SEC v. Ripple: Larsen and Garlinghouse’s Actions Did Not Not Constitute Sale of Investment Contracts

SEC v. Ripple Court Filing, retrieved on July 13, 2023 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 15 of 18. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here DISCUSSION II. Analysis B. Defendants’ Offers and Sales of XRP 4. Larsen’s and Garlinghouse’s Offers and Sales Lastly, the Court addresses Larsen’s and Garlinghouse’s offers and sales of XRP. Section 4 of the Securities Act exempts “transactions by any person other than an issuer, underwriter, or dealer.” 15 U.S.C. § 77d.

Like Ripple’s Programmatic Sales, Larsen’s and Garlinghouse’s XRP sales were programmatic sales on various digital asset exchanges through blind bid/ask transactions. See SEC 56.1 Resp. ¶¶ 280–84, 306–09. Larsen and Garlinghouse did not know to whom they sold XRP, and the buyers did not know the identity of the seller. Thus, as a matter of law, the record cannot establish the third Howey prong as to these transactions.

مصر أحدث الأخبار, مصر عناوين

Similar News:يمكنك أيضًا قراءة قصص إخبارية مشابهة لهذه التي قمنا بجمعها من مصادر إخبارية أخرى.

Ripple's Distribution of XRP Did Not Constitute Offer and Sale of Investment ContractsThe Court concludes that Ripple’s Other Distributions did not constitute the offer and sale of investment contracts.
مصدر: hackernoon - 🏆 532. / 51 اقرأ أكثر »