Ripple losing SEC case can affect Coinbase and Binance, lawyer says

The SEC’s arguments against Coinbase and most of Binance’s litigation would be severely weakened if Judge Torres ruled that XRP tokens purchased on secondary marketplaces are not securities, according to lawyer James Murphy.

The SEC claims that Coinbase is acting as an unregistered securities exchange, broker-dealer, and clearing broker because 13 tokens exchanged on the platform constitute securities. However, the SEC’s case against Coinbase would fall apart if these 13 coins were not considered securities.

Although a decision by Judge Torres would not set a precedent for future cases, it is worth noting that the judge presiding over the Coinbase case, Judge Rearden, has been on the bench for the last six months.

The fact that the same lower Manhattan court employs both Judge Rearden and Judge Torres makes it likely that they will give considerable weight to each other’s legal reasoning when determining whether or not XRP is a security.

This interaction is mutually beneficial. The SEC would celebrate a victory and use the ruling as compelling reasoning with the courts reviewing the Coinbase and Binance cases if Judge Torres ruled that XRP coins sold on secondary markets are securities.

Nonetheless, since Binance launched its cryptocurrency (BNB), the situation there has been more nuanced than with Coinbase. Binance, therefore, anticipates a ruling from Judge Torres that XRP sales and issuance by Ripple do not constitute securities offerings.

Even if Judge Rearden determines that the 13 mentioned tokens are not securities, the SEC might still claim that “staking-as-a-service” constitutes a securities offering in the Coinbase case. Still, the SEC’s case as a whole would be severely undermined.

It’s crucial to recognize that even on the same court, judges might have different opinions. However, Judge Rearden’s short tenure makes it improbable that she would disagree with the legal reasoning of a more seasoned colleague in a matter of this significance, according to MetaLawMan’s opinion.