Jump to content

XRP Lawsuit: Defense Lawyer Interprets the SEC’s Argument in its Motion for Summary Judgment


solodeji
 Share

Recommended Posts

The long-standing Ripple-SEC case where XRP takes the centre stage is slowly winding down as both parties earlier filed a motion for summary judgment to District Judge Analisa Torresearlier than expected.

Following the summary judgment motion filed by Ripple, the leader in blockchain enterprise, and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), several popular legal practitioners have taken pains to analyze their contents.

In a recent update, James K. Filan, a defense lawyer, and former federal prosecutor, also gave his analysis of the Summary Judgement motion filed by the SEC.  He wrote; 

"Here’s the SEC’s argument, as I interpret it; 

"We aren’t saying XRP is a security per se.  What we are saying is that any purchase of XRP, as a matter of economic reality, is an investment in a common enterprise with other XRP holders and with Ripple.

"Whether it’s through horizontal commonality or strict vertical commonality, it is an investment in a common enterprise with other XRP holders and with Ripple.  So while XRP may not be a security per se, there’s no other possible way to offer or sell XRP EXCEPT as a security.

"And when you realize what the SEC is saying, no matter how it is framed, the judgment that the SEC wants is one that incorporates secondary sales."

James Filan then added an image that showed the SEC is using words like “a purchase” and “all units.”

https://timestabloid.com/xrp-lawsuit-defense-lawyer-interprets-the-secs-argument-in-its-motion-for-summary-judgment/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, solodeji said:

The long-standing Ripple-SEC case where XRP takes the centre stage is slowly winding down as both parties earlier filed a motion for summary judgment to District Judge Analisa Torresearlier than expected.

Following the summary judgment motion filed by Ripple, the leader in blockchain enterprise, and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), several popular legal practitioners have taken pains to analyze their contents.

In a recent update, James K. Filan, a defense lawyer, and former federal prosecutor, also gave his analysis of the Summary Judgement motion filed by the SEC.  He wrote; 

"Here’s the SEC’s argument, as I interpret it; 

"We aren’t saying XRP is a security per se.  What we are saying is that any purchase of XRP, as a matter of economic reality, is an investment in a common enterprise with other XRP holders and with Ripple.

"Whether it’s through horizontal commonality or strict vertical commonality, it is an investment in a common enterprise with other XRP holders and with Ripple.  So while XRP may not be a security per se, there’s no other possible way to offer or sell XRP EXCEPT as a security.

"And when you realize what the SEC is saying, no matter how it is framed, the judgment that the SEC wants is one that incorporates secondary sales."

James Filan then added an image that showed the SEC is using words like “a purchase” and “all units.”

https://timestabloid.com/xrp-lawsuit-defense-lawyer-interprets-the-secs-argument-in-its-motion-for-summary-judgment/

I have a Tesla car, it must mean I'm in a common enterprise with Tesla, other owners and Elon, also I hope the price goes up, so do I need to be securities registered? I mean Tesla own a lot of these cars as well. Gensler and some at the SEC have lost the f'ing plot.

What the SEC are attempting to do, is class anything as a security on nothing more than their say so and if this BS case get's ruled in the SEC's favour, that's exactly what THEY will do. Expect no mercy from GG and friends, if they gain this power they will decimate crypto, at the expense of investors, the exact opposite of their mission statement.

Which is exactly why John Deaton is challenging them, I despise GG and his underhanded legal tactics to gain this NEW power, that NOBODY or agency should ever have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HAL1000 said:

I have a Tesla car, it must mean I'm in a common enterprise with Tesla, other owners and Elon, also I hope the price goes up, so do I need to be securities registered? I mean Tesla own a lot of these cars as well. Gensler and some at the SEC have lost the f'ing plot.

I dont get all the simplified comparisons with buying cars, collectors cards etc when it comes to cryptos

You have to look at it from an outside-the-crypto-bubble perspective, because thats where the judges are looking at it from

You buy a tesla car to use it - it probably wont increase in value the more you use it. Most common people do not buy a car with the expectation to later sell it at a higher price.

But if I build a code and claim to work for this code getting embedded and used by as many companies and institutions as possible, and claim for this to work the code must have a minimum of value X, and people start buying this code mostly to hold and sell later for profits (like 90% of all crypto buyers are doing) you have to wonder how judges are going to view this kind of stuff. They probably wont compare it to cars or collectors cards. 

I`m not saying the SEC is right, absolutely not - they, other regulators and the congress just f@cked up with not providing clear rules for this space. The SEC made many companies feel comfortable while bringing lawsuits against them later on. Their regulation by enforcement strategy is a mess and does exactly the opposite of what the SEC really should do - protect investors! But unfortunately its not illegal. No one is stopping them from bringing enforcement actions against crypto companies and exchanges and they most likely are going further down this path.

Ripple is one of a few companies being in a good position to fight them, with all the SEC`s contradicting impulses and statements they`ve sent into the market the last decade, but XRP community needs to understand that its not that clear for ripple/xrp to win in SJ/court. It all depends on how the judges are going to view cryptos with regards to the existing law (howey) and how they are willing (or not willing) to bend this 70 years old law to fit into crypto currencies/DLT/Defi/NFT`s

 

1 hour ago, HAL1000 said:

What the SEC are attempting to do, is class anything as a security on nothing more than their say so and if this BS case get's ruled in the SEC's favour, that's exactly what THEY will do. Expect no mercy from GG and friends, if they gain this power they will decimate crypto, at the expense of investors, the exact opposite of their mission statement.

Which is exactly why John Deaton is challenging them, I despise GG and his underhanded legal tactics to gain this NEW power, that NOBODY or agency should ever have.

I completely agree with you on this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A common enterprise is subjective, it means, almost whatever THEY want it to mean, which is why I used the Tesla example. It was just my way of exemplifying how cuckoo for cocoa puffs the SEC has become.

Everyone now knows the SEC is run by Goldman Sachs, JPM & the Wall ST mob.

After all, It's always handy to know just how much the fine will be, before you commit the crime, it's part of how THEY calculate some of their criminal profiteering. So running the agency that does the fining, well you get the point.

Ripple is a threat to JPM's cross boarder profiteering, along with crypto in general, so THEY did THEIR best to get ETH (JPM's chosen one), through the regulatory door, then slam it on all other cryptos. This is an ongoing crime with GG and his mates at the heart of it, they are criminals, acting on behalf of other criminals, hiding behind a mountain of hierocracy, cover ups and lies.

It also shows, that certain American elites are very aware of what's going on and are also happy to let GG do this to the crypto space, it's a sad indictment of how corrupt America has become at a certain level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, HAL1000 said:

I have a Tesla car, it must mean I'm in a common enterprise with Tesla, other owners and Elon, also I hope the price goes up, so do I need to be securities registered? I mean Tesla own a lot of these cars as well. Gensler and some at the SEC have lost the f'ing plot.

What the SEC are attempting to do, is class anything as a security on nothing more than their say so and if this BS case get's ruled in the SEC's favour, that's exactly what THEY will do. Expect no mercy from GG and friends, if they gain this power they will decimate crypto, at the expense of investors, the exact opposite of their mission statement.

Which is exactly why John Deaton is challenging them, I despise GG and his underhanded legal tactics to gain this NEW power, that NOBODY or agency should ever have.

Actually, funny that you used this example. For the past one to two years, due to huge demand and faltering supply, people have taken to speculating in new cars. They have been buying waitlisted vehicles (Ford Bronco for example) only to turn around and sell them at a huge markup. 

Link to comment
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
 Share


×
×
  • 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.