Jump to content

Recommended Posts

How reasonable is it to consider the possibility that Ripple's IPO move was coordinated with the SEC to accommodate a documented "stamp of approval" related to the securities question? Perhaps a statement in the IPO approval (if that exists?) stating or inferring a review has shown no issues with existing regulations (or in a best case scenario, more direct than that).

I'm not sure how the SEC works with the IPO process, or if there is opportunity for that language. But given that we know Ripple has worked with the SEC on this issue extensively, would it be possible that both parties saw this as a viable solution to the legal limbo? Or at least one that gives Ripple a strong case legally? 

This may have been discussed elsewhere. If it has been in detail, I apologize. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a vary good point indeed. Although the IPOs are made so the biggest investors in the private company to cash their profit and of course the natural way and next step for a Unicorn like Ripple to expand and grow, the public capital is the best thing for a company.

But yeah to be able to file for IPO the company needs to play by SEC rules and be transperant about everything, which i believe its a good thing for XRP.

Of course there are cases  that the best thing for a company is to be private.It depends from the strategy and vision of the company.

Edited by BAX
Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I see with a Ripple IPO involves the necessity of explaining adequately to any stock subscriber contingent liabilities in relation to pending securities  lawsuits.  The class action suit filed against Ripple for securities violations in relation to the XRP  Perpetual Coin Offering (PCO)  is outside the purview of the SEC. That class action suit  is a civil matter where the SEC is not a party and is filed by a representative of the class by a competent and reputable law firm  in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The SEC can be influenced by ICO promoters  and the SEC  has acted in a capricious fashion if you compare EOS and Telegram ICO's legal outcomes. In this  Ripple class action there is no SEC  for Ripple lawyers to schmooze or influence, but the company will have to defend on the merits. These are contingent litigation  risks factors  are difficult for quantification and qualification, and any of Ripple's IPO disclosures need  to be very granular and detailed to avoid an additional law suit for failure to ameliorate information asymmetry requirements  in their IPO. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sporticus said:

These are contingent litigation  risks factors  are difficult for quantification and qualification, and any of Ripple's IPO disclosures need  to be very granular and detailed to avoid an additional law suit for failure to ameliorate information asymmetry requirements  in their IPO.

Your whole post is like the word salad above...   way beyond the abilities of mere mortals to understand.  It reminds me of kids trying to sound smart.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sporticus said:

The problem I see with a Ripple IPO involves the necessity of explaining adequately to any stock subscriber contingent liabilities in relation to pending securities  lawsuits.  The class action suit filed against Ripple for securities violations in relation to the XRP  Perpetual Coin Offering (PCO)  is outside the purview of the SEC. That class action suit  is a civil matter where the SEC is not a party and is filed by a representative of the class by a competent and reputable law firm  in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The SEC can be influenced by ICO promoters  and the SEC  has acted in a capricious fashion if you compare EOS and Telegram ICO's legal outcomes. In this  Ripple class action there is no SEC  for Ripple lawyers to schmooze or influence, but the company will have to defend on the merits. These are contingent litigation  risks factors  are difficult for quantification and qualification, and any of Ripple's IPO disclosures need  to be very granular and detailed to avoid an additional law suit for failure to ameliorate information asymmetry requirements  in their IPO. 

Ripple IPO will have to wait until there's clarification on the securities case. I assume we can get a dismissal ruling in the next few weeks, CA has a 90 day limit if I am not mistaken, so a decision can possibly come before April. In any case, if the case is not dismissed I suppose Ripple will probably settle and get this liability out of the way. Once the settlement is done, SEC can make a statement about the current situation of XRP and highlight that it is not a security. Ripple has already stopped XRP sales since September 2019 (only OTC deals to partners in developing markets, no market sales). Then Ripple can file for an IPO in say June/July.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Undershoes said:

How reasonable is it to consider the possibility that Ripple's IPO move was coordinated with the SEC to accommodate a documented "stamp of approval" related to the securities question? Perhaps a statement in the IPO approval (if that exists?) stating or inferring a review has shown no issues with existing regulations (or in a best case scenario, more direct than that).

I'm not sure how the SEC works with the IPO process, or if there is opportunity for that language. But given that we know Ripple has worked with the SEC on this issue extensively, would it be possible that both parties saw this as a viable solution to the legal limbo? Or at least one that gives Ripple a strong case legally? 

This may have been discussed elsewhere. If it has been in detail, I apologize. 

I've considered this possibility and I think it's entirely probable.  The thing that the anti-XRP types don't want to understand is the the SEC is not here to destroy companies because they've possibly run slightly afoul of securities law while trying to innovate treasury management functions.  That's not what they do.  They're here to protect investors and the public and they only want to destroy bad actors.   I think we'll possibly see some amount of fine being paid by Ripple for past misdeeds, corrective measures being taken (or referred to that have already been taken), a letter of non-enforcement or some statement whereby the SEC blesses Ripple/XRP and then we'll see an IPO.  From there, Ripple as a company is under the purview of the SEC and XRP by the CFTC as commodity.   That's my best guess, but I do think there's a strong possibility that the IPO has been strategically planned alongside SEC oversight.  They have openly used the services of a former SEC Chair as part of their legal strategy.  There's a reason for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, XRPDaddy69 said:

To be completely honest, this thread doesn’t make sense.  Ripple and XRP are two different things.  The IPO has nothing to do with whether XRP is a security or not.

But whether XRP is a security has a bearing on the IPO. XRP is Ripple's most valuable asset and the largest source of realized (I belive) and unrealized revenue to date. Of course the legal status of XRP has bearing on whether and how equity in the largest owner of XRP is made available to the public. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2020 at 1:21 AM, cmbartley said:

But whether XRP is a security has a bearing on the IPO. XRP is Ripple's most valuable asset and the largest source of realized (I belive) and unrealized revenue to date. Of course the legal status of XRP has bearing on whether and how equity in the largest owner of XRP is made available to the public. 

It doesn’t prevent them from IPO’ing just like it didn’t prevent them from fundraising rounds.  It just gets valued in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2020 at 4:42 PM, Undershoes said:

would it be possible that both parties saw this as a viable solution to the legal limbo? 

*not a lawyer, but I have exposed myself to SEC issues...

I doubt it would solve the "legal limbo", because the XRP is just an asset on Ripple's balance sheet. 

What type of "asset" it is would be decided by, or at least would be influenced by GAAP.

Now, the SEC may/does have some influence over GAAP, but I would not view a Ripple IPO as any solution to the legal question about "what the hell is an XRP?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you with no experience with the SEC, you don't print a two-page application to file with the SEC to be granted or not granted approval to go public. It takes years! You bring on aboard outside counsel that handles IPO filings and you have to invest a lot of money in document management so that agreements can be publicly made available. 

If they had filed an application, it would be referenced within EDGARS.

 

 

Capture.PNG

Edited by Panzer_Kitteh
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.