- Attorney Bill Morgan says Binance case ruling boosts XRP’s non-security status.
- Judge Jackson cited Judge Torres’ Ripple case decision when dismissing parts of the SEC’s case against Binance.
- Morgan highlights that the ruling aligns with Judge Torres’ interpretation of the Howey test.
Legal expert Bill Morgan, known for his pro-XRP stance, has suggested that the recent ruling by District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in the Binance case strengthens the argument that XRP is not a security. Judge Jackson cited Judge Analisa Torres’ ruling in the Ripple case when dismissing parts of the SEC’s case against Binance.
In her Friday ruling, Judge Jackson dismissed the SEC’s claim that secondary market sales of Binance’s BNB token constitute securities. The ruling emphasized the need to distinguish between digital coins themselves and the offers to sell them.
Supporting this view, Judge Jackson referenced several district court cases involving SEC enforcement actions on cryptocurrencies, where courts differentiated between the alleged investment contracts and the tokens.
One of the references was Judge Torres’ statement in the Ripple case, which noted that the XRP token itself is not an investment contract. Judge Jackson found each of these differentiations consistent with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of “investment contract” within the definition of a “security.”
In a commentary on the coverage of Judge Jackson’s ruling, Morgan criticized CoinDesk for failing to acknowledge that Judge Torres was one of the judges whose observations Judge Jackson found clarifying and persuasive in differentiating a crypto asset itself from the alleged investment contracts.
To stress its significance, the legal expert argued that this decision reinforces the reasoning that XRP itself is not a security, as Judge Torres ruled on July 13, 2023.
In another tweet, Morgan emphasized the significance of Judge Jackson’s ruling by noting its agreement with Judge Torres’ interpretation of the third prong of the Howey test, which concerns the expectation of profits based on others’ efforts.
He pointed out that this reasoning is preferred over Judge Rakoff’s approach in the Terraform case, which did not distinguish between institutional and programmatic buyers of tokens.
Disclaimer: The information presented in this article is for informational and educational purposes only. The article does not constitute financial advice or advice of any kind. Coin Edition is not responsible for any losses incurred as a result of the utilization of content, products, or services mentioned. Readers are advised to exercise caution before taking any action related to the company.
