- The Ripple company’s case against the SEC is nearing its conclusion, with details of the latest “bombshell decision” emerging.
- Ripple’s primary argument has been that the SEC did not provide them with prior warning, which the SEC has countered by stating they were under no obligation to do so.
- Comments from the case judge, Analisa Torres, have highlighted the issue of fair notice, with the judge suggesting that the SEC’s theories regarding sales outside of corporate sales are largely inconsistent when compared to past digital asset cases.
Focus on Fair Notice: The Ripple Case
As the lawsuit filed by the SEC against Ripple nears its conclusion, new details about a significant decision have begun to emerge. Ripple’s main contention throughout the case has been that they were not given prior warning by the SEC. They argued that had they received such a warning, they would have taken appropriate measures. The SEC, on the other hand, has maintained that they were under no obligation to issue such a warning.
Judge’s Emphasis on Fair Notice: SEC’s Inconsistency
One of the case judges, Analisa Torres, has addressed one of the most talked-about issues in the case: the debate over fair notice. Ripple’s Chief Legal Officer, Stuart Alderoty, shared a footnote from the judge on his Twitter account. The note suggests that the court is only indicating that corporate sales fall under the status of investment contracts. Therefore, it does not include the defense’s claims about fair notice in this corporate investment contract sales arrangement. The court’s decision is solely about corporate sales, and the SEC’s theories about other sales outside of these are largely inconsistent when compared to previous digital asset cases.
Ripple Executive: SEC’s Actions Based on Fair Notice
Alderoty interprets the judge’s decision note as follows: The court is indicating that the SEC’s theories about sales outside of corporate sales should be included in the issue of fair notice.
Renowned Lawyer Comments: Could Be Bad News for SEC
Lawyer John Deaton, who has been providing detailed information about the case from the beginning, made a comment about the expressions in the judge’s decision text. He emphasized the importance of always reading the footnotes and pointed out that the judge is only rejecting the fair notice request regarding corporate sales. He also noted the inconsistency of past practices. This situation could mean that a defendant can make a fair notice defense in front of a jury from now on. If other judges agree on this issue, it could spell bad news for the SEC.
