Jeremy Hogan, a lawyer that has been showing his support for Ripple since the XRP lawsuit was filed in December 2020, has recently hinted that the XRP lawsuit presiding Judge may have decided the security status of the embattled digital asset.
According to Hogan in a tweet on the 9th of March, the judge in her latest ruling had cited Marine Bank v. Weaver, a securities law case from the 80s, three times while discussing the thought of XRP holders when they bought the digital currency.
Read Also: Ripple CTO Weighs in on Increasing Fees on XRP Ledger to Boost XRP Price
In the case excerpt captioned by the XRP pro-lawyer in the tweet, the precedent asks whether what was sold was commonly regarded a security.
Captioning the excerpt, Jeremy Hogan wrote, “In her recent Order, the Judge cited the Marine Bank v. Weaver case at least THREE times when discussing “what a reasonable XRP purchaser believed” when they bought XRP issue. It’s a Supreme Court case which asks whether the thing sold was “commonly” thought of as a security.”
In her recent Order, the Judge cited the Marine Bank v. Weaver case at least THREE times when discussing "what a reasonable XRP purchaser believed" when they bought XRP issue.
It's a Supreme Court case which asks whether the thing sold was "commonly" thought of as a security. pic.twitter.com/9J8uz8gSnN
— Jeremy Hogan (@attorneyjeremy1) March 9, 2023
In the same thread of tweets, John Deaton, the lawyer representing over 75,000 XRP holders in the Ripple-SEC lawsuit, called Hogan’s attention to a vital part of the excerpt he shared, stating that a provision in the precedent gave investors a share of the profits accrued by the company.
Read Also: Ripple CTO David Schwartz: Ripple To Choose Between Its Vision and Survival
He further said that is the focus of the Amicus Brief he filed on behalf of the teeming XRP holders.
John Deaton wrote, “Read the language here. A provision in an agreement gave the investors a share of the company’s profits. Yet, the Court said the provision ITSELF is not a security. That’s a major focus of XRP Holder’s Amicus Brief. XRP itself is NOT a security and neither are secondary sales.”
In response to Deaton’s observation, Hogan said the Daubert Order shows that the XRP holder’s brief and submissions could be critical to the Judge’s final decision.
Jeremy Hogan wrote, “After reading the Daubert Order, I think the XRP holder’s brief and submissions may turn out to be critical.”
After reading the Daubert Order, I think the XRP holder's brief and submissions may turn out to be critical.
— Jeremy Hogan (@attorneyjeremy1) March 9, 2023
Read Also: Ripple-SEC Settlement Rumor Spreads as FOX Business Reporter Drops Update: Details
In the following response, John E. Deaton said, “I’m confident the Judge will deny the SEC’s summary judgment motion as written/requested. When they were forced to abandon their so-called XRP Holder Expert, whether XRP was acquired for consumptive use is a material fact in issue. That alone requires denying the SEC’s motion.
“The real question is how aggressive does Judge Torres get in trying to resolve the case without a jury. For ex, does she find the instance when Ripple sent a brochure to 100 potential investors in 2014 an unregistered securities offering but conclude today’s sales are not?”
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Telegram, and Google News
