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

By Bitcoinist - Duela 10 hilabete - Irakurtzeko denbora: 3 minutu
29ko maiatzaren 2023a, 6:30

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

Jeremy Hoganek, XRPren aldeko abokatu batek, du eztabaidatu the issue of secondary market sales and its potential impact on the Ripple vs. the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lawsuit. 

Kasu honen emaitza funtsezkoa da XRP titularrek, aktiboa berez segurtasuntzat hartzen den erabakiko baitu. Bigarren mailako merkatuko salmenten gaia zuzentzen ez bada, Coinbase bezalako trukeetan XRP-ren berrikustean eragina izan dezake.

SEC auziak iradokitzen du XRP segurtasun bat dela, akzioen akzio bat bezala. Hala ere, SECk auzian epailearen eskaerek ez dute espresuki aktiboari egoera hori emango dion ezer eskatzen. Horrek bigarren mailako merkatuko salmenten gaia zalantzan uzten du.

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.

Liburutegian (LBRY) iraganeko entzunaldi batean, blockchain-en oinarritutako fitxategi-ordainketa sarearen aurkako SEC auzian, AEBetako barrutiko auzitegiak erremedioen aplikazioari buruzko ahozko argudioak entzun zituen. Epaileak erabaki behar izan zuen jabeari sare batera argibideak bidaltzeko aukera ematen dion kriptografia-aktibo batek enpresa baten inbertsio-eskema gorpuz dezakeen. SECk epaileak LBRY tokenaren salmentaren aurkako agindu zabala ematea nahi zuen, zeinetan tokena segurtasun bihurtzen den.

Hala ere, entzumena albiste ona izan zen, batez ere XRPrentzat. John Deatonek, XRP auziko Amicus Curiae batek, LBRY auzian amicus laburpena ere aurkeztu zuen. SEC abokatua LBRY auzian ematen dieten 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.

IStock-eko irudia, TradingView.com-eko diagrama 

Jatorrizko iturria: Bitcoinda