By Bitcoinist - 10 kuud tagasi - lugemisaeg: 3 minutit
Pro-XRP Lawyer Offers Key Solution To Ripple’s Legal Woes Against SEC
Jeremy Hogan, XRP-d toetav advokaat, on seda teinud arutatud the issue of secondary market sales and its potential impact on the Ripple vs. the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lawsuit.
Selle juhtumi tulemus on XRP omanike jaoks ülioluline, kuna see määrab, kas vara loetakse oma olemuselt väärtpaberiks. Kui järelturu müügi küsimust ei käsitleta, võib see mõjutada XRP uuesti noteerimist sellistel börsidel nagu Coinbase.
SEC-i kohtuasi viitab sellele, et XRP on väärtpaber, nagu aktsia. SEC-i kohtu taotlused hagis ei nõua aga selgesõnaliselt midagi, mis annaks varale selle staatuse. See jätab kõne alla järelturu müügi küsimuse.
Disgorgement Order Could Force Ripple vs. SEC Case To Address Secondary Sales Issue
SEC esitas süüdistuse 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-i lubamine märgi oleku kohta LBRY juhtumi puhul võib XRP-le positiivselt mõjutadaEelmisel raamatukogus (LBRY) toimunud kohtuistungil plokiahelapõhise failimaksete võrgu ja SEC kohtuasjas kuulas USA ringkonnakohus suulisi argumente õiguskaitsevahendite kohaldamise kohta. Kohtunik pidi otsustama, kas krüptovara, mis võimaldab omanikul võrku juhiseid saata, võib kehastada ettevõtte investeerimisskeemi. SEC soovis, et kohtunik teeks LBRY märgi müügi vastu laiaulatusliku ettekirjutuse, milles märgist saab väärtpaber.
Kuulamine oli aga hea uudis, eriti XRP jaoks. XRP hagis osalev Amicus Curiae John Deaton esitas ka LBRY kohtuasjas amicus briif. SEC-i advokaat LBRY kohtuasjas möönis 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.
Esiletõstetud pilt saidilt iStock, diagramm saidilt TradingView.com
Algne allikas: Bitcoinon