- Legal expert Bill Morgan finds no error in Judge Torres’ decision in SEC v. Ripple case.
- Morgan notes SEC categorized sales, not Judge Torres.
- Pro-XRP lawyer John Deaton agrees; predicts no reversal on appeal.
In a recent analysis of the ruling in the SEC v. Ripple case, legal expert Bill Morgan defends the Torres decision, stating that he sees no error in the judge’s approach. Morgan concludes that Judge Torres’ ruling was not only fair to the SEC but also grounded in a thorough analysis of the facts presented.
Morgan’s support hinges on his observation that the error in question cannot stem from the distinct treatment of the three categories of sales. He emphasizes that it was the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), not Judge Torres, that initially categorized the sales into these distinct groups.
Hard to see error in the Judge’s approach in being efficient, and analysing and evaluating the transactions in question by reference to the very categories urged on her by the SEC itself.
Throughout the discussion, Morgan praises Judge Torres for her fairness in adhering to the categories presented by the SEC and subsequently conducting a detailed analysis of each. Morgan points out that this methodical approach unveiled substantial disparities in the factual settings between institutional sales and programmatic sales.
Pro-XRP lawyer John Deaton, who has further praised the judge’s decision, expresses his agreement with Morgan’s assessment: “I’m willing to bet significant funds [that] she doesn’t get reversed on appeal.”
Notably, Morgan mentions that institutional buyers entered into contracts with Ripple while programmatic buyers did not. Additionally, the judge found that programmatic buyers were unaware of Ripple’s identity as the seller and were uncertain about the recipient of their payments.
The evidence also suggested that programmatic buyers didn’t anticipate profits stemming from Ripple’s efforts, further differentiating the two categories.
Moreover, Morgan highlights Judge Torres’ insightful reasoning, which concluded that there were distinct differences in the expectations of a reasonable investor depending on the category of Ripple sales. He argues that this differentiation was inevitable due to the varying factual circumstances.
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.
