In the ongoing legal battle between Ripple and the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Attorney John Deaton, who is defending XRP holders, has made a persuasive case that Ripple should not be forced to a substantial $770 million disgorgement. Deaton insists that the legal activities against Ripple are not primarily about claims of fraud, but rather about a sophisticated regulatory disagreement.
At the crux of Deaton’s argument lies the monumental Supreme Court ruling in Morrison, a decision that significantly constrains the SEC’s jurisdiction to sales within the geographical confines of the United States. This legal precedent gains paramount significance as Ripple’s XRP sales, spanning regions such as the United Kingdom, Japan, and Switzerland, undergo meticulous scrutiny.
Furthermore, the regulatory embrace of XRP in these jurisdictions, particularly by authoritative bodies such as the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the U.K. and the Financial Services Agency (FSA) in Japan, substantially bolsters Ripple’s legal position. The non-classification of XRP as a security in these international regions is not just a legal technicality; rather, it stands as a formidable barrier, allowing for the continued lawful conduct of XRP sales and posing a considerable challenge to the SEC’s ambitious pursuit of disgorgement from these globally distributed transactions.
Of particular note is Deaton’s astute emphasis on the essence of the legal action against Ripple – a regulatory disagreement rather than a narrative steeped in fraud. This nuanced distinction is not merely semantic but rather pivotal, as it subtly shifts the focal point from punitive measures to the imperative of regulatory adherence.
Given that a substantial chunk of XRP sales transpires beyond the borders of the United States and often involves accredited investors, the potential for disgorgement is notably diluted. By methodically excluding non-U.S. sales, which may account for over 90% of the total sales and include transactions with accredited investors, Deaton puts forth a compelling argument for a substantial reduction in the anticipated disgorgement amount.
Rapid Transactions Thwart Disgorgement Grounds
Expanding the canvas of his argument, Deaton directs attention to the fact that the majority of institutional XRP sales have not inflicted harm upon investors. This assertion is underscored by the present XRP price, which not only exceeds but surpasses the levels observed during those sales, thereby indicating a conspicuous absence of investor losses. Additionally, Deaton brings to the forefront the rapidity inherent in On-Demand Liquidity (ODL) transactions with XRP, transpiring within mere seconds. This expeditious nature inherently mitigates the potential for investor harm, further contributing to the attenuation of the grounds for disgorgement.
An intriguing facet of this legal drama emerges as accusations of harm are steered more towards the SEC than Ripple. This sentiment is particularly resonant among the 75,000 XRP holders actively participating in the legal action. As Deaton meticulously unpacks the intricacies of the case, it becomes evident that the dynamics at play extend beyond the immediate legal discourse, delving into the realms of investor sentiment and perceptions of harm.
In essence, Deaton’s detailed analysis of the intricate legal landscape surrounding Ripple’s case provides not only a substantive but also a nuanced perspective that substantially challenges the likelihood of the SEC successfully securing a $770 million disgorgement against the company.