Hogan says SEC has failed to show an explicit investment contract in the Ripple case.
As the end of the Ripple vs. SEC lawsuit approaches, attorney Jeremy Hogan, a pro-XRP lawyer and partner at Hogan & Hogan has taken to Twitter to provide a legal analysis showing that XRP is not a security.
In a Twitter thread published yesterday, attorney Hogan shared a document highlighting the legislative definition of security.
According to Hogan, the document shows that XRP is not a security but can only fit under the definition of an “investment contract.”
The #1 reason why XRP is not a Security (a thread).
First, under the legislative definition of a security, XRP can only POSSIBLY fit under the definition of an "investment contract." It is not a stock or bond, etc..
Even the SEC concedes this: "investment contract." pic.twitter.com/n9g7ZEos2n
— Jeremy Hogan (@attorneyjeremy1) April 9, 2023
Hogan’s Legal Analysis
Per Hogan, the analysis of what qualifies as an investment contract is usually governed by the Howey case and its “progeny.” He added that the famous Howey Test, “an investment in a common enterprise with expectations of profit from the efforts of others,” responded to a lower court’s opinion that a speculative case was necessary.
Although the Howey case did not focus on the “contract” aspect of an “investment contract,” the pro-XRP lawyer explained that it took it as a given that a contract was required because the decision was in response to a lower court.
Hogan also referenced the Joiner case. He shared a document showing the existence of a contract between the offeror and purchaser.
In the Joiner case the Court had just discussed the existence of a contract and had decided that there was an enforceable "implied" agreement or perhaps an explicit legal agreement but, either way, there WAS a contract between the offeror and purchaser – an "investment CONTRACT." pic.twitter.com/OJTHptutmY
— Jeremy Hogan (@attorneyjeremy1) April 9, 2023
No Prove Highlighting Any Contract of Investment in the Ripple Case
However, the pro-XRP attorney noted that the SEC has failed to provide substantial facts showing a contract of investment in the Ripple case. He noted that the SEC claims the purchase agreement between investors and Ripple is everything required to prove an investment contract.
“That argument tears the investment from the contract […] A simple purchase, without more, cannot be an ‘investment contract.’ it is just an investment (like buying an ounce of gold) as there is no obligation for Ripple to do anything except transfer the asset,” said Hogan.
Hogan asserted that a contract regarding the investment exists in all the cases referenced in the Howey lawsuit. He added that it makes no sense for investors to rely on an offeror to help them make a profit, as they do not have legal recourse when the offeror fails to do so.
The major issue in the case is not about whether Ripple used money from its XRP sales to fund its business. Still, the fact that the SEC has yet to prove an explicit contract between the blockchain company and XRP purchasers regarding their investments, Hogan said.
Notably, Hogan made the legal analysis to provide research materials to the clerk assisting Judge Analisa Torres in drafting the case’s summary judgment.
If you happen to be Judge Torres' law clerk, I hope this helps as you begin drafting the decision.
Call me if you need anything else! 🙂
— Jeremy Hogan (@attorneyjeremy1) April 9, 2023
Disclaimer: This content is informational and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author's personal opinions and do not reflect The Crypto Basic’s opinion. Readers are encouraged to do thorough research before making any investment decisions. The Crypto Basic is not responsible for any financial losses.
-Advertisement-
