Revering the judiciary for its ability to uncover legal truths may not always be warranted, as evidenced by recent statements made by Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Manhattan federal judge Analisa Torres. Justice Jackson argued that having a black physician doubles the chances of survival for high-risk black newborns, a claim that would benefit from further research. Judge Torres, on the other hand, made a puzzling decision regarding cryptocurrency regulation, suggesting that small investors deserve less protection than those working in hedge funds. This ruling is expected to have a significant impact on the cryptocurrency industry. In order to understand the situation, it is important to look back to 2012 when Ripple introduced its cross-border payment system utilizing blockchain technology. This system aimed to make money transfers faster and more cost-effective. However, trouble arose in 2017 when Ripple began selling large quantities of its digital coin XRP. While some of these sales went towards financing Ripple’s platform, others were made to big investors and small investors through crypto exchanges. This approach did not adhere to traditional securities laws that require companies to disclose information about their operations. In 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a lawsuit against Ripple and its top executives, alleging damages and lack of disclosure. The SEC claims that it is selecting winners and losers in the crypto industry, as other cryptocurrencies like Ethereum have engaged in similar activities without facing legal action. The SEC is concerned about the unregulated nature of digital coins and the risks associated with them. Ripple argues that it would have been willing to provide disclosures if required. Judge Torres’ ruling has raised questions about the validity of securities laws and cryptocurrency regulation. She argues that some of Ripple’s XRP sales to Wall Street investors are securities and require disclosure, while sales to small investors are not. This decision leaves both sides uncertain about how to proceed. However, it is worth noting that many regular stock purchases are also “blind,” yet public companies like Apple are required to provide extensive disclosures for the benefit of small investors. The motivation behind Judge Torres’ ruling remains unclear, but it may be speculated that it aligns with the legal reasoning of Justice Brown Jackson in an attempt to secure a future Supreme Court appointment. Regardless, this ruling stands as one of the most concerning and perplexing developments in finance coverage in recent decades.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
