By Bitcoinist - pirms 10 mēnešiem - Lasīšanas laiks: 3 minūtes
Pro-XRP Lawyer Offers Key Solution To Ripple’s Legal Woes Against SEC
Džeremijs Hogans, pro-XRP jurists, ir apspriests the issue of secondary market sales and its potential impact on the Ripple vs. the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lawsuit.
Šīs lietas iznākums ir ļoti svarīgs XRP turētājiem, jo tas noteiks, vai aktīvs pēc būtības tiek uzskatīts par vērtspapīru. Ja netiks risināts jautājums par pārdošanu otrreizējā tirgū, tas var ietekmēt XRP atkārtotu iekļaušanu biržās, piemēram, Coinbase.
SEC prāva liecina, ka XRP ir vērtspapīrs, piemēram, akciju daļa. Tomēr SEC prasības tiesas prasībās nepārprotami neprasa neko, kas šim īpašumam piešķirtu šādu statusu. Tas atstāj jautājumu par pārdošanu otrreizējā tirgū.
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.
SEC atzīšanai par marķiera statusu LBRY lietā varētu būt pozitīva ietekme uz XRPIepriekšējā tiesas sēdē bibliotēkā (LBRY) par blokķēdes balstītu failu maksājumu tīklu un SEC prāvu ASV apgabaltiesa uzklausīja mutvārdu argumentus par tiesiskās aizsardzības līdzekļu piemērošanu. Tiesnesim bija jāizlemj, vai kriptogrāfijas aktīvs, kas ļauj īpašniekam nosūtīt norādījumus tīklam, var iemiesot uzņēmuma ieguldījumu shēmu. SEC vēlējās, lai tiesnesis izdotu plašu rīkojumu pret LBRY marķiera pārdošanu, kurā marķieris kļūst par vērtspapīru.
Tomēr uzklausīšana bija labas ziņas, īpaši XRP. Džons Dītons, Amicus Curiae XRP tiesas prāvā, arī iesniedza amicus īsu dokumentu LBRY lietā. SEC jurists LBRY prāvā piekāpās 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.
Piedāvātais attēls no iStock, diagramma no TradingView.com
Oriģināls avots: Bitcoinir