Digital Tokens

Subscribe to Digital Tokens via RSS

A federal court’s dismissal of claims against a decentralized cryptocurrency platform and its investors for the actions of scam token issuers is a case of first impression with wider significance.

By Jenny Cieplak, Benjamin A. Naftalis, Stephen P. Wink, Douglas K. Yatter, Gregory Mortenson, and Deric Behar

On August 29, 2023, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit against Uniswap Labs and its CEO, foundation, and three venture capital backers[1] (the Defendants) brought by plaintiffs who sought damages from alleged exposure to scam tokens that originated with anonymous third-party token issuers on the company’s decentralized cryptocurrency trading protocol.

A bifurcated decision in a highly anticipated digital assets enforcement action may not provide the clarity that market participants want or need.

By Jack Barber, Jenny Cieplak, Benjamin Naftalis, John Sikora, Stephen P. Wink, Douglas K. Yatter, Luca Marquard, Adam Zuckerman, and Deric Behar

On July 13, 2023, Judge Analisa Torres of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order on motions for summary judgment in the civil enforcement action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on December 22, 2020, against Ripple Labs Inc. (Ripple), its former CEO (Christian Larsen), and its former COO and current CEO (Brad Garlinghouse). The SEC’s claims include the unlawful offer and sale of securities in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act), as well as aiding and abetting the allegedly unlawful offer and sale of securities by the individual defendants (see this Latham blog post for more information).

The issue before the Court was whether, at the time of the various offerings, the defendants sold XRP as an investment contract. The Court determined at the outset that “XRP, as a digital token, is not in and of itself a ‘contract, transaction, or scheme’ that embodies the Howey requirements of an investment contract. Rather, the Court examines the totality of the circumstances surrounding the defendants’ different transactions and schemes involving the sale and distribution of XRP.”

The Clarity for Digital Tokens Act of 2021 would give token issuers the guardrails they need to innovate with far less regulatory anxiety.

By Stephen P. Wink and Deric Behar

US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commissioner Hester Peirce has always been something of a maverick. She has been a lone dissenting voice on the Commission on many topics, applying her libertarian leanings to question the need for regulations that could hobble free markets or stifle innovation.

Those who follow the digital assets markets also know Commissioner Peirce by her nickname “Crypto Mom,” for her relentless support of digital asset innovation and calls for clear regulatory guidance when she perceives they are lacking. To remedy some of those issues, Commissioner Peirce published a Token Safe Harbor Proposal on February 6, 2020, and reissued a revised version (Proposal 2.0) on April 13, 2021 (previously discussed in this post).

Proposal 2.0 never quite gained traction at the SEC, but it has found an ally in Congress. On October 5, 2021, Representative Patrick McHenry, the ranking member on the House Financial Services Committee, introduced a bill titled the Clarity for Digital Tokens Act of 2021 (the Bill) that substantially embodies Commissioner Peirce’s Token Safe Harbor Proposal 2.0.

SEC Commissioner Peirce has revived and refreshed her proposed three-year safe harbor for qualifying token projects, but some unresolved ambiguities remain.

By Miles P. Jennings, Stephen P. Wink, Naim Culhaci, and Deric Behar

US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commissioner Hester Peirce, a longtime and vocal advocate for innovation in financial services, has not shied away from engaging with and supporting the fledgling digital asset ecosystem. One of the milestones along this path has been the unveiling of her Token Safe Harbor Proposal on February 6, 2020, in a speech at the International Blockchain Congress. (See Taking the Scarlet Out of the Letters I-C-O.) Now, following up on a promise to refresh the proposal in light of feedback received in the past year from “the crypto community, securities lawyers, and members of the public,” Commissioner Peirce has published Token Safe Harbor Proposal 2.0 (Proposal 2.0).

As the market for NFTs heats up, market participants should remain mindful of the regulatory implications of complex schemes.

By Stephen P. Wink, Miles P. Jennings, Shaun Musuka, and Deric Behar

As the current crypto boom has progressed, it seemed Decentralized Finance (DeFi) had cemented its position as the dominant new narrative of this cycle. This view is supported by the tens of billions of dollars that have flowed into DeFi protocols over the past 12 months. Yet amid renewed public interest, non-fungible tokens (NFTs) show signs that they should not be overlooked in discussions regarding the hottest new developments in the crypto space. As with any fast-moving market driven by explosive consumer interest and waves of money, regulators will likely take an interest and scrutinize market practices against existing regulations.

Regulators once again offered piecemeal guidance, while focusing on risks and enforcement. Meanwhile, innovation and institutional adoption took off.

By Stephen P. Wink, Todd Beauchamp, Yvette D. Valdez, Eric S. Volkman, Adam Bruce Fovent, and Deric Behar

Last year, Latham & Watkins sounded a hopeful note that 2020 would provide a clearer vision than 2019 for the regulation of digital assets in the US. In the wake of the emergence of COVID-19, priorities changed, along with forecasts and expectations. The second and third quarters of 2020 had regulators of all stripes in triage mode, and any attention they may have directed at cryptoassets was understandably shelved. On the other hand, far from sidelining digital asset growth, the pandemic appears to have spurred further innovation and adoption. Regulators are now continuing to reckon with an asset class that remains without a comprehensive regulatory framework in the US.

The no-action letter is the first to expressly permit token transfer off-platform to non-users and conversion to fiat currency by token holders.

By Stephen P. Wink, Shaun Musuka, and Deric Behar

As crypto prices surge, we find ourselves in the midst of another crypto wave. Given the unrelenting flow of news that accompanies such periods, it may have been easy to miss that the SEC staff recently granted no-action relief to another Ethereum-based token, VCOIN.

In only its third no-action letter to date for digital tokens, the SEC cleared the way for the software development company IMVU, Inc. to sell VCOIN, an ERC-20 token, as a transferable non-security to its global platform users. In its incoming letter, IMVU stated that it operates “one of the largest online three-dimensional avatar-based social communities in the world” with “over 7 million monthly active users from more than 140 countries” and “a user-generated virtual goods catalog of more than 40 million items.” In the same letter, IMVU sought guidance from the SEC as to whether its offering of VCOIN would require registration under Section 5 of the Securities Act and Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act.

SEC’s motion for a preliminary injunction is granted, prohibiting delivery of Telegram tokens to purchasers.

By Stephen P. Wink, Shaun Musuka, Carolina Bernal and Deric Behar

On March 24, the Court in the Southern District of New York sided with the SEC and granted an injunction prohibiting Telegram Group Inc. and TON Issuer Inc. (together, Telegram) from delivering Telegram’s digital token, “Grams,” to 175 entities and high-net-worth individuals (Initial Purchasers).

As we previously discussed after the SEC filed its complaint, Telegram entered into agreements with the Initial Purchasers (Gram Interest Agreements), where, in exchange for US$1.7 billion from the Initial Purchasers, Telegram provided a promise to deliver Grams to the Initial Purchasers upon the launch of its blockchain (TON Blockchain).

As the agency pursues and prevents offerings of tokens it deems unregistered securities, further issues emerge.

By John J. Sikora Jr., Stephen P. Wink, Douglas K. Yatter, Cameron R. Kates, Shaun Musuka, and Deric Behar

The recent wave of US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement actions relating to initial coin offerings (ICOs) continues with two orders and a judicial complaint issued against digital asset firms for conducting unregistered securities offerings. The actions against Block.one, Nebulous, and Telegram are each notable for the facts and circumstances under which they were issued, but also as counterpoints to each other and previous ICO-related enforcement actions. This blog post offers a brief synopsis of these actions and discusses their impact on the evolving regulatory and enforcement landscape.

SEC issues cease-and-desist orders for unregistered token presales and anti-touting violations.

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

Not content to let the dog days of summer slip by, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently issued two cease-and-desist orders relating to the offer, sale, and marketing of cryptocurrencies.

SimplyVital – Simply Saying a Sale Is Exempt Will Not Suffice

In the first order (SV Order), the SEC concluded that SimplyVital Health, Inc. (SimplyVital), a “health care-related blockchain ecosystem” start-up, violated the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) by failing to register an initial coin offering (ICO) presale.