>>[...] what changes should we expect to see in the short term?
The article mentions that since the company definitively sold unregistered securities to hedge funds and sophisticated buyers (without registering with the SEC), a jury will now/soon need to "decide whether or not Garlinghouse or Larson aided in the company's violation of the law."
Seems pretty clear cut that the company, and it's executives, will have further problems to tackle in the near future.
>>This is supposed to be pretty huge.
This could become much bigger if the SEC uses this enforcement as an example reference case for future actions against other token projects that followed a similar playbook over the past several years, assuming the case is kicked further up the court hierarchy on appeal.
> This could become much bigger if the SEC uses this enforcement as an example reference case for future actions against other token projects that followed a similar playbook over the past several years
There is no other project, not even a close one, who sold tokens worth almost $1b rewarding their execs, while offering no value whatsoever.
This is not a win for the SEC, this is the case they truly couldn't lose. Yes, they didn't lose everything but that was also not possible to begin with
Fair enough, forgot about that one... At least for EOS, that's a blockchain, and the token has a utility unlike XRP. Also in defence to the EOS foundation, which to me acts in good faith, it's block.one (the company at the origin of EOS) which pocketed the whole $4b
There are specific regulations that carve-out ways to sell unregistered securities to accredited investors. For example, Rule 504 and 506 under "Regulation D", but they have limits on the amount raised ($10mm for 504) or limits on solicitation, which perhaps Ripple did not adhere to? You also have to file a Form D to claim the exemption ahead of time, which perhaps they didn't do?
Many ICOs done in the US followed similar but even more refined legal rational
and it doesnt really matter if institutional sales are unregistered securities because there are many registration exemptions to rely upon for sales to institutional
The article mentions that since the company definitively sold unregistered securities to hedge funds and sophisticated buyers (without registering with the SEC), a jury will now/soon need to "decide whether or not Garlinghouse or Larson aided in the company's violation of the law."
Seems pretty clear cut that the company, and it's executives, will have further problems to tackle in the near future.
>>This is supposed to be pretty huge.
This could become much bigger if the SEC uses this enforcement as an example reference case for future actions against other token projects that followed a similar playbook over the past several years, assuming the case is kicked further up the court hierarchy on appeal.