Tinutukoy ng Ripple CLO ang mga pagpigil sa pagpapatupad ng SEC
Ripple‘s Chief Legal Officer, Stuart Alderoty, recently drew attention to a significant ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that restrains the SEC’s authority to pursue disgorgement. This ruling has sparked conversations within legal circles, especially against Ripple‘s ongoing litigation. The decision mandates that the SEC demonstrate actual financial harm to investors before seeking disgorgement, resonating with the Supreme Court’s stance in Liu v. SEC. Moreover, the debate intensifies as industry experts weigh in. Australian lawyer Bill Morgan questions the evidence of financial harm to institutional investors in XRP, humorously pointing to the high-speed transactions enabled by Ripple‘s technology as a deterrent to potential loss. Steven Nerayoff, a former Ethereum adviser, shifts the focus onto the SEC’s conduct, proposing that the agency‘s actions could potentially inflict financial damage, thus spotlighting the debate on officials’ qualified immunity. Additionally, Morgan and Nerayoff delve into the SEC‘s motives, scrutinizing the agency’s invitation to companies for open dialogue. They suggest that such invitations could be misleading if the SECs ultimate goal were litigation rather than assistance. This notion, if supported by evidence, could have significant implications for how regulatory intentions are perceived and challenged in court. Hence, the discussion extends to the