SEC’s Coinschedule Settlement Offers Mere “Clue-By-Enforcement” Into Whether Cryptocurrencies are Securities

Proskauer - Corporate Defense and Disputes

Proskauer - Corporate Defense and Disputes

On July 14, 2021 the SEC issued a consented-to Cease and Desist Order against U.K.-based cryptocurrency review website owner Blotics Ltd. (formerly doing business as Coinschedule Ltd.) for violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act. According to two SEC Commissioners, the decision should have but didn’t clarify the Commission’s position as to whether and when cryptocurrencies qualify as securities.

Per the Order, Coinschedule’s website told visitors that it was profiling the “best” digital token offerings with the mission of “‘mak[ing] it easy and safe for people around the world to join [initial coin offerings].’” But, unbeknownst to website users, Coinschedule was charging token issuers for marketing packages that gave those issuers varying levels of premium publicity on the website and access to inside information about how to improve their Coinschedule “trust score,” which meant they had an undisclosed, paid-for advantage in the competition to make Coinschedule’s “top 10 trusted ICOs” list.

The failure to disclose this compensation arrangement, the Commission found, violated Section 17(b) of the Securities Act, better known as the “anti-touting” provision, which makes it unlawful to promote a security in exchange for payment without disclosing that you’ve been paid and how much.

Concurring with the decision, Commissioners Hester M. Pierce and Elad Roisman issued a public statement admonishing their colleagues for failing to provide more clarity about when digital currency is considered a security, calling the Commission’s approach “clue-by-enforcement.”

Commissioners Pierce and Roisman noted, for example, that the Coinschedule decision did not explain which tokens the SEC found to be securities or why; it simply concluded that “the digital tokens publicized by Coinschedule included those that were offered and sold as investment contracts, which are securities . . . .” Without knowing which digital tokens were sold as investment contracts and why the Commission sees them that way, they explained, digital token issuers and their lawyers lack clear guidance. And, without such guidance, they are forced to cobble together piecemeal enforcement actions when deciding how to comply with applicable laws, leaving them to analogize or distinguish facts that may be completely different from their own. Commissioners Pierce and Roisman also made the interesting point that the lack of guidance is making it difficult for companies to find lawyers willing to opine one way or the other.

For now, the crypto industry will have to continue collecting clues.

[View source.]

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Proskauer - Corporate Defense and Disputes | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Proskauer - Corporate Defense and Disputes

Proskauer - Corporate Defense and Disputes on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.