By Bitcoinist - 10 xhur ilu - Ħin tal-Qari: 3 minuti
Pro-XRP Lawyer Offers Key Solution To Ripple’s Legal Woes Against SEC
Jeremy Hogan, avukat pro-XRP, għandu diskuss the issue of secondary market sales and its potential impact on the Ripple vs. the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lawsuit.
Ir-riżultat ta 'dan il-każ huwa kruċjali għad-detenturi ta' XRP, peress li se jiddetermina jekk l-assi jitqiesx intrinsikament bħala sigurtà. Jekk il-kwistjoni tal-bejgħ fis-suq sekondarju ma tiġix indirizzata, jista 'jkollha impatt fuq l-elesting mill-ġdid ta' XRP fuq skambji bħal Coinbase.
Il-kawża SEC tissuġġerixxi li XRP huwa sigurtà, bħal sehem ta 'stokk. Madankollu, it-talbiet tas-SEC tal-qorti fil-kawża ma jitolbux espliċitament xi ħaġa li tagħti dan l-istatus lill-assi. Dan iħalli l-kwistjoni tal-bejgħ fis-suq sekondarju inkwistjoni.
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.
Id-Dħul tas-SEC Fuq l-Istatus tat-Token Fil-Każ LBRY Jista 'Jkollu Implikazzjonijiet Pożittivi Għal XRPF'seduta fil-passat fil-Librerija (LBRY), netwerk ta 'ħlas ta' fajls ibbażat fuq blockchain vs kawża SEC, il-qorti distrettwali tal-Istati Uniti semgħet argumenti orali dwar l-applikazzjoni ta 'rimedji. L-imħallef kellu jiddeċiedi jekk assi kripto li jippermetti lis-sid jibgħat istruzzjonijiet lil netwerk jistax jinkorpora skema ta 'investiment minn kumpanija. Is-SEC riedet li l-imħallef joħroġ inġunzjoni wiesgħa kontra l-bejgħ tat-token LBRY, li fih it-token isir is-sigurtà.
Madankollu, is-seduta kienet aħbar tajba, speċjalment għal XRP. John Deaton, Amicus Curiae fil-kawża XRP, ippreżenta wkoll brief amicus fil-każ LBRY. L-avukat tas-SEC fil-kawża LBRY ċedew 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.
Immaġini dehru minn iStock, chart minn TradingView.com
Sors oriġinali: Bitcoinhuwa