Decoding The Ripple vs. SEC Saga: Can A US Supreme Court Precedent Shift The Tides For XRP Investors?

Attorney Jeremy Hogan has conveyed an intriguing U.S. Supreme Court precedent relevant to the ongoing U.S. SEC v. Ripple Labs legal battle. Both sides have opted to advance with exploring remedies, focusing on institutional sales and other unresolved claims.

Hogan suggests that this development has implications for the sovereign rights of foreign nations. Legal professionals supporting XRP have also weighed in on this noteworthy legal progress.

Ripple and the SEC have established a briefing schedule for addressing remedies related to Section 5 violations concerning Ripple’s institutional sales of XRP and other components. While a settlement is probable, Ripple intends to contest the SEC’s proposed $770 million disgorgement.

Regarding the Ripple lawsuit and invoking the U.S. Supreme Court’s Morrison v. National Australia Bank case, attorney Jeremy Hogan remarked, “This will be intriguing, as nothing less than the sovereign rights of foreign countries are in question.”

Judge Torres’ Verdict: Unpacking Ripple Jurisdictional Challenge

He contends that Ripple’s sales must have occurred “in the U.S.” or, at the very least, on a U.S. exchange, following the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the SEC’s approach to handling this matter remains to be determined. Moreover, suppose the SEC expands its jurisdiction beyond the U.S.

In that case, there is uncertainty about whether the UK, France, and Australia will submit Amicus Briefs. This move could be deemed ’embarrassing,’ similar to the scenario in the Morrison case.

Attorney James Farell highlighted that Judge Torres has already tackled this matter by rejecting Ripple’s argument during the motion to dismiss in the SEC v. Ripple lawsuit.

Pro-XRP attorney Bill Morgan has entered the discussion, expressing skepticism about its likelihood. He maintains that considering the jurisdictional concerns and the SEC v Govil implications, the SEC and Ripple, following the agreed-upon procedure and considering all the evidence, are likely to settle, potentially involving a reduction in the disgorgement amount.

The author’s views are for reference only and shall not constitute any investment advice. Please ensure you fully understand and assess the products and associated risks before purchasing.