Last updated on May 18th, 2024 at 12:28 pm
Ripple vs. SEC Update – Former SEC lawyer Marc Fagel recently made a comment stating that Ripple violated Section 5 of the United States Securities Act. In a recent update, Attorney Bill Morgan calls for calm and urged the XRP community to politely react to the comments.
To make it clear, Section 5 points out that all issuers of non-exempt securities must register with the Security and Exchange Commission. Fagel has continued to claim that Ripple breached the SEC security laws by selling “unregistered security” in the form of XRP.
In addition, the prominent lawyer maintains that SEC has a better argument than the blockchain company. Also, he says that the exchange commission is right in declaring that Ripple broke section 5 of the Securities Act. He made his judgment based on his 30 years of being a lawyer for and against the SEC. He said,
“My opinion, based on 30 years as a lawyer both for & against the SEC, is that the SEC is correct that Ripple violated Section 5.”
Advertisement
I don't know how I could suggest it's a fact when there is no court ruling. To be clear: My opinion, based on 30 years as a lawyer both for & against the SEC, is that the SEC is correct that Ripple violated Section 5. But I also wouldn't be shocked if the court rules otherwise.
— Marc Fagel (@Marc_Fagel) May 4, 2023
XRP community reacts to Fagel’s statement
Marc Fagel has continued to incite the XRP community with his consistent statements that the SEC has a better summary judgment argument than Ripple and that the regulators will win in the Ripple vs. SEC case.
In as much as he has confidence, he still asserted in his tweet that he will not be “shocked” if the court declares in Ripples’ favor. Consequently, his comment continues to generate negative feelings among XRP holders.
@Kashta, a member of the XRP community replied to Fagel’s tweet and accused him of making biased comments. The user pointed out that only Judge Torres can say Ripple offered unregistered security. So until then, Ripple has not violated Section 5 of the United States Securities Act.
Fact is until Judge Torres says Ripple offered a unregistered security all of your comments prove your only bias , ignorant or both. So as of today Ripple has factually never offered a unregistered securities.
— Kashta☀️ (@Kashta9) May 3, 2023
Read Also:
- Ripple vs SEC Update: Gary Gensler Refuses to Give a Direct Answer as to Whether XRP is a Security
- Curve Finance Witnesses Minting of $22M Worth of Algo Stablecoin Since Mainnet Launch
- Ripple vs SEC Update: Ripple Replies SEC’s Recent Supplemental Letter
- Ripple vs SEC Update: Attorney Bill Morgan Reacts to New SEC Supplemental Authority Letter
Attorney Bill Morgan’s comment
The popular Australian-based lawyer Bill Morgan reacted to Fagel’s comment and called for calm among the XRP community. He urged members not to be rude toward the lawyer rather, he asked them to thank him for sharing his view based on his “highly relevant 30 years experience.”
I would sincerely hope that rather than be discourteous to you members of the XRP community thank you for sharing your views & would take seriously and debate your opinion based on your highly relevant 30 years’ experience as a securities attorney that Ripple violated section 5 https://t.co/OUM57VfU6J
— bill morgan (@Belisarius2020) May 4, 2023
In the meantime, involved parties have already passed their motion for summary judgment and the crypto community eagerly awaits Judge Torres’s ruling.
Meanwhile, CryptoLaw founder John Deaton and Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse had previously predicted that the ruling will come soon.
Victor Swaezy
Victor Swaezy is a crypto-journalist with more than 3 years of experience in covering blockchain technology and digital currencies news. Known for his comprehensive reporting, Victor has contributed to leading industry publications such as Coinfomania and Crypto News Guru, providing market participants with the required knowledge to make informed decisions. When he is not working, he loves to watch movies and have a good time.