By Bitcoinist - 10 masina talu ai - Taimi Faitau: 3 minute
Pro-XRP Lawyer Offers Key Solution To Ripple’s Legal Woes Against SEC
Jeremy Hogan, o se loia lagolago-XRP, ua talanoaina the issue of secondary market sales and its potential impact on the Ripple vs. the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lawsuit.
O le taunuuga o lenei mataupu e taua tele mo i latou o loʻo umia le XRP, aua o le a iloa ai pe o le aseta o loʻo avea ma puipuiga. Afai e le faʻatalanoaina le mataupu o faʻatauga lona lua, e mafai ona aʻafia ai le toe faʻatulagaina o le XRP i fefaʻatauaiga e pei o Coinbase.
O le tagi a le SEC o loʻo fautua mai ai o le XRP o se puipuiga, pei o se vaega o faʻasoa. Peita'i, o talosaga a le SEC a le fa'amasinoga i le tagi e le'o fa'ailoa manino mai ai so'o se mea e fa'ae'e ai lea tulaga i le aseta. Ole mea lea e tu'u ai le mataupu ole fa'atauga lona lua ile maketi.
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.
Ole faʻatagaina ole SEC ile Tulaga Faʻailoga ile LBRY Case e mafai ona iai ni aʻafiaga lelei mo le XRPI se faamasinoga ua tuanai i le Faletusi (LBRY), poloka-faavae faila-totogi fesootaiga vs. SEC faamasinoga, le faamasinoga faaitumalo a Amerika na fofogaina finauga tautala i luga o le talosaga o fofo. E tatau i le faamasino ona filifili pe o se aseta crypto e mafai ai e lē e ona ona auina atu faatonuga i se fesoʻotaʻiga e mafai ona faʻaalia ai se faiga faʻafaigaluega a se kamupani. Na manaʻo le SEC e tuʻuina atu e le faʻamasino se faʻatonuga lautele e faasaga i le faʻatau atu o le LBRY token, lea e avea ai le faailoga ma puipuiga.
Ae ui i lea, o le faamasinoga o se tala fiafia, aemaise lava mo XRP. O John Deaton, o se Amicus Curiae i le faamasinoga a le XRP, na tuʻuina atu foi se faʻamatalaga amicus i le mataupu LBRY. Le loia SEC i le tagi a le LBRY talia 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.
Ata fa'aalia mai iStock, siata mai TradingView.com
Punavai autu: Bitcoino