By Bitcoinist - vor 10 Monaten - Lesezeit: 3 Minuten
Pro-XRP Lawyer Offers Key Solution To Ripple’s Legal Woes Against SEC
Jeremy Hogan, ein Pro-XRP-Anwalt, hat es getan diskutiert the issue of secondary market sales and its potential impact on the Ripple vs. the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lawsuit.
Der Ausgang dieses Falles ist für XRP-Inhaber von entscheidender Bedeutung, da er darüber entscheidet, ob der Vermögenswert von Natur aus als Wertpapier gilt. Wenn das Problem der Sekundärmarktverkäufe nicht angegangen wird, könnte dies Auswirkungen auf die erneute Notierung von XRP an Börsen wie Coinbase haben.
Die SEC-Klage legt nahe, dass XRP ein Wertpapier ist, wie eine Aktie. Allerdings verlangen die Forderungen der SEC an das Gericht in der Klage ausdrücklich nichts, was dem Vermögenswert diesen Status verleihen würde. Damit bleibt die Frage des Sekundärmarktverkaufs fraglich.
Disgorgement Order Could Force Ripple vs. SEC Case To Address Secondary Sales Issue
Die SEC hat aufgeladen 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.
Die Zulassung der SEC zum Token-Status im LBRY-Fall könnte positive Auswirkungen auf XRP habenIn einer früheren Anhörung in der Klage zwischen Library (LBRY), einem Blockchain-basierten File-Payment-Netzwerk und der SEC, hörte das US-Bezirksgericht mündliche Verhandlungen über die Anwendung von Rechtsbehelfen. Der Richter musste entscheiden, ob ein Krypto-Asset, das es dem Eigentümer ermöglicht, Anweisungen an ein Netzwerk zu senden, einen Investitionsplan eines Unternehmens verkörpern kann. Die SEC wollte, dass der Richter eine weitreichende einstweilige Verfügung gegen den Verkauf des LBRY-Tokens erlässt, in der der Token zum Wertpapier wird.
Allerdings war die Anhörung eine gute Nachricht, insbesondere für XRP. John Deaton, ein Amicus Curiae in der XRP-Klage, reichte ebenfalls einen Amicus Brief im LBRY-Fall ein. Der SEC-Anwalt in der LBRY-Klage räumte 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.
Ausgewähltes Bild von iStock, Diagramm von TradingView.com
Originalquelle: BitcoinIST