ARTICLE
27 January 2020

Chamber Of Digital Commerce And Blockchain Association Weigh In On SEC v. Telegram

B
BakerHostetler

Contributor

Recognized as one of the top firms for client service, BakerHostetler is a leading national law firm that helps clients around the world address their most complex and critical business and regulatory issues. With five core national practice groups — Business, Labor and Employment, Intellectual Property, Litigation, and Tax — the firm has more than 970 lawyers located in 14 offices coast to coast. BakerHostetler is widely regarded as having one of the country’s top 10 tax practices, a nationally recognized litigation practice, an award-winning data privacy practice and an industry-leading business practice. The firm is also recognized internationally for its groundbreaking work recovering more than $13 billion in the Madoff Recovery Initiative, representing the SIPA Trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. Visit bakerlaw.com
The Chamber of Digital Commerce (Chamber) and The Blockchain Association (Association), two not-for-profit organizations that promote blockchain-based technologies
United States Technology

The Chamber of Digital Commerce (Chamber) and The Blockchain Association (Association), two not-for-profit organizations that promote blockchain-based technologies, recently filed amici curiae briefs in SEC v. Telegram Group Inc., 19-9439 (SDNY). The two organizations took starkly different approaches; however, they both request that the court distinguish between the transaction that is the investment contract and the subject of the investment contract. Both amici aver that in the blockchain context, the digital assets are improperly conflated with the investment contract; that is, when digital assets are simply the subject of an investment contract, such as the orange groves in SEC v. W. J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946), those are not the investment contract.

The Chamber's brief does not take a position on the application of the securities laws to Telegram but instead focuses on the overall regulatory scheme of digital assets and urges the court to undertake a two-part analysis ("whether there is an investment contract, offered in a securities transaction" and "whether the subject of an investment contract is a commodity that can be sold in an ordinary commercial transaction"). In stark contrast, the Association's brief posits that Telegram did not violate the securities laws. The Association's brief warns the court of far-reaching repercussions of a broad decision in light of what it characterizes as the SEC's unclear regulatory guidance, regulation by enforcement, closed-door consultations and no-action letters addressing "tokens [that] were so clearly not securities that it seemed bizarre that the SEC would even undertake the analysis." While the two briefs are very different, they appear to promote similar substantive securities law arguments as to the proper investment contract analysis application to digital assets.

For more information, please refer to the following links:

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More