XRP Investors Still Face SEC Lawsuit Impact, Expert Warns

XRP investors, especially institutional participants, should not disregard the ongoing implications of the SEC vs. Ripple case, according to legal experts closely monitoring the situation.

Despite what many in the XRP community may perceive as the case tapering off, Australian legal expert Bill Morgan asserts its continued importance for a specific segment of XRP holders—namely, large financial institutions based in the United States. These players face complex legal frameworks that could be affected by unresolved issues in the Ripple case.

The SEC and Ripple Labs jointly requested a 60-day pause in the appeals process, asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to suspend further proceedings until August 15, 2025. This request is tied to a new motion filed on June 12, 2025, seeking to amend the final judgment issued by Judge Analisa Torres. The goal is to formally settle the years-long lawsuit by modifying the case’s outcomes.

The XRP community has increasingly debated the continued significance of the lawsuit. Notably, crypto analyst Dave Weisberger questioned whether traders should still care about the legal battle at all, observing that the market may have already factored in the perceived end of the regulatory threat. However, from Morgan’s legal perspective, such a stance overlooks lingering risks for Ripple’s institutional clients.

Why Institutional Investors Still Face Legal Uncertainty

According to Morgan, key unresolved elements in the case continue to cast a cloud over XRP’s institutional adoption. While retail investors are relatively unaffected, enterprise-level buyers are subject to different legal expectations and compliance requirements.

One major element is the ongoing injunction limiting Ripple’s ability to sell XRP directly to institutions. In her final judgment last August, Judge Torres placed restrictions on Ripple’s institutional XRP sales. Without lifting this injunction, Ripple could potentially breach the court order if it resumes those transactions. This looming threat puts Ripple at a competitive disadvantage compared to blockchain firms not under such judicial constraints.

Morgan emphasized that while many assume the legal battle is fading away, the unresolved injunction continues to carry serious compliance implications for institutions looking to buy XRP in bulk. Therefore, XRP remains exposed to regulatory uncertainty in ways that other digital assets may not be.

Ripple and SEC Take Steps to Resolve Legal Deadlock

To resolve these lingering legal barriers, Ripple and the SEC filed a joint motion under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on June 12. This legal strategy proposes modifying the final judgment to lift the injunction and redistribute the $125 million financial penalty. If approved, the SEC would retain $50 million, while Ripple would recover the remaining $75 million.

The motion argues that regulatory attitudes have shifted since the original judgment, and both parties now wish to avoid prolonging the litigation any further. This revised approach follows an earlier failed motion, which was rejected by Judge Torres in May 2025 due to procedural shortcomings.

Now, all eyes are on Judge Torres as she evaluates this renewed proposal. Should she approve the motion, it may finally bring an end to the high-profile lawsuit that began over four years ago. Meanwhile, the appeals process remains in limbo, with the parties set to provide another status update by mid-August 2025.

For individual XRP holders, the path forward may appear clearer. However, institutional investors must proceed with caution until the legal ambiguities—particularly around direct sales by Ripple—are officially resolved. As Morgan points out, “Until the injunction is lifted, institutions risk stepping into a legal gray area that could expose them to unexpected compliance issues.”

Related: Expert Advice: Sell XRP If You’re Confused

In short, the finale of SEC vs. Ripple may feel near, but critical questions remain unresolved. Institutional investors are advised not to overlook this case just yet.