By Bitcoinist - 10 mwa de sa - Lekti Tan: 3 minit
Pro-XRP Lawyer Offers Key Solution To Ripple’s Legal Woes Against SEC
Jeremy Hogan, yon avoka pro-XRP, genyen diskite the issue of secondary market sales and its potential impact on the Ripple vs. the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lawsuit.
Rezilta ka sa a enpòtan anpil pou moun ki gen XRP, paske li pral detèmine si byen yo konsidere kòm yon sekirite. Si pwoblèm nan lavant mache segondè yo pa adrese, li ta ka afekte relisting XRP sou echanj tankou Coinbase.
Pwosè SEC a sijere ke XRP se yon sekirite, tankou yon pati nan stock. Sepandan, demann SEC a nan tribinal la nan pwosè a pa mande klèman anyen ki ta bay estati sa a sou avantaj la. Sa a kite pwoblèm nan nan lavant mache segondè nan kesyon.
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.
Admisyon SEC a sou estati siy nan ka LBRY ta ka gen enplikasyon pozitif pou XRPNan yon odyans ki sot pase nan Bibliyotèk la (LBRY), rezo peman dosye ki baze sou blòk ak pwosè SEC, tribinal distri ameriken an te tande agiman oral sou aplikasyon remèd yo. Jij la te oblije deside si yon byen kript ki pèmèt pwopriyetè a voye enstriksyon nan yon rezo ka enkòpore yon konplo envestisman pa yon konpayi. SEC a te vle jij la bay yon enjonksyon laj kont vant lan nan siy LBRY, nan ki siy la vin sekirite a.
Sepandan, odyans lan te yon bon nouvèl, espesyalman pou XRP. John Deaton, yon Amicus Curiae nan pwosè XRP, te soumèt tou yon brief amicus nan ka LBRY. Avoka SEC nan pwosè LBRY la te konsede 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.
Anons Spesyal imaj soti nan iStock, tablo soti nan TradingView.com
Sous orijinal: Bitcoinse