Pro-Ripple lawyer Jeremy Hogan thinks XRP’s fate on secondary markets might be decided by the recently initiated Supreme Court case, “Slack v. Pirani.”
Hogan thinks that the U.S. Supreme Court case Slack v. Pirani is analogous to XRP on the secondary market if or where XRP is sold as an “investment contract.”
This U.S. Supreme Court case just came out last week. Slack v. Pirani
The case is analogous to XRP in the secondary market if/where the XRP was sold as an “investment contract.”
XRP doesn’t magically maintain status as a “security” outside the context of the initial “contract.” pic.twitter.com/XfHiFoATDs
— Jeremy Hogan (@attorneyjeremy1) June 5, 2023
He adds that XRP does not magically maintain status as a “security” outside the context of the initial “contract.”
Responding to a Twitter user’s inquiry as to how this case pertains to the Ripple SEC case, Hogan answered, “The logic is the same. I call it a 2 out of 3 case.”
Another user asked, “It means that all secondary market sales cannot be considered securities.” Jeremy Hogan answered that he would not go quite that far, saying, “It’s a case with similar-ish facts and a holding that would suggest the same outcome for digital asset sales.”
The pro-Ripple lawyer added in response that he expects Ripple to refer to the case in its brief on damages. Furthermore, Judge Torres could refer to Pirani’s lawsuit if she addresses XRP’s secondary market sales.
There continues to be a discussion on XRP secondary market sales, as some believe that XRP will be relisted on exchanges if the issue of whether XRP is inherently a security is addressed.
Ripple might get ruling on XRP secondary market sales
In an earlier thread of tweets, Jeremy Hogan explained how Ripple might get a ruling as to secondary market sales. He notes that the SEC’s lawsuit contains language suggesting that XRP itself is the security, but its requests to the court in the lawsuit do not suggest anything that would confer this status on the asset.
He adds that the judge might not address the issue since it is not explicitly raised by the plaintiff. But there are three ways Ripple might get a ruling on this.
First, Ripple could obtain agreement from the SEC to include, or the judge could approve, the language provided by Ripple in its proposed final judgment that this does not cover secondary sales.
Second, the judge could address concerns raised by numerous amicus briefs regarding secondary sales.
Finally, the judge could be forced (if Ripple loses) to address secondary sales at the “penalties” stage, when a disgorgement order would have to be drafted.