The US Securities and Exchange Commission first indicted Ripple Labs almost six months ago with illegal securities offerings.
The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed a complaint against Ripple Labs Inc. and two of its executives who are also significant owners, alleging that they raised more than $ 1.3 billion through an unregistered, ongoing digital asset offering to have.
The SEC’s case may be flawed
Many people in the crypto community believe that the SEC’s case is flawed on several levels. In fact, it could be argued that the agency is aware of this. For beginners, the SEC recently informed Judge Netburn in a file that losing the case would have far-reaching consequences as future defendants are likely to use Ripple’s defense as a precedent.
Additionally, Jay Clayton, the former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) who initiated the lawsuit, recently penned a comment in which he appeared to repeat some of Ripple’s old topics of conversation.
Given Ripple’s small legal victories in recent months, do these developments sound as confident as the SEC? In the opinion of many, the answer is negative.
Attorney John Deaton has made headlines for filing a motion to intervene on behalf of XRP investors in the above lawsuit.
In support of the XRP owners, Deaton also argued that the SEC had denied XRP’s independence. This prompted the XRP owners to intervene to “develop the court’s understanding of the current use, technology and development of XRP”.
While Deaton has always argued that the SEC and Ripple Labs, like the other defendants in the lawsuit, are unable to represent the XRP holders he represents, he has also argued that the regulator was wrong to identify the San Francisco-based company in court.
In his last Twitter Thread on “What is the LAW“The managing partners of Deaton Legal Firm reiterated Judge Castel’s observations in the Telegram case to argue that the SEC case of Garlinghouse and Larsen, Ripple Labs and its managers, was at one point flawed.
All of these are guesswork at the end of the day with either party not sure what the court will do. However, if the court follows precedent, the pendulum will swing in the defendant’s path, according to Deaton.