By Bitcoinist - Hace 10 meses - Tiempo de lectura: 3 minutos
Abogado pro-XRP ofrece solución clave para RippleProblemas legales de 's contra la SEC
Jeremy Hogan, un abogado pro-XRP, ha discutido the issue of secondary market sales and its potential impact on the Ripple vs. the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lawsuit.
El resultado de este caso es crucial para los titulares de XRP, ya que determinará si el activo se considera inherentemente un valor. Si no se aborda el problema de las ventas en el mercado secundario, podría afectar la reinscripción de XRP en intercambios como Coinbase.
La demanda de la SEC sugiere que XRP es un valor, como una acción. Sin embargo, las solicitudes de la SEC al tribunal en la demanda no solicitan explícitamente nada que confiera este estado al activo. Esto deja en duda la cuestión de las ventas en el mercado secundario.
Disgorgement Order Could Force Ripple vs. SEC Case To Address Secondary Sales Issue
La SEC ha cobrado 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.
La admisión de la SEC sobre el estado del token en el caso LBRY podría tener implicaciones positivas para XRPEn una audiencia anterior en la Biblioteca (LBRY), la red de pago de archivos basada en blockchain contra la demanda de la SEC, el tribunal de distrito de EE. UU. escuchó argumentos orales sobre la aplicación de remedios. El juez tuvo que decidir si un criptoactivo que permite al propietario enviar instrucciones a una red puede incorporar un plan de inversión de una empresa. La SEC quería que el juez emitiera una orden judicial amplia contra la venta del token LBRY, en la que el token se convierte en el valor.
Sin embargo, la audiencia fue una buena noticia, especialmente para XRP. John Deaton, un amicus curiae en la demanda de XRP, también presentó un escrito de amicus curiae en el caso LBRY. El abogado de la SEC en la demanda de LBRY concedió 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.
Imagen destacada de iStock, gráfico de TradingView.com
Fuente original: Bitcoines