Why the SEC’s Ripple Appeal Could Face Challenges in Court
The SEC’s decision to appeal the recent ruling in the Ripple case might face obstacles due to weak supporting evidence. The agency is struggling to validate their claims that XRP buyers anticipated profits based on Ripple’s efforts.
Judge Torres concluded that Ripple’s actions, including the sale of XRP held in escrow, didn’t have a significant impact on price movements to establish investor profit expectations.
Now, the success of the SEC’s case relies on persuading the appeals court that programmatic buyers expected returns based on Ripple’s operations. This is a difficult point to argue, especially since the court dismissed the SEC’s own expert testimony on this matter.
The expert opinion, considered crucial by the SEC, was discarded due to an unreliable methodology. The defendants effectively argued that the expert’s assumptions about what a “reasonable XRP purchaser” believed lacked factual basis. Consequently, the SEC lacks solid expert testimony to back their claims.
Complicating matters further for the SEC is the evidence from actual XRP investors. Court documents reveal that these investors did not rely on Ripple’s efforts when purchasing XRP. Many were unaware of Ripple’s initiatives or their influence on XRP. Nonetheless, the SEC is still attempting to argue that a “hypothetical reasonable investor” could have anticipated profits from Ripple’s actions based on outdated blog posts or marketing materials.
Additionally, the SEC faces opposition from members of the XRP community who assert that Ripple’s efforts to develop products like the On-Demand Liquidity (ODL) software, which utilizes XRP for cross-border transactions, did not significantly impact XRP’s price. These investors state that Ripple’s announcements had no bearing on their investment decisions.
While the SEC seeks to convince the second circuit court, it appears that their case is lacking crucial elements. Their expert testimony has been discredited, and there is limited evidence from actual investors to support their claims.
Now, the SEC must rely on the legal construct of a hypothetical investor, hoping to prove that this fictional individual expected profits from Ripple’s efforts, despite the lack of substantial evidence.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute financial advice or any type of recommendation. Coin Edition bears no responsibility for any losses incurred as a result of utilizing the content, products, or services mentioned. Readers are advised to exercise caution and conduct their own research before making any financial decisions.