Pro-XRP Lawyer Offers Key Solution To Ripple’s Legal Woes Against SEC

By Bitcoinist - 10 fis yn ôl - Amser Darllen: 3 funud
Dydd Llun, 29 Mai, 2023 6:30 PM

Pro-XRP Lawyer Offers Key Solution To Ripple’s Legal Woes Against SEC

Mae gan Jeremy Hogan, cyfreithiwr pro-XRP trafodwyd the issue of secondary market sales and its potential impact on the Ripple vs. the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lawsuit. 

Mae canlyniad yr achos hwn yn hanfodol i ddeiliaid XRP, gan y bydd yn penderfynu a yw'r ased yn cael ei ystyried yn warant yn ei hanfod. Os na roddir sylw i fater gwerthiannau marchnad eilaidd, gallai effeithio ar ail-restru XRP ar gyfnewidfeydd fel Coinbase.

Mae achos cyfreithiol SEC yn awgrymu bod XRP yn warant, fel cyfran o stoc. Fodd bynnag, nid yw ceisiadau SEC y llys yn yr achos cyfreithiol yn gofyn yn benodol am unrhyw beth a fyddai'n rhoi'r statws hwn i'r ased. Mae hyn yn gadael mater gwerthiannau marchnad eilaidd dan sylw.

Disgorgement Order Could Force Ripple vs. SEC Case To Address Secondary Sales Issue

The SEC has charged Ripple with violating securities laws by selling XRP as an unregistered security. If Ripple is found to have violated securities laws, it could be required to pay disgorgement, which would oblige the company to give up profits gained through illegal or unethical means.

However, Hogan suggests that Ripple could obtain an agreement from the SEC to include language in its final decision that the judgment does not cover secondary sales. 

Hogan argues that the court must determine who receives the funds taken from Ripple in a disgorgement order. Disgorgement is a legal remedy that requires a defendant to give up profits gained through illegal or unethical means.

Furthermore, the Pro-XRP lawyer suggests that Ripple could argue that only actual purchasers from it directly, not secondary purchasers, should receive their investment back in a disgorgement order. This argument is based on the SEC v. Wang case, in which a court ruled that disgorgement should only be paid to those who purchased a security from the defendant.

If the court agrees with Ripple’s argument, it would mean that only those who purchased XRP directly from Ripple would be entitled to receive their investment back. This would exclude secondary market purchasers, such as those who bought XRP on exchanges.

This could be a positive outcome for Ripple, as it could limit the financial impact. It could also help to clarify the legal status of XRP, as it would confirm that XRP is not inherently a security.

Mewn gwrandawiad yn y gorffennol yn y Llyfrgell (LBRY), rhwydwaith talu-ffeil sy'n seiliedig ar blockchain vs chyngaws SEC, clywodd llys dosbarth yr Unol Daleithiau ddadleuon llafar ar gymhwyso rhwymedïau. Roedd yn rhaid i'r barnwr benderfynu a all ased crypto sy'n caniatáu i'r perchennog anfon cyfarwyddiadau i rwydwaith ymgorffori cynllun buddsoddi gan gwmni. Roedd yr SEC eisiau i'r barnwr gyhoeddi gwaharddeb eang yn erbyn gwerthu tocyn LBRY, lle mae'r tocyn yn dod yn sicrwydd.

Fodd bynnag, roedd y gwrandawiad yn newyddion da, yn enwedig ar gyfer XRP. Cyflwynodd John Deaton, Amicus Curiae yn achos cyfreithiol XRP, friff amicus hefyd yn achos LBRY. Y cyfreithiwr SEC yn y chyngaws LBRY cyfaddef that the secondary market sales of LBC tokens do not constitute a security. The judge ruled that the secondary market transactions of LBRY tokens by people unaffiliated with no investment intent in the LBRY case are legal.

The LBRY case sets a precedent that could benefit Ripple and XRP holders, confirming that secondary market transactions do not constitute securities. If the Ripple vs. SEC judge follows a similar line of reasoning, it could mean that XRP is not inherently a security, as secondary market sales are an essential part of cryptocurrency trading and do not represent an investment scheme by the company.

Delwedd dan sylw o iStock, siart o TradingView.com 

Ffynhonnell wreiddiol: Bitcoinyn