Coinbase, a prominent crypto exchange based in the United States, garnered significant support from various individuals and organizations in its legal battle against the SEC. These supporters filed amicus briefs aimed at helping the court understand the mistakes made by the SEC.
Ripple has received significant support from various individuals and organizations in its legal battle against the SEC, including U.S. Senator Cynthia Lummis, the Blockchain Association, the Crypto Council for Innovation, the DeFi Education Fund, the Chamber of Progress, and the Consumer Technology Association.
Additionally, influential entities such as Andreessen Horowitz and Paradigm provided their assistance alongside six esteemed law professors representing top universities. Paul Grewal, Coinbase’s chief legal officer, expressed gratitude towards these parties for their invaluable involvement.
He emphasized that these briefs would greatly aid in exposing errors made by the SEC and presenting them to the court. Furthermore, legal expert “MetaLawMan” highly praised an amicus brief penned by six securities law scholars, describing it as “devastating.”
According to MetaLawMan’s assessment, this update within the case proceedings was substantial. The scholars involved hailed from prestigious institutions like Yale University, the University of Chicago, UCLA, Fordham, Boston University, and Widener University.
MetaLawMan further explained that this comprehensive brief meticulously traced and analyzed how the term “investment contract” evolved before and after The Securities Act of 1933 was passed. Consequently demolishing what MetaLawMan views as an erroneous theory proposed by SEC regarding such crypto tokens.
Ripple CTO Finds Flaws In Amici Brief
However, the amicus briefs from the law professors failed to impress everyone. Critics pointed out several flaws in their arguments. Ripple CTO David Schwartz highlighted a significant weakness: the brief inadequately addressed the holding in Joiner.
According to Schwartz, this was the weakest aspect of their argument. In his opinion, the brief poorly addressed Joiner’s position at best. Nevertheless, Joiner stipulates that if a reasonable buyer could have reasonably believed they had enforceable contractual rights, it may be deemed sufficient.
Moreover, he disagreed with the scholars’ assertion that an investment contract necessitates contractual undertakings to deliver future value based on business income, profits, or assets – citing this as contrary to Joiner’s stance. He emphasized that such promises were not made by the issuer involved in Joiner.
Related Reading | Maker’s MKR Meteoric Surge: $1B Inflows, 8% DAI Yield, & DeFi’s Ripple Effect