- The Coinbase vs SEC case continues after the regulatory commission filed a case against them. Apparently, they accused Coinbase of selling illegal securities.
- However, a group of securities law scholars filed against the SEC. Ripple lawyers can also use these filings in their own cases.
A crypto enthusiast, who is also a lawyer, made a revelation on Twitter (now X). Named MetaLawman, this crypto lawyer revealed a new filing from 6 securities law scholars concerning the Coinbase vs SEC case. Continue reading to see all the details.
Coinbase vs SEC Case: New Filing From Law Scholars
- Law Professors from Yale, Univ. of Chicago, UCLA, Fordham, Boston University, and Widener filed an amicus brief on the 11th of August against the SEC. Apparently, they filed against the SEC to disapprove the SEC’s argument in the case.
- Previously, the SEC had sued Coinbase in June on the grounds of operating as an illegal exchange. In addition to that, the SEC also said Coinbase sold unregistered securities to their customers.
- So the latest filing from law scholars from different universities means a problem for the SEC. In this filing, the scholars are trying to shred the argument of the SEC. They want to disapprove that Coinbase sold illegal securities to their customers.
- Furthermore, these scholars helped trace the meaning of “investment contract” right from before, during & after the passage of the federal Securities Act in 1933. For the record, the SEC has always termed many cryptocurrencies as securities. And any exchange where buying and selling of cryptocurrencies takes place gets sued most of the time. So these law scholars made this filing to give a better and different meaning to what the SEC is saying.
Coinbase vs SEC Case: Scholars Gives Meaning to “Investment Contracts”
- The scholars gave current different interpretations but arrived at one thing. The SEC claims are not valid.
- First, their argument started with interpreting the “investment contract” in 1933. Then, the courts said “investment contracts” were contractual agreements between investors and enterprises. The investor will have a contract to share income, profits, and assets.
- Secondly, the Howey decision in 1946 gives a different meaning to “investment contracts.” Apparently, investment contracts then were contractual agreements between an investor and entity on profits, assets, or income of the enterprise.
- Thirdly, even the Supreme Court gave a definition of “investment contract.” Even in this case, it requires a contractual agreement between the two parties.
- However, the SEC defining cryptocurrencies as securities does not meet these criteria. There are no contractual agreements between the crypto exchange and customers.
Can the Judges Use it In the XRP vs SEC Case?
- At the end of the thread, a Twitter user asked if Judge Torres could use the scholars’ filing against the SEC. Apparently, the SEC filed an appeal against the XRP ruling. And Judge Torres is the presiding judge.
- Another Twitter user named Stanislav replied with yes. “She can, that is the whole purpose of those briefs to be filed. the law is the law,” he opined.
Conclusion
In the Coinbase vs SEC case, the former now stands a chance of victory after a group of securities law scholars made a filing against the SEC. Apparently, they claim they made a wrong definition of the term” investment contract.” Furthermore, Ripple can also use this new filing on their own case.
