Latest

Ripple Labs CEO Brad Garlinghouse Retains New Defense Attorney in XRP Lawsuit

In a surprising development in the ongoing XRP lawsuit, Ripple Labs CEO Brad Garlinghouse has retained a new defense attorney who filed a notice of appearance in court.

The filing submitted to the court indicates that Rahul Mukhi of the law firm Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP will now be representing Brad Garlinghouse specifically in the lawsuit.

This move has raised eyebrows in the broader crypto community, as it signifies a shift in the legal representation for Garlinghouse. Previously, both Garlinghouse and Ripple Labs founder Chris Larsen were tied to the lawsuit. However, Mukhi’s appointment exclusively for Garlinghouse has sparked speculation about the implications of this unique representation.

The XRP lawsuit has witnessed various changes in attorney representations on the part of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Ripple Labs, and the named defendants. Notably, two lawyers representing the SEC, Richard Best and Robert Moye, left the team in August, creating a gap in representation that may soon be filled.

New Legal Representation for Brad Garlinghouse in XRP Lawsuit

Despite these changes, Ripple Labs has maintained that the exit of some of its lawyers will not impact its argument regarding the status of XRP. Rahul Mukhi, a highly regarded attorney known for his work in complex litigation, enforcement, and investigations, has now joined Brad Garlinghouse’s defense team. Mukhi’s presence may strengthen Garlinghouse’s case in the lawsuit.

Many observers in the cryptocurrency industry expect that the outcome of the SEC’s case against Brad Garlinghouse and Chris Larsen will ultimately result in a dismissal. Judge Analisa Torres has ruled that the trading of XRP on secondary markets does not constitute securities. Therefore, the expectation is that the Ripple executives will emerge from the lawsuit either unscathed or with minimal civil penalties for the institutional sales component that the current ruling considered as investment contracts.