XRP Lawyer Slams Former SEC Chair: A New Development in XRP Lawsuit

John E. Deaton, a prominent figure in the crypto sector who advocates Ripple’s XRP, recently shared an X post on the SEC’s former Chair Jay Clayton’s stance on XRP’s programmatic sales ruling. Reflecting on Clayton’s notion of XRP’s secondary trading, Deaton asserted that “he is misrepresenting the truth-as usual.”

Oh how I would love to be on a panel discussion with Clayton. First of all, he’s misrepresenting the truth – as usual. There are no other cases with similar facts that found otherwise at summary judgment. Period. The judge in LBRY said his decision didn’t apply to secondary… https://t.co/TtBJ7j9WvQ

— John E Deaton (@JohnEDeaton1) December 9, 2023

The protracted SEC-Ripple battle had witnessed a string of developments over the past few months. However, the major development was Ripple’s landmark victory against the agency when Judge Analisa Torres ruled that the programmatic sales of XRP tokens on secondary trading platforms did not meet the requirements of a security sale. However, Clayton came forward allegedly challenging the court’s ruling, stating,

“The judge, I believe, found issue its in the initial issuance was, in fact, a securities transaction during the capital raising phase. The question in the Ripple case that I believe the SEC did not win was on the secondary trading. Was that a securities transaction or not? There are other cases with similar facts for the SEC has won that. We will see how that plays out.”

While Clayton tried to bring the case in parallel with some similar cases, pointing out the notion of secondary trading, Deaton argued that in both the Terraform lawsuit and the LBRY lawsuit, the court’s decision was independent of the notion of secondary transactions. Adding that the cases couldn’t be considered similar, he cited, “You can’t equate a summary judgment decision, where all the evidence has been presented, with a motion to dismiss decision, where no evidence has been presented, and the judge must assume EVERYTHING alleged in the Complaint is true.”

Disclaimer: The information presented in this article is for informational and educational purposes only. The article does not constitute financial advice or advice of any kind. Coin Edition is not responsible for any losses incurred as a result of the utilization of content, products, or services mentioned. Readers are advised to exercise caution before taking any action related to the company.

Source