By Bitcoinist - 10 måneder siden - Læsetid: 3 minutter
Pro-XRP Advokat tilbyder nøgleløsning til Ripple's juridiske elendighed mod SEC
Jeremy Hogan, en pro-XRP advokat, har drøftet the issue of secondary market sales and its potential impact on the Ripple vs. the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lawsuit.
Udfaldet af denne sag er afgørende for XRP-indehavere, da det vil afgøre, om aktivet i sagens natur anses for at være et værdipapir. Hvis spørgsmålet om salg på det sekundære marked ikke behandles, kan det påvirke gennoteringen af XRP på børser som Coinbase.
SEC retssagen antyder, at XRP er en sikkerhed, ligesom en aktieandel. SEC's anmodninger fra retten i retssagen anmoder dog ikke eksplicit om noget, der ville give aktivet denne status. Dette efterlader spørgsmålet om salg på det sekundære marked tilbage.
Disgorgement Order Could Force Ripple vs. SEC Case To Address Secondary Sales Issue
SEC har opkrævet 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.
SEC's indlæggelse på tokenstatus i LBRY-tilfælde kunne have positive konsekvenser for XRPI en tidligere høring i biblioteket (LBRY), blockchain-baseret filbetalingsnetværk vs. SEC retssag, hørte den amerikanske distriktsdomstol mundtlige argumenter om anvendelsen af retsmidler. Dommeren skulle afgøre, om et kryptoaktiv, der tillader ejeren at sende instruktioner til et netværk, kan inkorporere en investeringsordning fra en virksomhed. SEC ønskede, at dommeren skulle udstede et bredt påbud mod salg af LBRY-tokenet, hvor tokenet bliver sikkerheden.
Høringen var dog gode nyheder, især for XRP. John Deaton, en Amicus Curiae i XRP retssagen, indsendte også en amicus brief i LBRY sagen. SEC-advokaten i LBRY-sagen indrømmede 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.
Udvalgt billede fra iStock, diagram fra TradingView.com
Oprindelig kilde: Bitcoiner