Ripple Legal Victory

Last week, Ripple scored another victory as part of its ongoing legal defense against the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which sued the crypto company and several of its executives in 2020 for the unregistered sale of XRP of $1.3 billion. As crypto regulators and industries around the world strive to create a legal framework for cryptocurrencies, the legal status of digital assets is often in limbo. In his speech on June 15, 2018, Hinman stated, among other things, that Ethereum is « not a security because, aside from its `fundraising,` it has become sufficiently decentralized, » as noted by the crypto legal analysis website Crypto-Law.us. The case has now reached a crucial point, as both sides filed motions for summary judgment in mid-September, asking the court to rule partially on the most important issue in the case: whether XRP is a security that must be registered under the Securities Act. If the court renders a summary judgment on this issue, it will have decided the case de facto. If Ripple relies on the claim and the court concludes that XRP is not a security, there can be no violation for the sale of unregistered securities. It would also be the most significant defeat yet in the SEC`s campaign to regulate cryptocurrency. However, if the SEC wins with its request, it will be another win for the regulator, which has repeatedly taken successful action against cryptocurrency issuers. If the court rejects both requests, the case will be heard at a main hearing. « I conclude that the primary purpose of the documents was not to obtain or provide legal advice, » Justice Sarah Netburn said.

In fact, the SEC`s lawyer later suggested at the hearing that the legal opinion was intended to « educate » Hinman about legal norms. If the primary purpose of the agency`s lawyers` comments was to inform Hinman of the law, but not to advise the agency in its decision-making, this is not a protected communication. Ripple scored a big victory in its SEC lawsuit this week, legal analysts said. « The law states that political advice – for example if it is a good or bad idea to make a particular public statement as a public figure – or communications advice – as if a statement is consistent with the agency`s position – is not protected legal advice, even if it is offered by lawyers. Therefore, the primary purpose of the communications was not to provide legal advice to assist the SEC in conducting the affairs of the public. Documents must be submitted. In another consequence of its legal battle against the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), US blockchain company Ripple has received a positive decision from a US company. District judge in Manhattan who rejected the regulator`s attempts to withhold fintech documents. In the case of Ripple, there is a standard at play that could be applied to other token projects.

If the company wins, it could represent the continuation of token sales to fund the development of decentralized projects – although it will ultimately be up to the legal system to determine what XRP buyers thought they were buying. The fierce legal battle has been ongoing since late December 2020, after the SEC claimed that Ripple Labs generated $1.3 billion from an offering of unregistered securities via Ripple`s XRP. The company denies that XRP is a security and is rather a method for international payments, and argued that the SEC did not fairly tell Ripple that its token was a security. A total of 12 independent companies are committed to providing legal support to Ripple. The SEC filed a lawsuit against Ripple and its current and former CEOs, Brad Garlinghouse and Chris Larsen, in December 2020, claiming that Ripple`s « continuous » sales of XRP constituted an investment contract and offering of securities. Ripple used these sales to fund its operations and, in all likelihood, its costly legal defense. This communication is a cornerstone of Ripple`s legal strategy in a case approaching the two-year mark. Instead of reaching an agreement with the agency, Ripple is trying to prove that the SEC has taken an unclear, contradictory and arbitrary approach to crypto regulation.

If successful, the case could set an important precedent for the crypto industry. Ripple Labs has just scored another victory in its ongoing legal battle with the United States. The Securities Exchange Commission after the judge in the case rejected the regulator`s attempt to withhold documents relating to former division chief William Hinman. The SEC is currently engaged in a nearly two-year litigation against XRP issuer Ripple Labs. In December 2020, the SEC sued Ripple Labs on the grounds that the company had raised $1.3 billion by selling XRP, which the watchdog considered unregistered securities. On Monday, the court rejected both of LBRY`s arguments when it issued a summary decision to the SEC. In Hinman`s speech at a summit in June 2018, the former director remarked, alluding to the fact that Bitcoin (BTC) and Ether (ETH) are not securities. The specific mention of Ether is an important point that Ripple wants to focus on when defending itself against the SEC lawsuit. The agency has long argued that Hinman`s remarks fall under deliberative process privilege (DPP), which protects certain internal agency information that has not been fully regulated from disclosure during litigation. June gold buyers could face a challenge between $1987.60 and $2009.90.

Recent developments in the field of Ripple vs. The case of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) appears to have boosted investor confidence in XRP-related (XRP) investment products, according to investment data from James Butterfill, head of research at CoinShares. The crux of the dispute is whether XRP can be considered an « investment contract » and therefore a security under the Securities Act. An investment contract is a class of instruments for which the SEC has been granted regulatory authority. The term is not defined in federal securities laws, but in the landmark SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. of 1946 provided guidance on the essential elements of what constitutes an investment contract. It concluded that an investment contract is an « investment in a joint venture based on a reasonable expectation of profits arising from the .. The efforts of others. Although later cases have refined the test, Howey`s essential property remains intact. A recent U.S.

District Court ruling in favor of the SEC against file-sharing and blockchain-based LBRY payment network could also complicate the Ripple case. There is currently no answer to this story. Be the first to respond. The 19-month trial focused on the same issue at the heart of the best-known case, SEC vs Ripple Labs, as well as the broader ongoing debate over whether cryptocurrencies are securities. Earlier this month, the nonprofit organization Empowerment Oversight released a separate set of internal SEC emails (acquired through a freedom of information law) that included evidence of inappropriate behavior by SEC officials involved in the Ripple lawsuit, revealing a conflict of interest. The battle over Hinman`s documents has been the most difficult in the case so far and is expected to remain so, as it is considered the « biggest decision » in SEC v. Ripple. The SEC argues that XRP falls directly under the definition of an investment contract between Howey and his descendants. According to the SEC, the buyers of XRP invested in a joint venture because these buyers were entitled to receive returns directly proportional to their share of the token, or alternatively, the buyers` assets were linked to the assets of the developer, in this case Ripple, which has been the largest holder of the token since its inception. The SEC further argues that it is clear that XRP buyers reasonably expected to profit from their purchase, in part because Ripple openly promoted, marketed and took steps to ensure buyers` ability to resell XRP on secondary markets from the outset and touted its efforts to provide and protect the liquidity of XRP markets.

inter alia.