Ripple, SEC Final Briefs Provide Case Summary

Both the SEC and Ripple said Friday they had enough legal ammunition to win the day over the sale of XRP in 2013


Blockworks exclusive art by Axel Rangel


The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Ripple Labs exchanged their last legal barbs as they seek summary judgment in an ongoing case that could have wide-reaching ramifications over the definition of crypto as a security.

In their final briefs, both parties accused each other of misapplying US securities law. The case centers on allegations by the regulator that Ripple and its current and former executives conducted an illegal securities offering of XRP tokens almost a decade ago.

The SEC said in its brief Ripple did not dispute a number of facts including that the crypto firm’s offerings are considered “investment contracts” — a vehicle the SEC alleges Ripple used to raise $2 billion for itself. 

The agency has argued since 2020 that Ripple’s sale of XRP in 2013 was in direct violation of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Supreme Court’s ruling in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co — a longstanding court decision used to define what constitutes a security.

It also said that Ripple does not dispute claims it was an “enterprise” and that it did not separately manage the funds it had raised from investors but instead pooled those investments with a promise of a return — another major point in the interpretation of Howey.

“Defendants made an avalanche of public statements representing that they would take steps to ‘increase XRP’s value,’” the regulator said. “Partly because of Ripple’s ‘giant pile’ of XRP, potential and actual investors understood that Ripple was financially compelled to do just that.”

Ripple says none of the essential ingredients of Howey present

Ripple pushed back in its own brief arguing the SEC cannot adequately demonstrate XRP was an offer or sale of an investment contract from 2013 until the time the SEC brought its case against the firm two years ago.

“This case turns on statutory interpretation: specifically, whether the SEC can misapply the statutory phrase ‘investment contract’ to cover transactions that have none of the essential ingredients,” Ripple said.

The firm said that in every case following the Howey ruling more than 75 years ago, the definition of a security involved one or more contracts imposing “post-sale rights” and obligations on the parties.

The regulator claims to have found certain cases where the “essential ingredients” of an investment contract discussed in Howey were not present, but the claims do not hold up to scrutiny, Ripple said.

The Howey test is defined as 1. An investment of money; 2. In a common enterprise; 3. A reasonable expectation of profit; 4. Derived from the efforts of others.

“Ultimately, the SEC cannot point to a single case finding an investment contract without the ‘essential ingredients’ identified in Howey, Ripple argued. “And it is undisputed that this case has none of them.”

The proof is in the pudding

In a response to the regulator’s filing on Friday, Delphi Lab’s general counsel Gabriel Shapiro said the SEC’s take on Howey case law would likely “win the day” because investment contracts under the law “are not, and do not” require the presence of legal contracts beginning with the issuer or promoter and the buyer.

Loading Tweet..

“If only we had courts stacked with originalist judges, Ripple’s pre-1933-Act blue-sky-based case law arguments would be incredibly potent,” Shapiro said.

Gabriel Shapiro is arguing the court is likely to agree with the SEC’s arguments, which have an “activist view” of the law.

Under this political framing, judges try to mold the existing text into today’s circumstances, Ian Corp, commercial litigator and crypto advisor at law firm Agentis told Blockworks in an email. Originalist judges, meanwhile, look at the plain text and apply the law as it is written.

When Howey was formed in the 1940s, investment contracts were done by hand. Today, the analysis has shifted more toward whether there is a relationship — not necessarily evidenced by a written contract — between a token issuer and an investor that meets the Howey test, Corp said.

“If the circumstances show that such a relationship exists under the Howey test then the token issuer is required to register with the SEC.”

If Ripple were to lose, XRP will be deemed a security which would set the precedent that tokens issued in a similar fashion are required to register with the SEC as well.

That would be a “considerably expensive cost to bear,” for future crypto firms Corp said.

Don’t miss the next big story – join our free daily newsletter.


Upcoming Events

MON - WED, MARCH 18 - 20, 2024

Digital Asset Summit (DAS) is returning March 2024. What you can expect: And more! Don’t miss out on the opportunity to be in the room when the future of crypto is decided. Join us and help shape the future of our […]

recent research

Research report - cover graphics-2.jpg


Base has doubled-down on its commitment to the Superchain vision, has shown early signs of success with nearly $400M in TVL, and has become home to novel dapps such as which has seen significant traction.


The bitcoin halving slated for April 2024 — an event expected to spur upward price action for BTC — could be a boon for Block’s stock price, analysts say


Seed Club founder Jess Sloss is excited to “open the doors and let other people see what we’ve been seeing for the last few months”


Blockchain is a “natural fit” in games based on open economies and user-generated content, says Wyatt


Their current stance is a half-baked attempt that could stifle innovation and burden an emerging industry


Maker’s DeFi-focused “subDAO” passed a proposal activating a lending market for DAI on the Gnosis Chain


Certain creditors could be repaid sooner, with one hedge fund exec telling Blockworks it expects a payout by the end of the year