According to pro-Ripple attorney Jeremy Hogan, the newly filed Supreme Court case “Slack v. Pirani” may determine the future of XRP on secondary markets.
Hogan believes that if or when XRP is traded as a “investment contract,” the Slack v. Pirani decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is comparable to XRP on the secondary market.
In addition, he clarifies that XRP does not automatically retain its position as a “security” outside of the original “contract.”
When asked how this case relates to the Ripple SEC lawsuit on Twitter, Hogan responded, “The rationale is the same. I refer to it as a “2 out of 3 case.”
What does that mean? another user questioned. “It means that all secondary market sales cannot be considered securities.” When asked if he would go quite that far, Jeremy Hogan replied, “It’s a case with similar-ish facts and a holding that would suggest the same outcome for digital asset sales.”
In response, the pro-Ripple attorney said that he anticipates Ripple will make reference to the case in its brief on damages. In addition, if Judge Torres discusses XRP’s sales on the secondary market, she could make reference to Pirani’s complaint.
The topic of XRP secondary market sales is still being debated because some people think that if the question of whether XRP is essentially a security is resolved, XRP will be relisted on exchanges.
Ripple might get ruling on XRP secondary market sales
Jeremy Hogan described how Ripple may get a decision regarding secondary market sales in a previous sequence of tweets. Although the SEC claims in its complaint that XRP is a security, he points out that nothing in the SEC’s petitions to the court suggests that the asset has this status.
He continues by saying that since the plaintiff hasn’t expressly highlighted the matter, the court can decide not to examine it. There are three methods for Ripple to obtain a decision on this, though.
First, Ripple might get the SEC’s consent to include—or the court could approve—the clause stating that secondary sales are not included in its proposed final judgement.
Second, the judge might examine the issues with secondary sales brought up by several amicus papers.
Last but not least, if Ripple is unsuccessful, the judge could be compelled to consider secondary sales at the “penalties” stage, when a disgorgement order would need to be created.
