Attorney Bill Morgan said Judge Analisa Torres inadvertently gave the XRP community a weapon against Bitcoin maxis by analyzing the coin under Howey.
Australian legal expert Bill Morgan explained how Judge Analisa Torres, the judge overseeing the SEC lawsuit against Ripple, unwittingly gave the XRP community a weapon against Bitcoin maxis and other critics.
Bitcoin Maxi Highlights Flaw in SEC vs. Ripple Decision
As a reminder, Judge Torres’ decision in the Ripple case became a topic of discussion this weekend. In a recent tweet, a Bitcoin maxi named “ScamDaddy” said that Judge Torres did not clarify which asset class XRP belonged to. In July, the judge declared that XRP itself is not a security, as the SEC claims.
Therefore, ScamDaddy said the judge only stated that XRP was not a security, but failed to mention whether the asset was a commodity or a currency.
– Advertisement –
Judge Torres treated XRP as a commodity
In response, attorney Morgan posited that the judge had treated XRP as a commodity in the landmark ruling. However, the Bitcoin max refuted Morgan’s claim while sharing an excerpt from the ruling, indicating that the judge did not consider XRP to be a commodity.
In fact, quite the contrary….
When it considered Ripple’s sales to institutions as unregistered securities, it stated that “the parties did not consider the sale of XRP to be a sale of merchandise.” pic.twitter.com/Z0lRY4OpfF
– ScamDaddy (@ScamDetective6) November 12, 2023
Meanwhile, attorney Morgan pointed out that the excerpt was part of the judge’s effort to explain why she considered Ripple’s institutional sales to be an investment contract.
The attorney highlighted a section of the summary judgment in which Judge Torres expressed her views on XRP under Howey.
According to counsel, Judge Torres, on pages 14 and 15 of the summary judgment, differentiated the contract, transaction or scheme from the underlying asset.
The judge notably emphasized that the underlying token is not necessarily a security even if it is part of a transaction which constitutes an investment contract. The judge listed various assets, including GRAM, as standalone assets that are not inherently securities.
She later concludes her analysis by stating that XRP ‘as a digital token’ (like Gram) is not in itself an investment contract even though it may be the ‘subject’ of an investment contract. investment like any other stand-alone product.” Attorney Morgan said.
Judge Gave XRP Community a Weapon Against Bitcoin Maxis
The lawyer said the Ripple decision would still be logically correct if the judge did not provide a legal analysis of XRP. However, he speculated that the judge gave the analysis due to the SEC’s refusal to clarify the security status of the token itself.
The lawyer said Judge Torres unintentionally gave members of the XRP community a weapon against Bitcoin maxis, including ScamDaddy, who claim anything other than BTC is a security.
Additionally, Attorney Morgan pointed out that the analysis could be used as an argument against critics who sow confusion over the judge’s classification of XRP.
The judgment did not necessarily need this section on pages 14-15. If you removed this section, the judgment would logically remain intact. I think she added this analysis of the token because the SEC in this case, as it does in public, avoided clarifying its view on whether…
– Bill Morgan (@Belisarius2020) November 13, 2023