By Bitcoinist - 10 meses atrás - Tempo de leitura: 3 minutos
Pro-XRP Lawyer Offers Key Solution To Ripple’s Legal Woes Against SEC
Jeremy Hogan, um advogado pró-XRP, tem discutido the issue of secondary market sales and its potential impact on the Ripple vs. the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lawsuit.
O resultado deste caso é crucial para os detentores de XRP, pois determinará se o ativo é considerado inerentemente um título. Se a questão das vendas no mercado secundário não for abordada, isso poderá afetar a relistagem do XRP em bolsas como a Coinbase.
O processo da SEC sugere que o XRP é um título, como uma ação. No entanto, os pedidos da SEC ao tribunal na ação não solicitam explicitamente nada que confira esse status ao ativo. Isso deixa a questão das vendas no mercado secundário em questão.
Disgorgement Order Could Force Ripple vs. SEC Case To Address Secondary Sales Issue
A SEC cobrou 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.
A admissão da SEC sobre o status do token no caso LBRY pode ter implicações positivas para o XRPEm uma audiência anterior na Biblioteca (LBRY), rede de pagamento de arquivos baseada em blockchain vs processo da SEC, o tribunal distrital dos EUA ouviu argumentos orais sobre a aplicação de remédios. O juiz teve que decidir se um criptoativo que permite ao proprietário enviar instruções para uma rede pode incorporar um esquema de investimento de uma empresa. A SEC queria que o juiz emitisse uma liminar ampla contra a venda do token LBRY, no qual o token se torna o valor mobiliário.
No entanto, a audiência foi uma boa notícia, especialmente para o XRP. John Deaton, um Amicus Curiae no processo XRP, também apresentou um amicus brief no caso LBRY. O advogado da SEC no processo LBRY admitiu 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.
Imagem em destaque da iStock, gráfico da TradingView.com
Fonte original: Bitcoiné