Jump to content

Any thoughts on the amended complaint the SEC filed today?


Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, Julian_Williams said:

Help me please:  Trying to get my head around what Stuart Alderoty is trying to say?  Previous to this amendment were their more legal claims, but only this one remains standing?

Stuart said the same thing in December:

Quote

2. There are no “fraud” or “misrepresentation” claims. There is 1 legal question: Did certain of Ripple’s distributions of XRP constitute an investment contract. We look forward to litigating that in Court and providing the industry the clarity it deserves.

Basically he is reiterating that the SEC's only valid claim in court, is Ripple may have violated investment contract law.  He believes this is the SEC's strongest point, that Ripple will most likely need to come to a settlement with the SEC on.

This is also one the best cases for Ripple, since it would most likely be a money penalty that could benefit Ripple and XRP community in the long term. He is looking to keep the case away from worst case claims like fraud or XRP permanently being labeled as a security.  If the settlement ends with a claim like how Stuart is trying to frame it, this will probably allow them to win the other lawsuit against Tetragon (since the final settlement would never claim XRP is a security).  Stuart also likes to use these tweets to take digs at the SEC whenever he has the chance.

Edited by wogojump
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, RobertHarpool said:

I do not see any integrity, efficiency or effectiveness coming from the responsible parties at the SEC in this case.  

For example: They could have easily included in their amended complaint that the XRP in the wild are not securities (as the RI suit publicly seeks) ... and thereby let the rest of the market get on with its business. 

The 8-year delay in filing, the bizarre resignation, the public discord between commissioners, the unprofessionalism of it all ... This is not why we pay taxes. 

I completely agree. If the SEC wanted to minimize damage to retail holders, they should have been clear form the start that XRP traded on exchanges are no securities. 

To be honest, it's a broad problem with government agencies. I Don't think the people who work there have a clue... Same here in The Netherlands. They can't even give me a clear definition of a cryptocurrency....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RobertHarpool said:

Enough. 

Tomorrow I will begin drafting a letter of complaint to the Office of Inspector General at the SEC.

"The mission of the Office of Inspector General is to promote the integrity, efficiency, and effectiveness of the critical programs and operations of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission" 

I do not see any integrity, efficiency or effectiveness coming from the responsible parties at the SEC in this case.  

For example: They could have easily included in their amended complaint that the XRP in the wild are not securities (as the RI suit publicly seeks) ... and thereby let the rest of the market get on with its business. 

The 8-year delay in filing, the bizarre resignation, the public discord between commissioners, the unprofessionalism of it all ... This is not why we pay taxes. 

 

 

 

 

I really appreciate your effort. If every other American does the sane, there would be great effect.

Besides seeing great value of xrp, I personally buy xrp because of the unfair lawsuit.

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

He says BG and CL must be under a lot of pressure - sleepless nights, tears, etc. I'm not worried though, they can wipe their tears with $50 bills.

Hogan also makes the speculative point that SEC might be trying to divide off the personal cases against the managers from the core interests of Ripple the company.  IE Get a change of management but leave Ripple the company relatively intact

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2021 at 12:14 PM, Julian_Williams said:

Hogan also makes the speculative point that SEC might be trying to divide off the personal cases against the managers from the core interests of Ripple the company.  IE Get a change of management but leave Ripple the company relatively intact

Exactly, he seems to give an interpretation that enforces the personal allegations towards Brad & Chris while the SEC seems to loosen the grip on Ripple because either the evidence against the company is just to weak or in an attempt to save Ripple as a US company (or both).

I really like the clear and easily understandable views provided by Hogan, at least for a non legal (as I am).

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.