The request also asks the court to order the release of the $125 million civil penalty currently held in escrow. Under the proposed terms, Ripple would pay $50 million to the SEC in satisfaction of the judgment, while the escrow would return the remaining $75 million to the company.
The SEC stated that its decision to seek resolution reflects its current enforcement priorities and the broader context of its regulatory posture toward the crypto industry. The regulator emphasized that the settlement does not reflect a judgment on the case’s underlying merits or imply a precedent for other matters.
If such a ruling is issued, the SEC and Ripple would jointly request a limited remand from the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to return the case to Judge Torres. Upon granting the remand, the parties would file a motion in the district court formally requesting the relief laid out in the settlement.
Both parties would move to dismiss their respective appeals in the Second Circuit, which would conclude the case following the dissolution of the injunction and the distribution of the funds.
The SEC also accused Garlinghouse and Larsen of aiding and abetting those violations. The case has since become one of the highest-profile legal battles in the crypto industry, with key rulings on the classification of XRP transactions and extensive appellate proceedings.
In October 2024, the SEC filed a notice of appeal challenging the district court’s judgment, followed by Ripple’s cross-appeal.
That motion, filed with the Second Circuit, outlined a settlement framework that would address the SEC’s claims against Ripple, the company’s counterclaims, and the individual charges against Garlinghouse and Larsen.
The action suspended all appellate deadlines pending further court action.
The proposed resolution, filed jointly by the SEC and the defendants, represents a virtual conclusion to over four years of litigation. The parties now await the district court’s initial response to their request for an indicative ruling. The SEC’s filing does not set a timeline for Judge Torres’ decision.
