John Reed Stark, former attorney of the SEC’s Enforcement Division, posed an analysis on LinkedIn highly criticizing the recent judgement on the Ripple Labs matter considering it “troubling on multiple fronts”. Stark analyzed Judge Analisa Torres’ proposal on July 13 which presumes that originally, Ripple Labs’ XRP token had characteristics considered to be of a “security” when sold directly to certain institutional investors. According to the conclusion, though in “programmatic” and other arbitrary incomes not related to said investors, the same applicable token was exclusionary of declared securities regulations. Nevertheless and based off protections developmentarily dedicated to financially assisted investors intellectually, Stark viewed the judgement’s presumption biased based on by examining their knowledge upon the acquisition of a certain asset. “The Ripple decision holds that the same precise token can be a security sometimes, but not a security further times”, Stark furthered. “An investor’s resoluteness of protection must not be conjectured by what edition of information they regarded”, he additionally included. CEO Brad Garlinghouse noted the institutional sales decision relatively small to the lawsuit as a whole however, if appealed by SEC against the merchandises weren’t, it won’t challenge Judge Torres’ statement but support it thoroughly.
John Reed Stark, the former attorney in the SEC’s Enforcement Division, expressed his criticism against the recent ruling on Ripple Lab’s case in his LinkedIn analysis wherein he referred to the decision as “troublesome on multiple fronts”. Exploring onto the verdict that suggested that the company’s XRP token was a security when sold to institutional investors, but excluded securities regulations for “programmatic sales”, “public sales”, and certain other types of sales, Stark contemplated the concept of protected individual investors, which allows recipients of security services and securities to understated developed defences when buying such a given asset for preservation and likely growth. He further professed his thoughts, terming them as “The Ripple decision turns this notion on its head”. Brad Garlinghouse related the insignificant role of institutional sales to the lawsuit, on the possibility of making the appeal from SEC against the goods securities applicable, just to validate the decision of Judge Torres.