Does Ripple Have A Legal Precedent To Win its SEC Lawsuit?

Ripple XRP

Ripple’s Chief Legal Officer, Stuart Alderoty, recently raised doubts over the integrity of the lawsuit the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed against Ripple. Alderoty publicized his skepticism in a tweet, referencing a historic 1946 Supreme Court case where the SEC’s stance was overruled.

A Pivotal Legal Struggle in the Cryptocurrency Domain

Ripple finds itself at the center of one of the most drawn-out and costly legal battles ever witnessed in cryptocurrency circles. The crux of this conflict is the SEC’s allegation that Ripple’s XRP cryptocurrency is, in fact, a security. 

According to the SEC’s perspective, the classification of XRP as a security would imply that Ripple violated securities law by failing to register the token with the commission.

This ongoing debate on whether cryptocurrencies fall under the category of securities has been simmering for a significant time. The final verdict on the SEC’s allegations, whether in favor or against, promises to have far-reaching effects on the cryptocurrency sector. Interestingly, the steadfast determination of the SEC to categorize digital assets as securities has led to unforeseen outcomes.

Unprecedented alliances emerge among cryptocurrency firms, uniting against the SEC, their shared adversary. Notably, representatives from Ripple and Coinbase have convened to strategize on navigating the continuing lawsuit and the contentious legal status of XRP.

The Ripple Case: A Potential Precedent for the Crypto Community

The Ripple lawsuit may pave the way for a conclusive court decision that resolves the contentious issue of cryptocurrency classification.

Alderoty’s tweet references a historic case, SEC vs W.J. Howey Co, where the court ruled in favor of the Howey Company in 1946. The company used to sell pieces of citrus groves in Florida, later leasing the land back and caring for the groves. They would then sell the fruit on behalf of the landowners, sharing the revenue.

Similarly to its current case against Ripple, the SEC argued that the Howey Company was, in effect, selling unregistered securities since their transactions were deemed investment contracts. However, the Supreme Court ruled against this, establishing a critical precedent in securities law.

The Howey Test: An Investment Contract Definition

The court’s decision led to the ‘Howey Test,’ which determines an investment contract as an “investment of money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the efforts of others.” Alderoty’s tweet highlights the ambiguity around defining a “common enterprise.”

In 1945, the SEC’s argument that investing in a common enterprise was irrelevant if a “community of interest” existed was rejected. Drawing a parallel with Ripple, Alderoty insinuates that the SEC is repeating its past mistakes. 

He states that although many people buy XRP hoping for a price rise, the lack of guaranteed profit means no common enterprise exists. He said, “The SEC was wrong then and is still wrong now. Common Interest ≠ Common Enterprise.”

None of the information on this website is investment or financial advice and does not necessarily reflect the views of CryptoMode or the author. CryptoMode is not responsible for any financial losses sustained by acting on information provided on this website by its authors or clients. Always conduct your research before making financial commitments, especially with third-party reviews, presales, and other opportunities.