By Bitcoinist - 10 bulan yang lalu - Masa Membaca: 3 minit
Pro-XRP Lawyer Offers Key Solution To Ripple’s Legal Woes Against SEC
Jeremy Hogan, seorang peguam pro-XRP, telah dibincangkan the issue of secondary market sales and its potential impact on the Ripple vs. the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lawsuit.
Keputusan kes ini adalah penting bagi pemegang XRP, kerana ia akan menentukan sama ada aset itu dianggap sebagai sekuriti. Jika isu jualan pasaran sekunder tidak ditangani, ia boleh memberi kesan kepada penyenaraian semula XRP di bursa seperti Coinbase.
Tuntutan SEC mencadangkan bahawa XRP adalah keselamatan, seperti bahagian saham. Walau bagaimanapun, permintaan SEC terhadap mahkamah dalam tuntutan mahkamah tidak secara eksplisit meminta apa-apa yang akan memberikan status ini pada aset tersebut. Ini meninggalkan isu jualan pasaran sekunder yang menjadi persoalan.
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.
Kemasukan SEC Mengenai Status Token Dalam Kes LBRY Boleh Mempunyai Implikasi Positif Untuk XRPDalam perbicaraan lalu di Perpustakaan (LBRY), rangkaian pembayaran fail berasaskan blokchain lwn tuntutan SEC, mahkamah daerah AS mendengar hujah lisan mengenai permohonan remedi. Hakim terpaksa memutuskan sama ada aset kripto yang membenarkan pemilik menghantar arahan kepada rangkaian boleh merangkumi skim pelaburan oleh syarikat. SEC mahu hakim mengeluarkan injunksi luas terhadap penjualan token LBRY, di mana token itu menjadi sekuriti.
Bagaimanapun, pendengaran itu merupakan berita baik, terutamanya untuk XRP. John Deaton, seorang Amicus Curiae dalam tuntutan mahkamah XRP, juga menyerahkan taklimat amicus dalam kes LBRY. Peguam SEC dalam tuntutan mahkamah LBRY mengakui 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.
Gambar pilihan dari iStock, carta dari TradingView.com
Sumber asal: Bitcoinadalah