In the ongoing legal clash between Ripple and the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Ripple has mounted a defense against the SEC’s pleas for penalties and final judgment. The financial technology firm opposes the SEC's claim for close to $2 billion in penalties and suggests a maximum fine of merely $10 million. The recent submission by Ripple, a comprehensive 186-page rebuttal, outlines the grounds for rejecting the SEC’s strict requests post the court's determination of Ripple's breach of securities regulations by vending XRP to institutional investors without appropriate registration.

Starting with an admission of wrongdoing, Ripple acknowledges the breach and stresses its awareness of the court's verdict, highlighting the alterations made in response. “Ripple has acknowledged the judgment publicly and reiterates it now. The company has altered its approach to selling XRP and modified its contracts to circumvent the issues cited by the court,” the document affirms. This admission forms a crucial backdrop for Ripple's assertion that no further punitive actions, such as an injunction, are warranted.

Strongly contesting the proposed injunction by the SEC, Ripple argues that substantial preventive measures have been enforced to forestall future infractions. A critical excerpt from the document emphasizes, “The SEC fails to demonstrate a reasonable probability of future violations.” This argument pivots on the belief that Ripple’s proactive corrective steps effectively diminish the likelihood of recurring past mistakes.

In response to the SEC’s grapple for disgorgement, the fintech entity contests the necessity, outlining that there is no substantiation that Ripple’s activities led to any monetary loss for investors. The opposition document asserts, “The SEC falls short in proving the need for disgorgement. The absence of pecuniary harm, as per Govil, precludes disgorgement.” This stance forms a cornerstone in Ripple's defense, underlining the absence of direct financial detriment to investors due to its actions.

With regards to civil penalties proposed by the SEC, Ripple proposes a substantial reduction, highlighting the disproportionality of the SEC's request in comparison to penalties dealt in analogous cases. The document emphasizes, “ANY CIVIL PENALTY SHOULD NOT SURPASS $10 MILLION,” illustrating that such a sum is more aligned with precedents and the gravity of the violations.

The defense strategy leans significantly on legal precedents, utilizing various citations to reinforce its position against stringent penalties. Citing cases like Arthur Lipper Corp. v. SEC, Ripple argues against the necessity of an injunction. The document underscores that an injunction is meant to "avert imminent future harm" and necessitates “clear evidence of a reasonable likelihood of repeated past misdeeds,” a benchmark that Ripple believes is not met given its corrective actions.

The Ripple community's legal advocates have commended the robustness of Ripple's arguments. Prominent pro-XRP lawyer, Bill Morgan, expressed confidence in Ripple’s position against disgorgement, stating, “I believe this argument to be sound and disgorgement should be denied if it results in an undeserved gain for investors. Ripple seems well-positioned for Torres to heed Govil and abstain from ordering disgorgement.”

Furthermore, Jeremy Hogan pointed out significant legal hurdles ahead for the SEC in their pursuit against Ripple, indicating a missed opportunity in their initial briefing. James “MetaLawMan” Murphy shared insights on forthcoming developments, indicating the absence of a deadline from Judge Torres regarding the final decision but speculation points towards a likely resolution within 60 to 90 days post the last brief submission.

As of the ongoing evaluation, XRP’s trading value hovers at $0.54921, reflecting a 2.5% rise within the last 24 hours. Through astute legal maneuvers and precise responses, Ripple demonstrates a strategic approach in navigating regulatory obstacles and safeguarding its operational integrity amidst regulatory scrutiny.