Judge Analisa Torres’ greatly anticipated Order in the SEC’s lawsuit against Ripple is a split decision. The Order basically finds that Ripple’s digital token XRP is a security when sold privately to individuals and institutional investors pursuant to purchase agreements, but is not a security when sold on a digital asset exchange where sellers don’t know who’s buying and buyers don’t know who’s selling.[1] Although the Order should be perceived as at least a partial victory for crypto, it perversely upends a fundamental tenet of the securities laws which is that the laws are designed to protect those who cannot fend for themselves. Moreover, the finding that digital tokens sold anonymously on digital asset exchanges is not a security also seems to contradict the “fraud on the market” theory of securities liability.Continue Reading Parting the Crypto Sea: Ripple’s XRP Ruled to be a Security When Sold to Private Investors, But Not When Sold on an Exchange
Parting the Crypto Sea: Ripple’s XRP Ruled to be a Security When Sold to Private Investors, But Not When Sold on an Exchange
Ripple Labs, Inc. and two of its executives alleging they offered and sold over $1.38 billion of digital asset XRP without registration or exemption in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, seeking disgorgement of ill-gotten gains. Ripple filed an
On November 27, 2018, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied the Securities and Exchange Commission’s motion for a preliminary injunction to block an initial coin offering, finding the Commission did not meet its burden of showing the digital token in question was a security. Although this appears to be
outright ICO bans in