Latest Developments in Ripple vs. SEC Court Case

The crypto community awaits the decision in the ongoing lawsuit between the Securities Exchange Commission and Ripple. The summary judgment is anticipated to be delivered by the end of this month.

According to a recent update, U.S. attorney Jeremy Hogan hinted in a tweet this month that Judge Analisa Torres, who is overseeing the case, may have decided whether XRP qualifies as a security.

As a proponent of XRP, Hogan reached this conclusion after pointing out that Judge Torres referenced the Marine Bank vs. Weaver securities law case at least three times in her recent ruling, specifically concerning the perspective of XRP holders who bought the digital asset. Hogan also cited a passage from the Weaver vs. Marine Bank case, expressing concerns about whether what was liquidated was generally considered security.

Crypto Comeback Pro is the #1 cryptocurrency trading robot for investors! This trading tool has a %88 winning rate on trades and is the recommended trading software for cryptocurrency traders. Try The Trading Software For FREE Today. (Advertisement)

Significance of Daubert Ruling

Hogan’s statement comes after Judge Torres released a fifty-seven-page decision on the “Daubert” motions filed by Ripple and the SEC. Unfortunately, the ruling did not result in a clear winner between Ripple and the SEC. Both parties had their motions partially granted and denied regarding excluding expert testimony from the summary judgment.

To summarize the ruling, Judge Torres has prohibited Patrick Doody, the SEC’s primary expert witness tasked with examining the expectations of XRP users, from providing testimony.

In contrast, the court allowed Ripple’s experts who testified on the distinctions between Ripple’s contracts and those in the Howey case, the taxation and accounting of XRP, and currency experts who testified about XRP to remain part of the court proceedings.

Even though the Daubert motions ruling did not result in a clear winner, Stuart Alderoty, Ripple’s chief legal officer, expressed confidence in the case and suggested that the outcome favored Ripple.

Alderoty expressed his confidence in Ripple’s position, stating, “Our confidence in our position has remained steadfast, and with each ruling, it has only increased.”

Ripple’s Executives’ Involvement in the Ongoing Legal Battle

John Deaton, a pro-XRP attorney, argues that the SEC committed a grave error by naming Ripple executives Chris Larsen and Brad Garlinghouse in its legal action against the company.

According to Deaton, the SEC should have concentrated solely on Ripple, the issuer of XRP, instead of pursuing individuals who were not directly accountable for the alleged securities violations.

Deaton initially claimed that the presiding judge in the case had accused SEC attorneys of prioritizing their interests over adhering to the law. In addition, the lawyer raised concerns about the SEC’s ability to enforce the law effectively if its representatives failed to comply.

According to a report from Finbold, a potential outcome for the Ripple v. SEC court case has been outlined by Scott Chamberlain, a former lawyer and co-founder of a permissionless Layer-2 platform, Evernode XRPL. Chamberlain reportedly presented five potential outcomes for the case, including a potential settlement that could establish new precedents regarding the categorization of XRP as security and the court’s authority over overseas sales.

Crypto Comeback Pro is the #1 cryptocurrency trading robot for investors! This trading tool has a %88 winning rate on trades and is the recommended trading software for cryptocurrency traders. Try The Trading Software For FREE Today. (Advertisement)

In a previous update, Ripple submitted a document supporting its Fair Notice Defense, referring to a recent Supreme Court judgment. This submission was made in reply to a ruling that limits the ability of the U.S. government to enforce fines on U.S. taxpayers who fail to ascertain their offshore accounts.

Ripple stressed the significance of federal regulations that establish precise boundaries on actions that are not allowed, underscoring the necessity for transparency in regulations in the cryptocurrency sector.

Chip Timing Global is not responsible for the content, accuracy, quality, advertising, products or any other content posted on the site. Some of the content on this site is paid content that is not written by our authors and the views expressed do not reflect the views of this website. Any disputes you may have with brands or companies mentioned in our content will need to be taken care of directly with the specific brands and companies. The responsibility of our readers who may click links in our content and ultimately sign up for that product or service is their own. Cryptocurrencies, NFTs and Crypto Tokens are all a high-risk asset, investing in them can lead to losses. Readers should do their own research before taking any action.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Chip Timing Global 2021 | All Rights Reserved | ✉ Contact | Disclaimer