Ripple vs SEC: Legal Experts Question SEC’s $876 Million Disgorgement Request in XRP Lawsuit

The post Ripple vs SEC: Legal Experts Question SEC’s $876 Million Disgorgement Request in XRP Lawsuit appeared first on Coinpedia Fintech News

While the SEC vs. Ripple lawsuit takes shape, legal specialists share important views on the SEC’s demand for disgorgement. Attorney James Murphy and Bill Morgan give their opinions by highlighting the intricacies surrounding what is being sought and possible outcomes that could result from it.

Attorney Murphy’s Insights on SEC’s Disgorgement Request

Attorney James Murphy, who goes by the name “MetaLawMan” on X has brought attention to what he deems the “crazy” aspect of the SEC’s disgorgement request. Quoting U.S. Supreme Court’s stance, Murphy writes,

“One thing the U.S. Supreme Court has been really clear about is that disgorgement is supposed to go to the victims.” 

Referring to this, Murphy has questioned the foundation as to why the SEC has been proposing to direct disgorgement funds to institutional buyers of XRP because that would only enrich parties who have already profited from their dealings with Ripple.

The SEC’s demand for Ripple on the disgorgement front includes a significant amount. But Murphy and others are sceptical about how these monies are distributed, implying that institutional buyers might get too much from them. Therefore, the ongoing legal war between Ripple and the SEC is centered upon the plea for disgorgement.

Ripple Attorney Bill Morgan’s Counterargument

The company rejected the notion of giving back in their legal documents, contradicting Murphy, who talks about how Maddox allowed all other institutional investors enough time before calling on them to return their profits. 

The company believes that institutional buyers should not receive money from the $876 million disgorgement as they were allowed to invest, which explains the complex regulations within which crypto-currencies operate.

Attorney Bill Morgan reposted Attorney James Murphy’s post, further adding his sentiment on behalf of Ripple. “The SEC’s theory of pecuniary harm ignores contractual and commercial reality,” stated Morgan, underscoring the contractual and commercial realities overlooked by the SEC. 

While the legal process is ongoing, Ripple and the SEC navigate a complicated case by filing essential briefs and motions. Now, the emphasis has moved to blanket motions concerning sealing confidential information linked to the remedies briefs. Depending on how the court rules, this may greatly influence the direction of the case.