cryptocurrency

Subscribe to cryptocurrency via RSS

Global monetary authorities and financial regulators have responded forcefully to the advent of privately developed global stablecoins.

By Todd Beauchamp, David L. Concannon, Stephen P. Wink, Simon Hawkins, Stuart Davis, and Deric Behar

A new report highlights the risks of global stablecoins and enumerates the legal, regulatory, and oversight hurdles a global stablecoin must clear before launching. The Group of Seven Working Group on Stablecoins released the report, titled Investigating the Impact of Global Stablecoins (G7 Report), at the October 2019 International Monetary Fund annual meeting. The G7 Report was published in tandem with a report by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) on the Regulatory Issues of Stablecoins (FSB Report). Taken together, the two reports provide insight into how some of the world’s most advanced economies (the US, the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan) view digital assets and stablecoins, particularly those with the potential to launch and quickly scale on an established private-sector global network.

The IRS has published a Revenue Ruling and FAQs clarifying some long-standing virtual currency questions.

By Brian C. McManus, Elena Romanova, Stephen P. Wink, Sam (Seung Hyun) Yang, and Deric Behar

On October 9, 2019, the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued its first guidance on the tax treatment of cryptocurrencies in at least five years. The guidance includes Revenue Ruling 2019-24 (Ruling) and a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) for taxpayers who transact in virtual currencies and hold them as investment. The guidance supplements Notice 2014-21, which explains that virtual currency is treated as property for federal income tax purposes. The Ruling addresses whether a taxpayer holding a cryptocurrency has taxable income as a result of a “hard fork” with and without an “airdrop.” The FAQs provide guidance on the calculation of value and of tax basis of virtual currencies in various situations.

The regulators attempt to clarify their position on the possible custody of digital assets by broker-dealers, but questions remain.

By Stephen P. Wink, Cameron R. Kates, Shaun Musuka, and Deric Behar

The SEC and FINRA recently released a joint staff statement (Joint Statement) addressing the custody of digital asset securities by broker-dealers. For some time, registered broker-dealers and applicants have sought to facilitate digital asset transactions and the accompanying custody of such assets. However, their efforts have been stymied, in part due to a lack of interpretive guidance from the SEC and FINRA regarding how to custody digital assets in compliance with the relevant regulations. The Joint Statement is an initial step by the SEC and FINRA toward clarifying their positions on these issues. It makes clear that broker-dealers that do not seek to custody such assets but seek to otherwise engage in brokerage activities with digital assets (e.g., private placements or if the broker-dealer matches buyers and sellers who conduct settlement between themselves) should be permitted to do so. The bottom line, however, is that the regulators “are just not ready”[i] to approve broker-dealers to custody digital assets.

FinCEN’s guidance clarifies the applicability of the BSA to a variety of virtual currency businesses.

By Todd Beauchamp, Charles Weinstein, Loyal T. Horsley, Cameron R. Kates, and Shaun Musuka

On May 9, the US Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued interpretive guidance expanding on previously issued guidance and rulings regarding the application of the Bank Secrecy Act and FinCEN’s implementing regulations (collectively, the BSA) to a variety of business models involving “convertible virtual currency” (CVC).[i]

Background

The BSA is the US’ principal anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML) regulatory regime, and is applicable to “financial institutions,” which includes a variety of entities, such as banks and “money services businesses” (MSBs). One type of MSB is a “Money Transmitter,” which includes any person that accepts “currency, funds or other value that substitutes for currency from one person” and transmits such “currency, funds or other value to another location or person by any means.”

The online document generator helps startups raise capital with customizable market standard terms and optional digital token provisions.

By David L. Concannon, Yvette D. Valdez, Stephen P. Wink, Miles P. Jennings, and Shaun Musuka

In collaboration with ConsenSys and OpenLaw, Latham & Watkins recently launched the Automated Convertible Note Generator, a complimentary tool designed to assist startups with capital raises. The Automated Convertible Note is a potential solution for capital formation that also addresses future token sales in a manner compliant with US securities and commodities regulations.

Federal legislators introduce two bills in an attempt to provide the blockchain economy with regulatory certainty.

By Stephen P. Wink, Morgan E. Brubaker, Cameron R. Kates, and Shaun Musuka

US regulators and federal legislators may be heeding the calls of crypto-enthusiasts for legal clarity regarding the status of digital assets and cryptocurrencies (collectively, Tokens). Two weeks ago, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released an analytical framework for determining when a Token constitutes a security. Last week, US federal legislators followed up by introducing two bills that are designed to “provide regulatory certainty for businesses, entrepreneurs, and regulators in the US’ blockchain economy,” the Token Taxonomy Act of 2019 (H.R. 2144) (TTA) and the Digital Taxonomy Act of 2019 (H.R. 2154) (DTA, and together with the TTA, the Bills).

The new legislation may act as a catalyst for a crypto-evolution within Russian law.

By Andrew C. Moyle and Elizaveta Bacheyeva

On 18 March 2019, the Russian legislator took the first step in introducing the Russian civil law system to the new universe of digital assets. The Russian Civil Code was amended to include concepts of digital right and smart contracts, and the legislator also recognized digital rights as an independent object of civil law regulation.

By way of background, the Russian civil law system is based on laws rather than precedents, and — unless a particular concept is explicitly mentioned in the legislation — then the concept is non-existent for civil law regulation and falls outside any legal protection. Prior to these amendments to the Civil Code, digital assets or cryptocurrencies did not fall within any category of assets recognized by the Civil Code, and there was much uncertainty on how these digital asserts were regulated and how transactions with such assets should be structured. In one instance, a Russian court failed to recognize Bitcoin as an asset and, on those grounds, refused to include the Bitcoin in a debtor’s insolvency estate.

These amendments to the Civil Code will come into force on 1 October 2019 and will apply to all transactions made after that date. The new legislation is only the starting point for a crypto-evolution within Russian law, as the Russian legislator is currently considering two draft laws “On digital finance assets” and “On crowdfunding.” These laws would provide more in-depth regulation of cryptocurrencies, tokens, and investments through digital platforms.

The SEC provides additional guidance for analyzing whether a digital asset is a security.

By Stephen P. Wink, Cameron R. Kates, and Shaun Musuka

On April 3, 2019, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Strategic Hub for Innovation and Financial Technology (the SEC) released a framework (the Framework) for assessing whether a blockchain-issued token or digital asset (each, a Token) constitutes an investment contract. An investment contract is an enumerated type of security subject to US federal securities laws. The Framework does not have the force of law, but rather, provides additional guidance on the factors to consider when applying the Howey test to Tokens. For background regarding the Howey test, please see Latham’s Client Alert. Latham’s read of the Framework suggests two key takeaways. First, it provides added insight into how existing Tokens may be reevaluated over time and may cease to be subject to federal securities laws. Second, it offers the clearest guidance to date that Tokens that are designed and marketed as purely “virtual currency” should not be considered securities.

A new white paper explores jurisdictional conflicts and the regulatory status of digital assets.

By Yvette D. Valdez, J. Ashley Weeks, and Jacqueline M. Rugart

Members of the American Bar Association’s (ABA’s) Derivatives and Futures Law Committee recently published a white paper exploring the US regulatory landscape for digital assets (White Paper), including a 50-state survey and overview of certain non-US crypto regulatory regimes. The White Paper primarily focuses on the jurisdictional overlap between the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) pertaining to the regulation of digital assets.

Latham & Watkins lawyers previously discussed the intersection of CFTC and SEC regulatory jurisdiction in the crypto context here and here.

Mobile and desktop reference tool defines nearly 300 industry terms.

We are pleased to announce the launch of The Book of Jargon® – Cryptocurrency & Blockchain Technology, a comprehensive digital glossary of nearly 300 terms developed for the business, academic, and legal community. The easy-to-use reference tool demystifies the often complex legal and regulatory terminology, acronyms, and slang of the cryptocurrency and blockchain industry.