Court Denies SEC’s Request for Disgorgement in Ripple Case: Implications for Crypto Enforcement

In a notable development for the cryptocurrency regulatory landscape, a federal court has recently denied the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) request for disgorgement of profits in its case against Ripple Labs. This ruling, issued by Judge Analisa Torres of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 7, 2024, marks a significant setback for the SEC’s efforts to impose substantial financial penalties in crypto cases primarily based on registration violations.

The Case Background

The SEC’s enforcement action against Ripple Labs revolved around the allegation that the company’s sales of XRP tokens constituted unregistered securities offerings. Judge Torres had previously ruled that some of Ripple’s XRP sales to institutional buyers should have been registered under the securities laws. However, in a pivotal move, she rejected the SEC’s request to disgorge $876 million in profits from these sales.

Key Points of the Ruling

Judge Torres’s denial of disgorgement is grounded in her reliance on the Second Circuit’s decision in SEC v. Govil. In this precedent-setting case, the court determined that disgorgement is only appropriate when identifiable victims can be shown to have suffered pecuniary harm. Judge Torres found that the SEC had failed to prove that XRP purchasers experienced financial losses or did not receive the anticipated returns on their investments. Specifically, she noted:

“The SEC offers only speculative evidence that the Institutional Buyers did not ‘receive[] the return on the investment contemplated.’ . . . [T]he SEC does not (and cannot) establish that Ripple would have, in fact, offered any additional discounts to investors had it complied with Section 5’s registration requirements.”

This decision could potentially narrow the SEC’s ability to seek large disgorgement penalties in crypto cases where there is no clear evidence of investor harm.

Injunction and Civil Penalty

Although the court denied the disgorgement request, it did grant the SEC’s request for a permanent injunction against future violations of securities laws by Ripple. However, the court limited the scope of the injunction, noting that the SEC had not proven that Ripple acted with reckless disregard of regulatory requirements in its business decisions.

Additionally, the court imposed a $125 million civil penalty on Ripple, a figure significantly lower than the nearly $2 billion sought by the SEC, which included $1 billion in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and $900 million in civil penalties.

Implications for Future Crypto Cases

This ruling has potential implications for the SEC’s approach to crypto enforcement. It suggests that courts may be hesitant to grant disgorgement requests based solely on registration violations without concrete evidence of fraud or investor losses. Furthermore, the decision underscores the ongoing legal ambiguity surrounding the status of various crypto transactions, particularly secondary market transactions.

Judge Torres’s ruling that Ripple’s programmatic sales of XRP on exchanges did not violate securities laws continues to reflect the divergent judicial perspectives on the legal status of such transactions. As the case proceeds, it remains to be seen whether the SEC will appeal the district court’s decisions, including those related to programmatic sales.

For those following the evolving regulatory landscape in the cryptocurrency sector, this ruling is a crucial development. It highlights the need for regulatory clarity and the importance of demonstrating tangible investor harm when seeking significant financial penalties in securities enforcement actions.

Related Resources:

• Katten’s coverage of the Ripple enforcement action

• SEC v. Govil, 86 F.4th 89 (2d Cir. 2023)

For more insights and updates on securities law and regulatory matters, please contact Anderson P.C.

* * *

Attorney Advertising—Anderson P.C. is a U.S. law firm located at 1717 K Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, D.C. 20006.

Anderson P.C. provides this information as a service to clients, prospective clients, and other friends for educational purposes only. It should not be construed or relied on as legal advice or to create a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking advice from professional advisers. If you have any questions, please contact Braeden Anderson.