The Court rejects Defendants’ fair notice and vagueness defenses as to the Institutional Sales.

SEC v. Ripple Court Filing, retrieved on July 13, 2023 is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series.

At all times before the end of 2020, Ripple owned between 50 and 80 billion XRP.

The Court declines to adopt Defendants’ “essential ingredients” test, which would call for the Court to read beyond the plain words of Howey.

Ripple and its senior leaders publicly emphasized the complexity of creating an “internet of value” and the need for extensive capital.

The Court concludes that Ripple’s Other Distributions did not constitute the offer and sale of investment contracts.

Larsen’s and Garlinghouse’s offer and sale of XRP on digital asset exchanges did not amount to offers and sales of investment contracts.

The SEC alleges that Larsen and Garlinghouse engaged in unregistered individual XRP sales, from which they received at least $450 million and $150 million.

The Court shall issue a separate order setting a trial date and related pre-trial deadlines in due course.

In 2011 and early 2012, Arthur Britto, Jed McCaleb, and David Schwartz developed the source code for a cryptographically secured ledger.

Plaintiff, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), brings this action against Defendants Ripple Labs, Inc. (“Ripple”) and two of its senior leaders.

Summary judgment is appropriate where the record shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.

The plain words of Howey make clear that “an investment contract for purposes of the Securities Act means a contract, transaction[,] or scheme.”

On March 11, 2022, the Court denied the SEC’s motion to strike Ripple’s affirmative defense.

It seems like the US SEC is taking an increasingly aggressive approach against crypto-related companies. Why is this and how can affect us globally?