Ripple Vs SEC: XRP Lawyer Reveals ODL Contract Terms & Potential Legal Impact

Amid the ongoing Ripple Vs. SEC legal battle, pro-XRP lawyer Bill Morgan has shed light on crucial details regarding Ripple’s On-Demand Liquidity (ODL) contracts. These revelations come as stakeholders seek clarity on the legal intricacies surrounding Ripple’s operations and the implications for the outcome of the lawsuit.

Meanwhile, several legal experts, along with the Ripple executives, have expressed optimism amid the ongoing lawsuit, citing weaker reasons from the SEC in their Remedies Phase reply.

XRP Lawyer Unveils Ripple ODL Contract Details

In a recent exchange, XRP lawyer Bill Morgan provided insights into the terms and features of Ripple’s 2020 ODL contract with an Australian customer. According to Morgan, the contract entails several key provisions, including the transfer of XRP into a purchaser’s designated account, conversion to USD at market rates, and usage restrictions on the purchased XRP. 

Notably, the contract specifies New York, USA, as the jurisdiction, raising questions about its compliance with regulatory frameworks and the Howey test.

Meanwhile, Morgan’s analysis prompts crucial questions about the ODL contract’s adherence to securities laws. He particularly pointed toward the Howey test, which determines whether a transaction constitutes an investment contract. 

In addition, the presence of clauses addressing profit expectations and usage restrictions adds complexity to Ripple’s legal defense against the SEC’s allegations. Besides, jurisdictional discrepancies between contractual terms and operational scope may further complicate Ripple’s regulatory stance and potential legal liabilities.

Also Read: Canaan Launches New Bitcoin Mining Machine Avalon A15 Series, What’s Next?

Legal Implications and Future Actions

Commenting on Morgan’s revelations, prominent crypto lawyer James Murphy, also known as MetaLawMan, expressed skepticism regarding the ODL contract’s compliance with the Howey test. Murphy highlighted potential grounds for Ripple’s legal challenge, suggesting that discrepancies between contractual terms and regulatory requirements could prompt appeals and strategic legal maneuvers. 

Meanwhile, these insights underscore the significance of Ripple’s contractual arrangements in shaping its legal strategy and navigating regulatory scrutiny.

As Ripple continues to confront regulatory challenges and legal uncertainties, stakeholders closely monitor developments surrounding its ODL contracts and their implications for the broader cryptocurrency industry. The intersection of contractual provisions, regulatory frameworks, and legal precedents remains a focal point in assessing Ripple’s legal standing and the trajectory of its ongoing legal battle with the SEC. 

However, James Murphy recently criticized the U.S. SEC’s reply brief, stating it lacks substance on institutional investor harm claims. The SEC pursues $876 million disgorgement from Ripple Labs, citing investor losses, while Ripple contests based on Govil case precedent. Notably, Murphy highlights the SEC’s reliance on SEC v. iFresh, questioning its interpretation. 

Meanwhile, the SEC argues institutional buyers suffered harm due to XRP price manipulation, a claim Ripple refutes. On the other hand, MetaLawMan deems the iFresh decision flawed, emphasizing discrepancies with Govil’s disgorgement principles.

Amid the legal tensions, the XRP price continued its downward movement, losing 2.27% to $0.5107. Over the last 24 hours, its volume also slumped 13.78% to $1 billion.

Also Read: FLOKI Price Soars As Whale Buys 19B Coins, Rally To Sustain?