the narrative surrounding enforcement.
