Connect with us

Published

on

In every major litigation, there comes a moment when you realize it’s time to settle. A ruling doesn’t go your way, a juror gives your legal team the side eye, the judge makes it clear it’s time for a settlement conference. After Judge Analisa Torres’ decision in SEC v. Ripple, the time has come for the United States Securities and Exchange Commission to settle the remainder of its case against Ripple Labs — as well as its case against Coinbase.

The SEC’s attack on crypto has used a flexible legal definition of what constitutes a security that must register with the SEC under a legal test established by the Supreme Court in the 1946 case SEC v. Howey. Through most of its history, the SEC used this tool to go after outright frauds and scams with little economic reality behind them. You can understand why judges tended to give the SEC the benefit of the doubt and made the test increasingly flexible over a series of historical scam cases. Using this flexible test to attach legitimate crypto projects is different and, ultimately, leaves crypto projects with no way to register.

Torres ruled that sales to retail investors of the XRP (XRP) token were not necessarily linked to the entrepreneurial efforts of Ripple as a firm and, thus, failed one element of the Howey test. This is a unique crypto twist on the Howey test. Linking the investment to the entrepreneurial efforts of whoever is selling the interest is going to be harder in crypto because tokens don’t represent an equity interest in the issuer. Thus, the purchaser of a crypto token is not as closely linked to the efforts of the founder of a new blockchain as equity investors in traditional firms.

Related: The Supreme Court could stop the SEC’s war on crypto

This turns the SEC’s case against Coinbase on its head — and Coinbase knows it. It sent a strong message to the SEC when Coinbase relisted the XRP token within hours of Torres’ decision. This victory was only a partial victory, but it makes it very difficult for the SEC to target secondary markets in crypto securities like secondary trading on Coinbase’s platform.

All of this analysis doesn’t even begin to explore the challenges the SEC will face with the Supreme Court eager to reign in administrative agencies with the evolving major questions doctrine that could dramatically curtail the SEC’s war on crypto.

The SEC’s best move now is to settle and make a deal with Coinbase. Coinbase already extended the olive branch to the SEC a year ago by filing a request for rulemaking to create an adapted listing process for crypto assets. I suggested the same about six months earlier after a hearing of the SEC’s investor advisory committee — which I led. The committee found that crypto tokens could not feasibly register with the SEC without adaptation of the listing process.

There is no shortage of crypto lawyers ready to work with the SEC to figure out an adaptive regulatory regime for crypto tokens. There are hundreds of securities lawyers who are SEC alumni or big law alumni working in crypto right now who could help the SEC adapt their rules in the same way the SEC has adapted its rules in the past for asset-backed securities, master limited partnership, real estate investment trusts and dozens of other hybrid assets and asset vehicles.

Related: Demand is driving the price of Bitcoin to $130K

Many of the disclosure requirements in the SEC’s disclosure rules about boards of directors, executive compensation, shareholder proposals and financial statements simply don’t fit crypto projects. Who would “register” Ethereum today? It has no board and no CEO.

What assets and liabilities would be on the balance sheet of an entity filing documents about Ethereum, given that no entity actually controls the well-decentralized Ethereum blockchain? None of that is clear.

And things crypto asset buyers want to know, such as tokenomics or audits of blockchain security or the smart contracts underlying decentralized finance (DeFi) exchanges, aren’t mentioned in SEC disclosure rules.

The game of chicken that the SEC has been playing with Coinbase and Ripple needs to end because the SEC is about to get run off the road. There is a better path consistent with the rule of law. It’s time for the SEC to work with crypto lawyers to develop a workable crypto asset listing and disclosure regime and quit the blithe “just come in and register” talking points. This alternative approach will better protect crypto asset buyers.

J.W. Verret is an associate professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School. He is a practicing crypto forensic accountant and also practices securities law at Lawrence Law LLC. He is a member of the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s Advisory Council and a former member of the SEC Investor Advisory Committee. He also leads the Crypto Freedom Lab, a think tank fighting for policy change to preserve freedom and privacy for crypto developers and users.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Continue Reading

Politics

Roman Storm asks DeFi devs: Can you be sure DOJ won’t charge you?

Published

on

By

<div>Roman Storm asks DeFi devs: Can you be sure DOJ won't charge you?</div>

<div>Roman Storm asks DeFi devs: Can you be sure DOJ won't charge you?</div>

Current laws in the United States do not explicitly protect open source software developers and create the risk of retroactive prosecution.

Continue Reading

Politics

Stablecoins are really ‘central business digital currencies’ — VC

Published

on

By

<div>Stablecoins are really 'central business digital currencies' — VC</div>

<div>Stablecoins are really 'central business digital currencies' — VC</div>

Jeremy Kranz, founder of Sentinel Global, a venture capital firm, said investors should be “discerning” and read the fine print on any stablecoin.

Continue Reading

Politics

Labour deputy leadership candidate accuses opponent’s team of ‘throwing mud’ and briefing against her

Published

on

By

Labour deputy leadership candidate accuses opponent's team of 'throwing mud' and briefing against her

Lucy Powell has accused Bridget Phillipson’s team of “throwing mud” and briefing against her in the Labour deputy leadership race in a special episode of Sky’s Electoral Dysfunction podcast.

With just days to go until the race is decided, Sky News’ political editor Beth Rigby spoke to the two leadership rivals about allegations of leaks, questions of party unity and their political vision.

Ms Powell told Electoral Dysfunction that through the course of the contest, she had “never leaked or briefed”.

But she said of negative stories about her in the media: “I think some of these things have also come from my opponent’s team as well. And I think they need calling out.

“We are two strong women standing in this contest. We’ve both got different things to bring to the job. I’m not going to get into the business of smearing and briefing against Bridget.

“Having us airing our dirty washing, throwing mud – both in this campaign or indeed after this if I get elected as deputy leader – that is not the game that I’m in.”

Ms Powell was responding to a “Labour source” who told the New Statesman last week: “Lucy was sacked from cabinet because she couldn’t be trusted not to brief or leak.”

Ms Powell said she had spoken directly to Ms Phillipson about allegations of briefings “a little bit”.

Bridget Phillipson (l) and Lucy Powell (r) spoke to Sky News' Beth Rigby in a special Electoral Dysfunction double-header. Pics: Reuters
Image:
Bridget Phillipson (l) and Lucy Powell (r) spoke to Sky News’ Beth Rigby in a special Electoral Dysfunction double-header. Pics: Reuters

Phillipson denies leaks

But asked separately if her team had briefed against Ms Powell, Ms Phillipson told Rigby: “Not to my knowledge.”

And Ms Phillipson said she had not spoken “directly” to her opponent about the claims of negative briefings, despite Ms Powell saying the pair had talked about it.

“I don’t know if there’s been any discussion between the teams,” she added.

On the race itself, the education secretary said it would be “destabilising” if Ms Powell is elected, as she is no longer in the cabinet.

“I think there is a risk that comes of airing too much disagreement in public at a time when we need to focus on taking the fight to our opponents.

“I know Lucy would reject that, but I think that is for me a key choice that members are facing.”

She added: “It’s about the principle of having that rule outside of government that risks being the problem. I think I’ll be able to get more done in government.”

👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈

Insider vs outsider

But Ms Powell, who was recently sacked by Sir Keir Starmer as leader of the Commons, said she could “provide a stronger, more independent voice”.

“The party is withering on the vine at the same time, and people have got big jobs in government to do.

“Politics is moving really, really fast. Government is very, very slow. And I think having a full-time political deputy leader right now is the political injection we need.”

The result of the contest will be announced on Saturday 25 October.

The deputy leader has the potential to be a powerful and influential figure as the link between members and the parliamentary Labour Party, and will have a key role in election campaigns. They can’t be sacked by Sir Keir as they have their own mandate.

The contest was triggered by the resignation of Angela Rayner following a row over her tax affairs. She was also the deputy prime minister but this position was filled by David Lammy in a wider cabinet reshuffle.

Continue Reading

Trending