Overview

Click to expand overview
Ripple has replied to the SEC’s letter of supplemental authority as part of the agency’s motion to strike the fair notice defense. The plaintiff notified the Court of the out-of The agency cites a Dec. 20 verdict in the SEC v. Fife case, in which the Northern District of Illinois court delivered a blow to defendant John M. Fife by granting the In the “Fife” case, the Defendant tried to argue “Fair Notice” in order to dismiss the lawsuit entirely (and failed) because the burden is very high on a party moving to strike a pleading. The latest development in the lawsuit saw the SEC file a Letter of Supplemental Authority supporting its Motion to Strike Ripple’s Fair Notice Defense. The Last week, the SEC made a motion to strike Ripple’s fair notice defense citing the Fife case, in which a federal court on Dec. 22 sided with the SEC and dismissed a “Indeed, Fife rejected the defendants’ “fair notice” defense at the motion to dismiss stage despite acknowledging the lack of “binding authority” construing the term “dealer.”” SEC v. Fife, No. 20-cv-5227, 2025 WL (N.D. Ill. Dec. 20. 2025). Fife does not support the SEC’s motion to strike Ripple’s affirmative defense that it lacked adequate notice that XRP

SEC\'s Fife Case Argument Fails to Strike Ripple\'s Fair Notice Defense

The legal battle between Ripple and the SEC continues to intensify. The SEC recently made a motion to strike Ripple\'s fair notice defense, and in a significant development, Ripple has replied to the SEC’s letter of supplemental authority as part of the agency’s motion to strike the fair notice defense. The plaintiff notified the Court of the out-of. This defense, crucial to Ripple\'s case, argues that the SEC failed to provide adequate notice that XRP sales would be considered securities offerings. The SEC\'s strategy relies heavily on a recent ruling in *SEC v. Fife*. The agency cites a Dec. 20 verdict in the SEC v. Fife case, in which the Northern District of Illinois court delivered a blow to defendant John M. Fife by granting the. The *Fife* case, officially *SEC v. Fife, No. 20-cv-5227, 2025 WL (N.D. Ill. Dec. 20. 2025)*, involves a similar "fair notice" argument.

In the “Fife” case, the Defendant tried to argue “Fair Notice” in order to dismiss the lawsuit entirely (and failed) because the burden is very high on a party moving to strike a pleading. The SEC argues that *Fife* establishes precedent against the validity of such defenses, particularly at the motion to dismiss stage. Indeed, Fife rejected the defendants’ “fair notice” defense at the motion to dismiss stage despite acknowledging the lack of “binding authority” construing the term “dealer.”

However, legal experts are debating the applicability of *Fife* to the Ripple case. While *Fife* did reject the fair notice defense, the specific circumstances and legal arguments differ. The latest development in the lawsuit saw the SEC file a Letter of Supplemental Authority supporting its Motion to Strike Ripple’s Fair Notice Defense. The core of Ripple\'s defense is that the SEC provided insufficient clarity regarding XRP\'s classification. The Last week, the SEC made a motion to strike Ripple’s fair notice defense citing the Fife case, in which a federal court on Dec. 22 sided with the SEC and dismissed a. Ripple contends it operated in good faith based on available information and lack of definitive guidance from the SEC. Many legal analysts believe that *Fife does not support the SEC’s motion to strike Ripple’s affirmative defense that it lacked adequate notice that XRP.* The differences in fact patterns and the specific nature of XRP\'s function could lead the court to a different conclusion. The outcome of this motion will significantly impact the future of the Ripple case and potentially set a precedent for other cryptocurrency-related legal battles. We will continue to provide updates as this important case progresses.

Top Sources

Related Articles