Tag: DLT

What is a SAFT?

Posted on by Laura Anthony, Esq.

A Simple Agreement for Future Tokens (“SAFT”) is an investment contract originally designed to provide a compliant alternative to an initial coin offering (ICO).  A SAFT as used today was intended to satisfy the U.S. federal securities laws, money services and tax laws and act as an alternative to an ICO when the platform and other utilization for the cryptocurrency or token was not yet completed. The form of the SAFT is the result of a joint effort between the Cooley law firm and Protocol Lab as detailed in the white paper released on October 2, 2017 entitled “The SAFT Project: Toward a Compliant Token Sale Framework.” As discussed in this blog, the SAFT’s compliance with federal securities laws has now come into question by both the SEC and practitioners.

SAFT’s are offered and sold to accredited investors as an investment to fund the development of a business or project in a way not dissimilar to the way equity changes hands in traditional venture capital. A SAFT was developed from the oft-used simple agreement for future equity (SAFE) contract in the venture capital setting. In a SAFT sale, no coins are ever offered, sold or exchanged. Rather, money is exchanged for traditional paper documents that promise access to future product. Fundamentally, a SAFT has been relying on the premise that the future product is not in and of itself a security.

Although the SEC had been looking at ICO’s for a while, on July 25, 2017 it issued a Section 21(a) Report on an investigation related to an initial coin offering (ICO) by the DAO concluding that the ICO was a securities offering. The Section 21(a) Report established that the Howey Test is the appropriate standard for determining whether a particular token involves an investment contract and the application of the federal securities laws. SEC Chair Jay Clayton has confirmed this standard in several public statements and in testimony before the United States Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs (“Banking Committee”). For a review of the Howey Test, see HERE.

Following the Section 21(a) Report, in a slew of enforcement proceedings by both the SEC and state securities regulators, and in numerous public statements, it is clear that regulators have viewed most, if not all, ICO’s as involving the sale of securities. At the same time, the SAFT grew in popularity as an attempt to comply with the securities laws. The SEC’s position is based on an analysis of the current market for ICO’s and the issuance of “coins” or “tokens” for capital raising transactions and as speculative investment contracts.

SAFT users rely on the premise that a cryptocurrency which today may be an investment contract (security) can morph into a commodity (currency) or other type of digital asset. The SAFT would delay the issuance of the cryptocurrency until it has reached its future utility. Investors in a SAFT automatically receive the cryptocurrency when it is publicly distributed in an ICO. The SAFT investors generally receive the crypto at a discount to the public offering price. However, this premise is taking a direct hit lately. Although I’ll lay out more on the SAFT history and why it was thought of as a solution further in this blog, I’ll jump right to the current analysis, and why a SAFT might not provide the intended protections.

The SAFT Problem

Although everyone, including regulators, agree that the state of the law in the area of cryptocurrencies and tokens is unsettled, regulators, including both the CFTC and SEC, have increasingly taken positions that would bring cryptocurrencies within their jurisdiction. I believe regulators are reacting to overarching fraud and therefore a necessity to take action to protect investors. Without congressional rule making and definitive guidance, regulators have no choice but to make the current law fit the circumstances. In some cases that works fine, but in others it does not and I suspect continuing changes in interpretations, enforcement premises and ultimately rule making will occur.

As I’ve previously discussed, the CFTC first found that Bitcoin and other virtual currencies were properly defined as commodities in 2015. Accordingly, the CFTC has regulatory oversight over futures, options, and derivatives contracts on virtual currencies and has oversight to pursue claims of fraud or manipulation involving a virtual currency traded in interstate commerce. Beyond instances of fraud or manipulation, the CFTC generally does not oversee “spot” or cash market exchanges and transactions involving virtual currencies that do not utilize margin, leverage or financing. Rather, these “exchanges” are regulated as payment processors or money transmitters under state law. See HERE.

The SEC has also taken the stance that ICO’s involve the sale of securities, and that exchanges providing for the after-market trading of cryptocurrencies must register unless an exemption applies. The SEC is now taking it one step further, postulating that the tokens or cryptocurrencies underlying the SAFT could also be a security (and when I say “could” I mean “are”), in which case the SAFT structure is nothing more than a convertible security and fails to comply with the federal securities laws and makes it even more likely that it would result in an enforcement proceeding, or private litigation.

A SAFT is a type of pre-ICO investment with the investors automatically receiving the crypto when the company completes its public ICO. If the underlying token is a security, then the future ICO fails to comply with the federal securities laws and the original SAFT also fails to comply.

Getting ahead of this issue, many companies have structured a SAFT such that the future ICO is also labeled a security, and the SAFT investor will receive the crypto when the future ICO is registered with the SEC. However, this results in a private pre-public security sale, which in and of itself is prohibited by the securities laws.

In particular, Securities Act CD&I 139.01 provides:

Question: Where the offer and sale of convertible securities or warrants are being registered under the Securities Act, and such securities are convertible or exercisable within one year, must the underlying securities be registered at that time?

Answer: Yes. Because the securities are convertible or exercisable within one year, an offering of both the overlying security and underlying security is deemed to be taking place. If such securities are not convertible or exercisable within one year, the issuer may choose not to register the underlying securities at the time of registering the convertible securities or warrants. However, the underlying securities must be registered no later than the date such securities become convertible or exercisable by their terms, if no exemption for such conversion or exercise is available. Where securities are convertible only at the option of the issuer, the underlying securities must be registered at the time the offer and sale of the convertible securities are registered since the entire investment decision that investors will be making is at the time of purchasing the convertible securities. The security holder, by purchasing a convertible security that is convertible only at the option of the issuer, is in effect also deciding to accept the underlying security. [Aug. 14, 2009] (emphasis added)

In a Crowdfund Insider article published March 26, 2018, one practitioner (Anthony Zeoli) has had discussions with the SEC on the subject. As reported in the article, the SEC has stated that if the SAFT investor will automatically receive tokens in the future when and if the tokens are registered, without any further action on the part of the investor, then the tokens must be registered as of the date of the SAFT investment.

Of course, the future ICO or token offering could be completed in a private offering in compliance with the federal securities laws, such as using Rule 506(c) and limiting all sales to accredited investors (see HERE on Rule 506(c)). However, assuming the token or coin really is designed to create a decentralized community or to have utility value that can be widely used by the public, limiting sales to accredited investors does not meet the needs of the issuers. Moreover, even if the future offering is structured as a private securities offering, the SAFT sale disclosure documents would need to include full disclosure on the future coin or token such that the investor could make an informed investment decision at the time of the SAFT investment.

In the same article, Zeoli delves into a more nuanced issue, which is the rising difference in the meaning of a “coin” vs a “token.” A SAFT is a simple agreement for future “tokens” but is being used to pre-sell initial “coin” offerings. If a coin and a token are two very different things (as Zeoli suggests—think stock vs. LLC interest), then the underlying contract has systemic problems beyond the registration and exemption provisions of the federal securities laws and may be a misrepresentation resulting in fraud claims.

More On SAFT; Background

As mentioned, the current form of a SAFT was created by a joint effort between the Cooley law firm and Protocol Lab as detailed in the white paper released on October 2, 2017 entitled “The SAFT Project: Toward a Compliant Token Sale Framework.” The SAFT was intended to comply with the federal securities, money transmittal and tax laws. Also, as discussed, the SAFT relies on the premise that a cryptocurrency which today may be an investment contract (security) will tomorrow be a non-security digital asset satisfying the Howey Test.  The SAFT would delay the issuance of the cryptocurrency until it has reached its future utility.

The original SAFT white paper states:

The SAFT is an investment contract. A SAFT transaction contemplates an initial sale of a SAFT by developers to accredited investors. The SAFT obligates investors to immediately fund the developers. In exchange, the developers use the funds to develop genuinely functional network, with genuinely functional utility tokens, and then deliver those tokens to the investors once functional. The investors may then resell the tokens to the public, presumably for a profit, and so may the developers.

The SAFT is a security. It demands compliance with the securities laws. The resulting tokens, however, are already functional, and need not be securities under the Howey test. They are consumptive products and, as such, demand compliance with state and federal consumer protection laws.

Despite its good intentions, as of today, the model SAFT no longer works.

Further Reading on DLT/Blockchain and ICO’s

For an introduction on distributed ledger technology, including a summary of FINRA’s Report on Distributed Ledger Technology and Implication of Blockchain for the Securities Industry, see HERE.

For a discussion on the Section 21(a) Report on the DAO investigation, statements by the Divisions of Corporation Finance and Enforcement related to the investigative report and the SEC’s Investor Bulletin on ICO’s, see HERE.

For a summary of SEC Chief Accountant Wesley R. Bricker’s statements on ICO’s and accounting implications, see HERE.

For an update on state distributed ledger technology and blockchain regulations, see HERE.

For a summary of the SEC and NASAA statements on ICO’s and updates on enforcement proceedings as of January 2018, see HERE.

For a summary of the SEC and CFTC joint statements on cryptocurrencies, including The Wall Street Journal op-ed article and information on the International Organization of Securities Commissions statement and warning on ICO’s, see HERE.

For a review of the CFTC role and position on cryptocurrencies, see HERE.

For a summary of the SEC and CFTC testimony to the United States Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs hearing on “Virtual Currencies: The Oversight Role of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission,” see HERE.

The Author

Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Legal & Compliance, LLC
Corporate, Securities and Going Public Attorneys
330 Clematis Street, Suite 217
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: 800-341-2684 – 561-514-0936
Fax: 561-514-0832
LAnthony@LegalAndCompliance.com
www.LegalAndCompliance.com
www.LawCast.com

Securities attorney Laura Anthony and her experienced legal team provides ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size private companies, OTC and exchange traded issuers as well as private companies going public on the NASDAQ, NYSE MKT or over-the-counter market, such as the OTCQB and OTCQX. For nearly two decades Legal & Compliance, LLC has served clients providing fast, personalized, cutting-edge legal service. The firm’s reputation and relationships provide invaluable resources to clients including introductions to investment bankers, broker dealers, institutional investors and other strategic alliances. The firm’s focus includes, but is not limited to, compliance with the Securities Act of 1933 offer sale and registration requirements, including private placement transactions under Regulation D and Regulation S and PIPE Transactions as well as registration statements on Forms S-1, S-8 and S-4; compliance with the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including registration on Form 10, reporting on Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, and 14C Information and 14A Proxy Statements; Regulation A/A+ offerings; all forms of going public transactions; mergers and acquisitions including both reverse mergers and forward mergers, ; applications to and compliance with the corporate governance requirements of securities exchanges including NASDAQ and NYSE MKT; crowdfunding; corporate; and general contract and business transactions. Moreover, Ms. Anthony and her firm represents both target and acquiring companies in reverse mergers and forward mergers, including the preparation of transaction documents such as merger agreements, share exchange agreements, stock purchase agreements, asset purchase agreements and reorganization agreements. Ms. Anthony’s legal team prepares the necessary documentation and assists in completing the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA and DTC for 15c2-11 applications, corporate name changes, reverse and forward splits and changes of domicile. Ms. Anthony is also the author of SecuritiesLawBlog.com, the OTC Market’s top source for industry news, and the producer and host of LawCast.com, the securities law network. In addition to many other major metropolitan areas, the firm currently represents clients in New York, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Boca Raton, West Palm Beach, Atlanta, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Washington, D.C., Denver, Tampa, Detroit and Dallas.

Contact Legal & Compliance LLC. Technical inquiries are always encouraged.

Follow me on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google+, Pinterest and Twitter.

Legal & Compliance, LLC makes this general information available for educational purposes only. The information is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Furthermore, the use of this information, and the sending or receipt of this information, does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between us. Therefore, your communication with us via this information in any form will not be considered as privileged or confidential.

This information is not intended to be advertising, and Legal & Compliance, LLC does not desire to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this information in a jurisdiction where this information fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that jurisdiction. This information may only be reproduced in its entirety (without modification) for the individual reader’s personal and/or educational use and must include this notice.

© Legal & Compliance, LLC 2018

Copy of Logo

The Senate Banking Committee’s Hearing On Cryptocurrencies

Posted on by Laura Anthony, Esq.

On February 6, 2018, the United States Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs (“Banking Committee”) held a hearing on “Virtual Currencies: The Oversight Role of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.” Both SEC Chairman Jay Clayton and CFTC Chairman J. Christopher Giancarlo testified and provided written testimony. The marketplace as a whole had a positive reaction to the testimony, with Bitcoin prices immediately jumping up by over $1600. This blog reviews the testimony and provides my usual commentary.

The SEC and CFTC Share Joint Regulatory Oversight

The Banking Committee hearing follows SEC and CFTC joint statements on January 19, 2018 and a joint op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal published on January 25, 2018 (see HERE). As with other areas in capital markets, such as swaps, the SEC and CFTC have joint regulatory oversight over cryptocurrencies. Where the SEC regulates securities and securities markets, the CFTC does the same for commodities and commodity markets.

Bitcoin has been determined to be a commodity and as such, the CFTC has regulatory oversight over futures, options, and derivatives contracts on virtual currencies and has oversight to pursue claims of fraud or manipulation involving a virtual currency traded in interstate commerce. Nevertheless, the CFTC does NOT have regulatory jurisdiction over markets or platforms conducting cash or “spot” transactions in virtual currencies or other commodities or over participants on such platforms. These spot virtual currency or cash markets often self-certify or are subject to state regulatory oversight. However, the CFTC does have enforcement jurisdiction to investigate fraud and manipulation in virtual currency derivatives markets and in underlying virtual currency spot markets.

The SEC does not have jurisdiction over currencies, including true virtual currencies. However, many, if not all, token offerings have been for the purpose of raising capital and have involved speculative investment contracts, thus implicating the jurisdiction of the SEC, in the offering and secondary trading markets.

Chair Clayton repeated that “every ICO I’ve seen is a security,” and added, “[T]hose who engage in semantic gymnastics or elaborate re-structuring exercises in an effort to avoid having a coin be a security are squarely in the crosshairs of our enforcement division.” Chair Clayton is very concerned that Main Street investors are getting caught up in the hype and investing money they cannot afford to lose, without proper (if any) disclosure, and without understanding the risks.  He also reiterates previous messaging that to date no ICO has been registered with the SEC and that ICO’s are international in nature such that the SEC may not be able to recover lost funds or effectively pursue bad actors. Cybersecurity is also a big risk associated with ICO investments and the cryptocurrency market as a whole. Chair Clayton cites a study that more than 10% of total ICO proceeds, estimated at over $400 million, has been lost to hackers and cyberattacks.

It is becoming increasingly certain that the U.S. will impose a new regulatory regime over those tokens that are not a true cryptocurrency, which would likely include all tokens issued on the Ethereum blockchain for capital raising purposes. Clayton made the distinction between Bitcoin, which is decentralized, on a public Blockchain and mined or produced by the public and other “securities tokens” which are the cryptocurrencies that developed by an organization and created and issued primarily for capital formation and secondary trading.

Many tokens are being fashioned that outright and purposefully resemble equity in an enterprise as a new way to represent equity and capital ownership. Clearly this falls directly within the SEC jurisdiction, and state corporate regulatory oversight as well. Furthermore, there are instances where a token is issued in a capital-raising securities offering and later becomes a commodity, or instances where a token securities offering is bundled to include options or futures contracts, implicating both SEC and CFTC compliance requirements.

In the Banking Committee testimony, the SEC and CFTC presented a united front, confirming that they are cooperating and working together to ensure effective oversight. Both agencies have established virtual currency task forces and their respective enforcement divisions are cooperating and sharing information. Also, both agencies have launched efforts to educate the public on virtual currencies, with the CFTC publishing numerous articles and creating a dedicated “Bitcoin” webpage.

In addition to cooperating with each other, they are also cooperating and communicating with the NASAA, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, FinCen, the IRS, state regulators and others.

The Technology

Consistent with all statements by the regulators, both the SEC and CFTC agree that that blockchain technology is disruptive and has the potential to, and likely will, change the capital markets. Moreover, both agencies consistently reiterate their support of these changes and desire to foster innovation.  In fact, the new technology has the potential to help regulators better monitor transactions, holdings and obligations and other market activities.

Chair Giancarlo’s testimony states that “DLT is likely to have a broad and lasting impact on global financial markets in payments, banking, securities settlement, title recording, cyber security and trade reporting and analysis. When tied to virtual currencies, this technology aims to serve as a new store of value, facilitate secure payments, enable asset transfers, and power new applications.” In addition, smart contracts have the ability to value themselves in real time and report information to data repositories.

However, regulation and oversight need to be fashioned that properly address the new technology and business operations. Both agencies are engaging in discussions with industry participants at all levels. A few of the key issues that will need to be resolved include custody, liquidation, valuation, cybersecurity at all levels, governance, clearing and settlement, and anti-money laundering and know-your-customer matters.

Overall, Chair Giancarlo seemed more positive and excited about blockchain and Bitcoin, pointing out current uses including a recent transaction where 66 million tons of American soybeans were handled in a blockchain transaction to China. Chair Clayton, while likely also very enthusiastic about the technology, is currently more focused on the fraud and misuse that has consumed this space recently.

Current Regulations and Needed Change

While the agencies investigate and review needed changes to the regulatory environment, both maintain that current regulations can be relied upon to address the current state of the market. On the SEC side, Chair Clayton walked the Banking Committee through previous SEC statements and the DAO Section 21(a) report issued in July 2017. He again confirmed that the Howey Test remains the appropriate standard for determining whether a particular token involves an investment contract and the application of the federal securities laws. The current registration and exemption requirements are also appropriate for ICO offerings. An issuer can either register an offering, or rely on exemptions such as Regulation D for any capital-raising transaction, including those involving tokens.

Conversely, the current regulatory framework related to exchange traded fund products (ETF’s) needs some work before a virtual currency product could be approved. Issues remain surrounding liquidity, valuation, custody of holdings, creation, redemption and arbitrage. In that regard, in a coming blog, I will review an SEC letter dated January 18, 2018 entitled “Engaging on Fund Innovation and Cryptocurrency-related Holdings” outlining why a crypto-related ETF would not be approved at this time.  Senator Mark Warner was quick to point out that there seems to be a regulatory disconnect where an SEC governed ETF is not approved, but a CFTC-governed Bitcoin future is allowed.

The current federal broker-dealer registration requirements remain the best test to determine if an exchange or other offering participant is required to be registered and a member of FINRA. Chair Clayton repeats his warning shot to gatekeepers such as attorneys and accountants that are involved in ICO’s and the crypto marketplace as a whole. Chair Clayton expresses concern that crypto markets often look similar to regulated securities markets and even are called “exchanges”; however, “investors transacting on these trading platforms do not receive many of the market protections that they would when transacting through broker-dealers on registered exchanges or alternative trading systems (ATSs), such as best execution, prohibitions on front running, short sale restrictions, and custody and capital requirements.”

CFTC Chair Giancarlo reiterated that current regulations related to futures, options, and derivatives contracts, and the registration (or lack thereof through self-certification) of spot currency exchanges are being utilized in the virtual currency market. However, the part of the regulatory system that completely defers to state law may need change. In particular, check cashing, payment processing and money transmission services are primarily state regulated. Many of the Internet-based cryptocurrency trading platforms have registered as payment services and are not subject to direct oversight by the SEC or the CFTC, and both agencies expressed concern about this jurisdictional gap.

Giancarlo was especially critical of this state-by-state approach and suggested new federal legislation, including legislation related to data reporting, capital requirements, cybersecurity standards, measures to prevent fraud, price manipulation, anti-money laundering, and “know your customer” protections. “To be clear, the CFTC does not regulate the dozens of virtual currency trading platforms here and abroad,” Giancarlo said, clarifying that the CFTC can’t require cyber-protections, platform safeguards and other things that consumers might expect from traditional marketplaces.

Chair Clayton expressed the same concerns, especially the lack of protections for Main Street investors. Chair Clayton stated, “I think our Main Street investors look at these virtual currency platforms and assume they are regulated in the same way that a stock is regulated and, as I said, it’s far from that and I think we should address that.”

I am always an advocate of federal oversight of capital markets matters that cross state lines. A state-by-state approach is always inconsistent, expensive, and inefficient for market participants.

Both agencies are clear that regardless of the technology and nomenclature, they are and will continue to actively pursue cases of fraud and misconduct. Current regulations or questions related to needed changes do not affect this role. However, Chair Clayton did impress upon the Banking Committee that the current hiring freeze and budgetary restraints are an impediment. The SEC specifically needs more attorneys in their enforcement and trading and markets divisions.

Further Reading on DLT/Blockchain and ICO’s

For an introduction on distributed ledger technology, including a summary of FINRA’s Report on Distributed Ledger Technology and Implication of Blockchain for the Securities Industry, see HERE.

For a discussion on the Section 21(a) Report on the DAO investigation, statements by the Divisions of Corporation Finance and Enforcement related to the investigative report and the SEC’s Investor Bulletin on ICO’s, see HERE.

For a summary of SEC Chief Accountant Wesley R. Bricker’s statements on ICO’s and accounting implications, see HERE.

For an update on state distributed ledger technology and blockchain regulations, see HERE.

For a summary of the SEC and NASAA statements on ICO’s and updates on enforcement proceedings as of January 2018, see HERE.

For a summary of the SEC and CFTC joint statements on cryptocurrencies, including The Wall Street Journalop-ed article and information on the International Organization of Securities Commissions statement and warning on ICO’s, see HERE.

For a review of the CFTC role and position on cryptocurrencies, see HERE.

Inquiries of a technical nature are always encouraged. Contact us now.

The CFTC And Cryptocurrencies

Posted on by Laura Anthony, Esq.

The SEC and U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have been actively policing the crypto or virtual currency space. Both regulators have filed multiple enforcement actions against companies and individuals for improper activities including fraud. On January 25, 2018, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton and CFTC Chairman J. Christopher Giancarlo published a joint op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal on the topic.

Backing up a little, on October 17, 2017, the LabCFTC office of the CFTC published “A CFTC Primer on Virtual Currencies” in which it defines virtual currencies and outlines the uses and risks of virtual currencies and the role of the CFTC. The CFTC first found that Bitcoin and other virtual currencies are properly defined as commodities in 2015. Accordingly, the CFTC has regulatory oversight over futures, options, and derivatives contracts on virtual currencies and has oversight to pursue claims of fraud or manipulation involving a virtual currency traded in interstate commerce. Beyond instances of fraud or manipulation, the CFTC generally does not oversee “spot” or cash market exchanges and transactions involving virtual currencies that do not utilize margin, leverage or financing. Rather, these “exchanges” are regulated as payment processors or money transmitters under state law.

The role of the CFTC is substantially similar to the SEC with a mission to “foster open, transparent, competitive and financially sound markets” and to “protect market users and their funds, consumers and the public from fraud, manipulation and abusive practices related to derivatives and other products subject to the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA).” The definition of a commodity under the CEA is as broad as the definition of a security under the Securities Act of 1933, including a physical commodity such as an agricultural product, a currency or interest rate or “all services, rights and interests in which the contracts for future delivery are presently or in the future dealt in” (i.e., futures, options and derivatives contracts).

Where the SEC regulates securities and securities markets, the CFTC does the same for commodities and commodity markets. At times the jurisdiction of the two regulators overlaps, such as related to swap transactions (see HERE). Furthermore, while there are no SEC licensed securities exchanges which trade virtual currencies or any tokens, there are several commodities exchanges that trade virtual currency products such as swaps and options, including the TeraExchange, North American Derivatives Exchange and LedgerX.

The Commodity Exchange Act would prohibit the trading of a virtual currency future, option or swap on a platform or facility not licensed by the CFTC. Moreover, the National Futures Association (NFA) is now requiring member commodity pool operators (CPO’s) and commodity trading advisors (CTA’s) to immediately notify the NFA if they operate a pool or manage an account that engaged in a transaction involving a virtual currency or virtual currency derivative.

The CFTC refers to the IRS’s definition of a “virtual currency” and in particular:

A virtual currency is a digital representation of value that functions as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and/or a store of value. In some environments it operates like real currency but it does not have legal tender status in the U.S. Virtual currency that has an equivalent value in real currency, or that acts as a substitute for real currency, is referred to as a convertible virtual currency.  Bitcoin is one example of a convertible virtual currency.

I note that neither the CFTC’s definition of Bitcoin as a commodity, nor the IRS’s definition of a virtual currency, conflicts with the SEC’s position that most cryptocurrencies and initial cryptocurrency offerings today are securities requiring compliance with the federal securities laws. The SEC’s position is based on an analysis of the current market for ICO’s and the issuance of “coins” or “tokens” for capital raising transactions and as speculative investment contracts. In fact, a cryptocurrency which today may be an investment contract (security) can morph into a commodity (currency) or other type of digital asset. For example, an offering of XYZ token for the purpose of raising capital to build a software or blockchain platform or community where XYZ token can be used as a currency would rightfully be considered a securities offering that needs to comply with the federal securities laws. However, when the XYZ token is issued and can be used as a form of currency, it would become a commodity. Furthermore, the bundling of a token securities offering to include options or futures contracts may implicate both SEC and CFTC compliance requirements.

The CFTC primer gives a little background on Bitcoin, which was created in 2008 by a person or group using the pseudonym “Satoshi Nakamoto” as an electric payment system based on cryptographic proof allowing any two parties to transact directly without the need for a trusted third party, such as a bank or credit card company. Bitcoin is partially anonymous, with individuals being identified by an alphanumeric address. Bitcoin runs on a blockchain-decentralized network of computers and uses open-source software and “miners” to validate transactions through solving complex algorithmic mathematical equations.

A virtual currency can be used as a store of value; however, virtual currencies are not a yield asset in that they do not generate dividends or interest. Virtual currencies can generally be traded with resulting capital gains or losses. The CFTC, like all regulators, points out the significant speculation and volatility risk. The CFTC reiterates the large incidents of fraud involving crypto marketplaces. Furthermore, there is a significant cybersecurity risk. If a “wallet” holding cryptosecurities is hacked, they are likely gone without a chance of recovery.

Although many virtual currencies, including Bitcoin, market themselves as a payment method, the ability to utilize Bitcoin and other virtual currencies for everyday goods and services has not yet come to fruition. In fact, the trend toward Bitcoin being a regularly accepted payment has seemed to have gone the other way, with payment processor Stripe, tech giant Microsoft and gaming platform Steam discontinuing Bitcoin support due to lengthy transaction times and increased transaction failure rates.

Further Reading on DLT/Blockchain and ICO’s

For an introduction on distributed ledger technology, including a summary of FINRA’s Report on Distributed Ledger Technology and Implication of Blockchain for the Securities Industry, see HERE.

For a discussion on the Section 21(a) Report on the DAO investigation, statements by the Divisions of Corporation Finance and Enforcement related to the investigative report and the SEC’s Investor Bulletin on ICO’s, see HERE.

For a summary of SEC Chief Accountant Wesley R. Bricker’s statements on ICO’s and accounting implications, see HERE.

For an update on state distributed ledger technology and blockchain regulations, see HERE.

For a summary of the SEC and NASAA statements on ICO’s and updates on enforcement proceedings as of January 2018, see HERE.

To read about the SEC and CFTC joint statements and the Wall Street Journal op-ed article, see HERE.

Inquiries of a technical nature are always encouraged. Contact us now.

State Distributed Ledger Technology and Blockchain Regulations

Posted on by Laura Anthony, Esq.

In a time of rapidly changing regulations and policies on all securities industry and corporate finance topics, and the development of distributed ledger technology (DLT or blockchain) and associated initial cryptocurrency offerings (ICO’s), I have never had so many topics in the queue to write about. With a once-a-week blog, I will just keep working through the list, reporting on all developments, some quicker than others.  In this blog, I am circling back to DLT with a synopsis of state law developments and the Uniform Law Commission’s (ULC) approved Uniform Regulation of Virtual Currency Business Act (Uniform VCBA).

Uniform Regulation of Virtual Currency Business Act (Uniform VCBA)

On July 19, 2017, the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) approved Uniform Regulation of Virtual Currency Business Act (Uniform VCBA) to be used as a model for states seeking to adopt such legislation. The VCBA is a money-transmitting or payment-processing-based legislation. The VCBA defines a money transmitter in an effort to provide clarity on what businesses are required to be licensed. The VCBA also provides an anti-money laundering (AML) framework that mirrors FinCEN requirements.

The VCBA focuses on control over the currency and transaction and requires licensing by any business that has the “power to execute unilaterally or prevent indefinitely a virtual currency transaction.” This definition is meant to distinguish virtual wallets that merely hold an individual’s virtual currency and process a transaction at the behest of such owner, without any additional powers.

Delaware

The Delaware Blockchain Initiative is the state’s program to welcome and encourage blockchain businesses and to establish regulatory clarity for their operations and the use of blockchain technology overall, including DLT.

The August 1, 2017 amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) Section 219, 224 and 232 will allow Delaware private companies to use DLT to maintain shareholder records, including authorized, issued, transferred, and redeemed shares, on a DLT system. As of now, the amendments to the DGCL are limited to private companies; however, the state of Delaware is in talks with the SEC related to implementing the technology for public companies.

DGCL Sections 219 and 224 have been amended to permit corporations to rely on a DLT as a stock ledger itself, potentially eliminating a separate transfer agent for private companies. Section 219(c) defines a “stock ledger” to include “one or more records administered by or on behalf of the corporation.” Section 224 provides that any records “administered by or on behalf of the corporation” could include “one or more distributed electronic networks for databases.”

A ledger must also: (i) be convertible into clearly legible paper form within a reasonable time; (ii) be able to be used to prepare the list of stockholders specified in Sections 219 and 220 (related to stockholder demands to inspect corporate books and records); (iii) must be able to record information and maintain records for various statute sections related to shareholdings, including those related to consideration for partly paid shares, the transfer of shares for collateral, pledged shares and voting trusts; and (iv) be able to records transfers of shares in compliance with the Delaware Uniform Commercial Code.

Delaware is currently working in collaboration with a private company, Symbiont, to put together “smart securities,” which are allegedly impossible to counterfeit. The ledger could be maintained by either a closed or open group of participants.  The ledger and any transfers would be updated instantaneously, effectively allowing for T+0 settlement of trades.

Nevada

Preceding Delaware by a month, on June 5, 2017, Nevada’s governor signed Senate Bill 398 into law, confirming that blockchain records have legally binding status. Unlike Delaware, Nevada’s regulations do not amend its corporate statutes (i.e., Chapter 78, Nevada’s Private Corporation Law), but rather, similar to Arizona, amends Chapter 719, Nevada’s Uniform Electronic Transactions Act.

Nevada’s statute defines blockchain as an electronic record of transactions or other data which is: (i) uniformly ordered; (ii) redundantly maintained or processed by one or more computers or machines to guarantee the consistency or nonrepudiation of the recorded transactions or other data; and (iii) validated by the use of cryptography.

The Nevada statute prohibits local governments from imposing taxes or fees on the use of a blockchain; requiring a certificate, license or permit to use a blockchain; or imposing any other requirement related to the use of blockchain. Moreover, the Nevada statute provides “written” status to blockchain records.  In particular, “if a law requires a record to be in writing, submission of a blockchain which electronically contains the record satisfies the law.”

Arizona

Prior to both Nevada and Delaware, in March 2017 Arizona passed House Bill 2417 into law, confirming the legal status of blockchain records. Like Nevada, Arizona gives smart contracts and blockchain signatureslegal binding status. In addition, the Arizona statute confirms that a smart contract has legally binding status, as would any other legal form of contract. Also like Nevada, Arizona’s provision is an amendment to its electronic transactions statute and not its corporate governance provisions.

Arizona defines “blockchain technology” as “distributed ledger technology that uses a distributed decentralized, shared and replicated ledger, which may be public or private, permissioned or permissionless, or driven by tokenized crypto economics or tokenless. The data on the ledger is protected with cryptography, is immutable and auditable and provides an uncensored truth.”

Arizona defines a “smart contract” as “an event driven program, with state, that runs on a distributed decentralized, shared and replicated ledger and that can take custody over and instruct transfer of assets on that ledger.”

Vermont

Vermont defines “blockchain technology” as “a mathematically secured, chronological and decentralized consensus ledger or database, whether maintained via Internet interaction, peer-to-peer network, or otherwise.” The Vermont statute confirms that blockchain records will be considered regular business records and makes blockchain records admissible as evidence under the Vermont rules of evidence.

Miscellaneous Virtual Currency Provisions

Multiple states, including Connecticut, New York, Oregon and Tennessee, have enacted legislations defining virtual currency and requiring money transmitters or payment processors which exchange virtual currency for U.S. dollars, to be licensed. The New York statute (the BitLicense Regulation) has received a lot of pushback, with many claiming it is vague or overly difficult to comply with, causing many in the business to avoid New York jurisdiction.

Further Reading on DLT/Blockchain and ICO’s

For an introduction on distributed ledger technology, including a summary of FINRA’s Report on Distributed Ledger Technology and Implication of Blockchain for the Securities Industry, see HERE.

For a summary on a report on an investigation related to the DAO’s ICO, statements by the Divisions of Corporation Finance and Enforcement related to the investigative report and the SEC’s Investor Bulletin on ICO’s, see HERE.

For a summary of SEC Chief Accountant Wesley R. Bricker’s statements on ICO’s and accounting implications, see HERE.

Inquiries of a technical nature are always encouraged. Contact us now.

SEC Statements On Cybersecurity – Part 2

Posted on by Laura Anthony, Esq.

On September 20, 2017, SEC Chair Jay Clayton issued a statement on cybersecurity that included the astonishing revelation that the SEC Edgar system had been hacked in 2016. Since the original statement, the SEC has confirmed that personal information on at least two individuals was obtained in the incident. Following Jay Clayton’s initial statement, on September 25, 2017, the SEC announced two new cyber-based enforcement initiatives targeting the protection of retail investors, including protection related to distributed ledger technology (DLT) and initial coin or cryptocurrency offerings (ICO’s).

The issue of cybersecurity is at the forefront for the SEC, and Jay Clayton is asking the House Committee on Financial Services to increase the SEC’s budget by $100 million to enhance the SEC’s cybersecurity efforts.

This is the second in a two-part blog series summarizing Jay Clayton’s statement, the SEC EDGAR hackingand the new initiatives. Part I of this blog, which outlined Chair Clayton’s statement on cybersecurity and the EDGAR hacking, can be read HERE . This second part in the series discusses the new cyber-based enforcement initiatives.

Previously I issued a blog outlining SEC guidance on the disclosure of cybersecurity matters, which can be read HERE.

Enforcement Initiatives

The SEC has established two new cybersecurity-related enforcement initiatives to address cyber-based threats and protect retail investors. The first is a creation of a Cyber Unit that will focus on targeting cyber-related misconduct. The second is the formation of a retail strategy task force that will focus on issues that directly affect retail investors.

Cyber Unit

The Cyber Unit will focus on:

  • Market manipulation schemes involving false information spread through electronic and social media
  • Hacking to obtain material nonpublic information in order to trade in advance of some announcement or event, or to manipulate the market for a particular security or group of securities
  • Violations involving distributed ledger technology (blockchain) and initial coin offerings (ICO’s)
  • Misconduct perpetrated using the dark web
  • Intrusions into retail brokerage accounts to conduct manipulative trading
  • Cyber-related threats to trading platforms and other critical market infrastructure

Chair Clayton formed the group with the goal of creating a cybersecurity working group to coordinate information sharing, risk monitoring, and incident response efforts throughout the agency. The Enforcement Division of the SEC has had to fast-track its expertise on matters related to cybersecurity including the advanced technologies that can be utilized.  It is thought that this focused enforcement initiative will further the SEC’s abilities to detect, respond to, and pursue misconduct.

On October 26, 2017, Stephanie Avakian, Co-Director of the Division of Enforcement gave a speech where she addressed both initiatives.   She addressed the obvious need for the Cyber Unit in today’s world of ever increasing cyber-related misconduct affecting the securities markets.

Expanding on the SEC’s list of areas of attention, Ms. Avakian indicates that the Cyber-Unit will also focus on cases involving failures by registered entities to take appropriate steps to safeguard information or ensure system integrity. The Cyber-Unit will work closely with the Office of Compliance, Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) in this area.

Further, the Cyber-Unit will review cases involving the failure by publicly reporting entities to properly report and disclose cyber related issues. The SEC has not yet brought a case in this space, but is expected to do so. The SEC expects companies’ to report cyber issues in risk factors and management discussion and analysis where appropriate and believes that the failure to do so could rise to a fraud issue under Rule 10b-5.

Retail Strategy Task Force

The Retail Strategy Task Force is planning to develop targeted initiatives to identify and pursue misconduct impacting retail investors.  The retail investor arena is a broad playing field including everything from the sales of unsuitable structured products to micro-cap pump-and-dump schemes. The Task Force will rely heavily on technology and analytics to identify problems. The Task Force includes enforcement personnel from around the country.

In her October 26, 2017 speech, Enforcement Co-Director, Stephanie Avakian stated, “this group will look at the many ways that retail investors intersect with the securities markets and look for widespread misconduct.” In a time of tight budgets, the SEC is focused on thinking strategically to identify problems and find the most efficient way to pursue enforcement actions including, as mentioned, with technology. Data analytics can be used to identify data by groups such as by product, by investor type, by location, by sales or trading practice, or by fee.  The SEC is even figuring out ways to use technology and data analytics to analyze the more than 16,000 tips it receives each year and integrate that data with other data points to identify issues.

Ms. Avakian gave specific examples of areas that the Retail Strategy Task Force will examine beyond the obvious Ponzi schemes and offering fraud, including:

  • Investment professionals steering customers to mutual fund share classes with higher fees, when lower-fee share classes of the same fund are available.
  • Abuses in wrap-fee accounts, including failing to disclose the additional costs of “trading away” or trading through unaffiliated brokers, and purchasing alternative products that generate additional fees.
  • Investors buying and holding products like inverse exchange-traded funds (ETFs) for long-term investment. These can be highly volatile products that are generally intended as a hedge against exposure to downward moving markets, and that face a long-term high risk of losing their principal. The SEC is increasingly seeing retail investors holding these products long-term, including in retirement accounts.
  • Problems in the sale of structured products to retail investors, including a failure to fully and clearly disclose fees, mark-ups, and other factors that can negatively impact returns; and
  • Abusive practices like churning and excessive trading that generate large commissions at the expense of the investor.

In addition to enforcement, the Retail Strategy Task Force will have an investor outreach and education component. In that regard, we can expect to see Investor Bulletins and other SEC investor communications generated from the Task Force’s findings and efforts.

SEC Statements On Cybersecurity; An EDGAR Hacking

Posted on by Laura Anthony, Esq.

On September 20, 2017, SEC Chair Jay Clayton issued a statement on cybersecurity that included the astonishing revelation that the SEC Edgar system had been hacked in 2016. Since the original statement, the SEC has confirmed that personal information on at least two individuals was obtained in the incident. Following Jay Clayton’s initial statement, on September 25, 2017, the SEC announced two new cyber-based enforcement initiatives targeting the protection of retail investors, including protection related to distributed ledger technology (DLT) and initial coin or cryptocurrency offerings (ICO’s).

The issue of cybersecurity is at the forefront for the SEC, and Jay Clayton is asking the House Committee on Financial Services to increase the SEC’s budget by $100 million to enhance the SEC’s cybersecurity efforts.

This is the first in a two-part blog series summarizing Jay Clayton’s statement, the SEC EDGAR hacking and the new initiatives. My prior blog outlining SEC guidance on the disclosure of cybersecurity matters can be read HERE.

Chair Clayton’s Statement on Cybersecurity and the EDGAR Hacking

Upon taking office in May, 2017, Chair Clayton formed a senior-level cybersecurity working group to coordinate the sharing of information, risk monitoring and incident response efforts. Chair Clayton’s September 20, 2017 statement was part of the SEC’s ongoing initiatives and necessary to inform the public of the SEC’s own hacking incident. In addition to the revelation regarding the EDGAR hacking, Chair Jay Clayton’s statement emphasized the importance of cybersecurity to not only the SEC, but all market participants.

All market participants engage in data collection, storage, analysis, availability and protection to some extent, all of which are open to cybersecurity risks. Cyber attacks can be perpetrated by identity thieves, unscrupulous contractors and vendors, malicious employees, business competitors, prospective insider traders and market manipulators, hackers, terrorists, state-sponsored actors and others.  Furthermore, the effects of attacks can be significant, including loss or exposure of consumer data, theft or exposure of intellectual property, investor losses resulting from the theft of funds, market value declines in companies’ subject to cyber attacks, and regulatory, reputational and litigation risks.

Cybersecurity efforts must include, in addition to assessment, prevention and mitigation, resilience and recovery. Chair Clayton’s statement provides detail on the SEC’s approach to cybersecurity, including: (i) the types of data they collect, hold and make publicly available; (ii) how the SEC manages cybersecurity risks and responds to cyber events; (iii) how the SEC incorporates cybersecurity considerations in their risk-based supervision of entities they regulate; (iv) how the SEC coordinates with other regulators to identify and mitigate cybersecurity risks; and (v) how the SEC uses its oversight and enforcement authorities, including to pursue cyber threats.

EDGAR Hacking

Before summarizing the other components of Chair Clayton’s statement, I will jump right to the topic that has gained national attention: EDGAR was hacked!  Sometime in 2016, a software vulnerability in the test filing component of the EDGAR system was hacked. The opening was patched once discovered, but the hackers were able to obtain information through test filings that was used to make illicit trading gains. The hackers also obtained personal information, including names, dates of birth and Social Security numbers of at least two individuals. Chair Clayton was not informed of the hacking until August 2017.

The test filing system of EDGAR allows a company to make a non-public test filing of a registration statement or report (or any document that can be filed through the EDGAR system) to be sure the actual filing will be processed correctly. The test filing is usually made hours before the actual filing, but it can be made a day in advance. By having access to material information in filings prior to the marketplace, the hackers could trade on such information and make illegal profits.

When the SEC first announced the hacking on September 20, 2017, it stated that no personal information had been compromised but in a second press release issued on October 2, 2017, the SEC confirmed that forensic data analysis uncovered further depths to the intrusion.  In the October 2 press release, Chair Clayton outlined efforts to review and remediate the 2016 hacking, including:

  • A review of the 2016 EDGAR intrusion by the Office of Inspector General;
  • An investigation by the Division of Enforcement in the potential illicit trading resulting from the 2016 EDGAR intrusion (which seems to indicate that the perpetrator has been uncovered). Chair Clayton was first informed of the hacking in connection with this enforcement investigation;
  • A focused review and appropriate uplift of the EDGAR system with a concentration on cybersecurity matters, including its security systems, processes and controls. This review will include assessing the types of data that run through the EDGAR system and whether EDGAR is the appropriate mechanism to funnel such data;
  • A focused review and appropriate uplift of all systems that include the identification of sensitive data or personally identifiable information. This review will include assessing the types of data the SEC keeps and the related security systems, processes and control; and
  • The SEC’s internal review of the 2016 EDGAR hacking to determine, among other things, the procedures followed in response to the intrusion. This review is being overseen by the Office of the General Counsel and includes an interdisciplinary investigative team including outside technology consultants.  Related to this, the SEC will enhance protocols for cybersecurity incidents.

In furtherance of this review and plan, Chair Clayton authorized the immediate hiring of additional staff and outside technology consultants to protect the security of the SEC’s network, systems and data.

Based on the SEC’s statements and testimony on the matter, there still remains a lot of secrecy surrounding the incident. For instance, the date or dates of the hacking have not been made public. The hacking was reported to the Department of Homeland Security, but the SEC commissioners were not notified. Moreover, the SEC has not revealed the type of information that was accessed nor which companies were affected.

Collection and Use of Data by the SEC

The SEC collects, stores and transmits data in three broad categories, including: (i) public facing data through the EDGAR system; (ii) non-public information including personally identifiable information related to supervisory and enforcement functions; and (iii) non-public information including personally identifiable information related to the SEC’s internal operations.

The first category involves data provided to the SEC by companies (such as public reports under the Exchange Act, and notices of private offerings on Form D) and investors (such as Section 13 and Section 16 filings). The second category includes data on companies, broker-dealers, investment advisors, investment companies, self-regulatory organizations (including FINRA), alternative trading systems, clearing agencies, credit rating agencies, municipal advisors and other market participants. The third category of data includes personnel records, internal investigations and data related to risk management and internal control processes.

Management of Internal Cybersecurity Risks

Notably, Chair Clayton begins this part of his statement by disclosing that the SEC is “the subject of frequent attempts by unauthorized actors to disrupt access to our public-facing systems, access our data, or otherwise cause damage to our technology infrastructure, including through the use of phishing, malware and other attack vectors.” As did occur with the EDGAR hacking, attackers stand to profit from information through trading activities, identity theft and a myriad of other improper uses of the illegally obtained information.

In addition to outside attacks, the SEC monitors for unauthorized actions by personnel.  In 2014, an internal review uncovered that certain laptops with sensitive information could not be located. There have also been instances where SEC personnel have used non-secure personal email accounts to transmit nonpublic information. The SEC mitigates the internal risk by requiring all personnel to complete privacy and security training.

To protect against all of its cyber-related threats, the SEC employs an agency-wide cybersecurity detection, protection and prevention program. The program includes cybersecurity protocols and controls, network protections, system monitoring and detection processes, vendor risk management processes, and regular cybersecurity and privacy training for employees. However, in light of current and changing technological advancements, the SEC intends to step up its efforts overall. As mentioned earlier, in that regard, the SEC is seeking an increase in its annual budget, and a lift on its current hiring limitations.

Just as the SEC expects public companies to maintain internal controls, including from the top down, on cybersecurity matters, so the SEC has internal policies and procedures requiring senior management to maintain policies, and to coordinate with other offices and divisions with respect to cybersecurity efforts, including risk reporting and testing.

Although all offices have responsibilities, the SEC Office of Information Technology has overall management and responsibility for the agency’s cybersecurity. The SEC’s cybersecurity program is subject to review from internal and external independent auditors, including to ensure compliance with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (“FISMA”).

The SEC also must report cybersecurity matters to outside agencies, including the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Homeland Security, and has established information-sharing relationships with the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (“NCCIC”), the Financial and Banking Information Infrastructure Committee (“FBIIC”), and the Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center (“FS-ISAC”).

Incorporation of Cybersecurity Considerations in the SEC’s Disclosure-Based and Supervisory Efforts

The SEC incorporates cybersecurity considerations in its disclosure and supervisory programs, including in the context of the Commission’s review of public company disclosures, its oversight of critical market technology infrastructure, and its oversight of other regulated entities, including broker-dealers, investment advisors and investment companies. Related to public company disclosures, Chair Clayton referred to the SEC guidance summarized HERE.

Related to the SEC’s oversight of market infrastructure, including regulation of exchanges and clearing agencies, the SEC adopted Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity in 2014. Regulation SCI was proposed and adopted to require key market participants to have comprehensive written policies and procedures to ensure the security and resilience of their technological systems, to ensure systems operate in compliance with federal securities laws, to provide for review and testing of such systems and to provide for notices and reports to the SEC. Key market participants generally include national securities exchanges and associations, significant alternative trading systems (such as OTC Markets, which has confirmed it is in compliance with the Regulation), clearing agencies, and plan processors. For a review of Regulation SCI, see HERE.

Furthermore, certain SEC rules and regulations governing broker-dealers, investment advisors and investment companies directly implicate information security practices. For example, Regulation S-P requires registered broker-dealers, investment companies and investment advisors to adopt written policies and procedures governing safeguards for the protection of customer information and records. Regulation S-ID requires these firms, to the extent they maintain certain types of covered accounts, to establish programs addressing how to identify, detect and respond to potential identity theft red flags.

Coordination with Other Governmental Entities

Effective cybersecurity programs require cooperation among government agencies. The SEC shares oversight responsibility on some matters with other agencies, including the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Furthermore, the SEC often coordinates with other agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The SEC coordinates cybersecurity efforts with each of these agencies, and more.

Enforcement of the Federal Securities Laws

The SEC is committed to enforcing compliance with the cybersecurity disclosure obligations of reporting companies, and in enforcement proceedings against those that purse cyber threats. Part of these efforts include using advanced technology to monitor suspicious trading activity across companies, traders and geographic regions.

Chair Clayton sets out examples of enforcement actions, such as a case in 2016 against three traders for allegedly participating in a scheme to hack into two prominent New York-based law firms to steal information pertaining to clients that were considering mergers or acquisitions, which the hackers then used to trade. In another case, defendants allegedly hacked into newswire services to obtain non-public information about corporate earnings announcements. These are just two examples among dozens of cases.

Inquiries of a technical nature are always encouraged. Contact us now.

SEC Chief Accountant Speaks On Initial Coin Offerings (ICO’s)

Posted on by Laura Anthony, Esq.

On September 11, 2017, the SEC Chief Accountant, Wesley R. Bricker, gave a speech before the AICPA National Conference on Banks & Savings Institutions. The bulk of the speech was similar to Mr. Bricker’s June 2017 speech before the 36th Annual SEC and Financial Reporting Institute Conference, summarized HERE. However, one topic that was new, and interesting enough to spark this blog, was related to initial coin offerings (ICO’s). Note that offers and sales of digital coins, cryptocurrencies or tokens using distributed ledger technology (DLT) or blockchain have become widely known as ICO’s.

As the capital markets become more and more focused on all things blockchain, including ICO’s, secondary token trading, and disruptive changes made possible by distributed ledger technology (DLT), which is inevitably transforming capital market processes, the SEC is fronting a wave of questions and concerns on the subject. On July 25, 2017, the SEC issued a report on an investigation related to an ICO by the DAO and statements by the Divisions of Corporation Finance and Enforcement related to the investigative report. On the same day, the SEC issued an Investor Bulletin related to ICO’s. (See summary of the report, statement and investor bulletin HERE).

Almost all divisions and committees of the SEC are and will be impacted by DLT and ICO’s and are working diligently to address the technology and the public markets’ wave of interest. In August 2017 the SEC suspended the trading in a slew of bitcoin-based companies questioning the accuracy of publicly reported information and press releases. On September 20, 2017, the SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee announced the agenda for its next meeting to be held on October 12, the first item on which is blockchain and other distributed ledger technology and its implications for securities markets.

FINRA is likewise as attentive to DLT and its far-reaching implications.  On July 13, 2017, FINRA held a Blockchain Symposium including participation by the Office of the Comptroller of Currency, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Federal Reserve Board and the SEC. Earlier in the year, FINRA published a report on the technology and its potential impacts on broker-dealers and the markets in general. See HERE for a summary.

Although outside of my practice area, the Internal Revenue Service is stepping up efforts to make sure taxes are reported and paid for trading profits and other taxable income related to cryptocurrencies. In that regard, the IRS has contracted with a company that provides software that analyzes and tracks bitcoin transactions.

Mr. Bricker’s Remarks on ICO’s

Mr. Bricker begins by talking about the SEC report on the DAO investigation, stating that “[T]he report makes clear that the federal securities laws apply to those who offer and sell securities in the U.S., regardless of whether the issuing entity is a traditional company or a decentralized autonomous organization, whether those securities are purchased using U.S. dollars or virtual currencies, or whether they are distributed in certificated form or through distributed ledger technology.”

All offers and sales of securities in the U.S. must either be registered with the SEC or must qualify for an exemption. The SEC’s registration requirements include the filing of audited financial statements. In addition, I note that many exemptions likewise require the disclosure of either audited or unaudited financial statements. Furthermore, the basic antifraud principles encompassed in Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, require full and fair disclosure, which includes financial information about the issuer.

Mr. Bricker confirms the basics that U.S. accounting principles apply to ICO’s as they do with any other offerings. Issuing companies should review guidance related to the presentation and disclosure of financial statements, consolidation, translation, assets, liabilities, revenue, expenses and ownership.

Mr. Bricker lists questions that both issuers and holders should consider:

Issuers:

What are the necessary financial statement filing requirements?

Are there liabilities requiring recognition or disclosure?

Are there previously recognized assets that require de-recognition?

Are there revenues or expenses requiring recognition or deferral?

Is there a transaction with owners, resulting in debt or equity classification and possibly compensation expense?

Are there implications for the provision for income taxes?

Holders:

Does specialized accounting guidance (such as for investment companies) apply to the holder’s financial statement presentation?

What are the characteristics of the coin or token in considering whether, how, and at what value the transaction should affect the holder’s financial statements?

What is the nature of the holder’s involvement in considering whether the issuer’s activities should be consolidated or accounted for under the equity method?

A new wave of ICO’s

Since the SEC issued its report on the DAO, my office has been actively involved with clients and potential clients interested in structuring ICO’s which comply with the federal (and state) securities laws. Although I have yet to see a registered ICO, several are now utilizing 506(b) or 506(c) to complete their offerings. For instance, the recent $285 million Filecoin ICO was completed in reliance on Rule 506(c) and included such institutional investors as Sequoia Capital, Andreessen Horowitz and Union Square Ventures. Other similar offerings have been and continue to be launched on platforms such as CoinList (which is partnered with AngelList) and now more traditional securities offering platforms such as Start Engine. I am certain the number of securities ICO’s relying on traditional securities offering registration or exemption rules and regulations will continue to increase dramatically.

Inquiries of a technical nature are always encouraged. Contact us now.

An Introduction To Distributed Ledger Technology (Blockchain Technology)

Posted on by Laura Anthony, Esq.

On July 13, 2017, FINRA held a Blockchain Symposium to assess the use of distributed ledger technology (DLT) in the financial industry, including the maintenance of shareholder and corporate records. DLT is commonly referred to as blockchain. The symposium included participation by the Office of the Comptroller of Currency, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Federal Reserve Board and the SEC.

FINRA also published a report earlier in the year discussing the implications of DLT for the securities industry. Delaware, Nevada and Arizona have already passed statutes allowing for the use of DLT for corporate and shareholder records. This is the first in many blogs that will discuss DLT as this exciting new era of technology continues to unfold and impact the securities markets. In this blog I will discuss FINRA’s report published in January 2017 and in the next in the series, I will summarize the recent SEC investigative report on initial coin offerings and conclusion that cryptocurrencies and tokens are securities. In a follow-on blog, I will summarize the state blockchain legislation to date, including Delaware’s groundbreaking statute.

Blockchain is an openly distributed database which is used to continuously maintain a list of records, called blocks. Each new block is linked to prior blocks in such a way that data cannot be retroactively changed in a prior block without changing all blocks, which is virtually impossible. A DLT ledger is shared among a network of participants, instead of relying on a single central ledger.

Ultimately the blockchain technology could be used to maintain shareholder records in a secure immediate form as well as to process capital markets trades instantaneously. It is thought that stock ledgers and any transfers would be updated instantaneously, effectively allowing for T+0 settlement of trades without the need for intermediaries. A change of this magnitude is many years away as effective regulation and consideration on market impacts will take time. For more on trade settlements, see HERE.

The technology is already being utilized, most notably by the cryptocurrency industry. At least one industry leader, Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne’s t0 Technologies, has created a system that could form the basis for widely used blockchain technology which disrupts the capital market trading systems. I don’t expect quick changes to trading systems and settlement. Blockchain remains widely unregulated and without consensus from top financial regulators, any change to capital market structures will face roadblocks. However, I expect that the ability for public companies to maintain stock ledgers using DLT technology will be forthcoming very soon.

FINRA Report on Distributed Ledger Technology and Implications of Blockchain for the Securities Industry

On July 13, 2017, FINRA held a Blockchain Symposium to assess the use of distributed ledger technology (DLT) in the financial industry.  The symposium followed FINRA’s January 2017 report on DLT and its implications for the securities industry. In recent years, over $1 billion has been invested by various market participants to explore the use of DLT in the financial services industry. Although the level and speed of disruption to current systems remains debated, it is universally agreed that DLT will be utilized in the securities industry. DLT has the potential to completely change business models and practices and as such, regulators realize the necessity to be actively engaged to prepare for the new regime. On a positive note, FINRA views DLT as having the potential to provide investors with greater access to services and transparency and to provide firms with increased operational efficiencies and enhanced risk management.

Many aspects of FINRA’s rules and areas of responsibilities can be impacted by DLT, including, for example, clearing arrangements (it is thought that DLT can eliminate middle-market participants involved in the clearing process), recordkeeping requirements, and trade and order reporting and processing. In addition, FINRA rules such as those related to financial condition, verification of assets, anti-money laundering, know-your-customer, supervision and surveillance, fees and commissions, payment to unregistered persons, customer confirmations, materiality impact on business operations, and business continuity plans also may to be impacted depending on the nature of the DLT application.

DLT is already being used in the securities markets in the form of initial cryptocurrency offerings (ICO’s) and in states that have passed corporate statutes allowing for the use of the technology to maintain corporate and shareholder records. On July 25, 2017, the SEC issued a report on an investigation related to an ICO by the DAO and statements by the Divisions of Corporation Finance and Enforcement related to the investigative report. Although I will write an in-depth blog on the report and statements in the coming weeks, the SEC concluded that the fundamental tenets related to the definition of a security apply and that cryptocurrenciesand tokens that fall within that definition are securities, subject to SEC regulations, regardless of the title or form they may take. For more on decoding what is a security, see HERE.

FINRA’s report on DLT is broken down into three sections including: (i) overview of distributed ledger technology; (ii) DLT securities industry applications and potential impact; and (iii) factors to consider when implementing DLT. FINRA also discussed regulatory requirements and potential changes related to DLT. I will summarize each section with my usual commentary and input.

Overview of Distributed Ledger Technology

DLT involves a distributed database maintained over a network of computers where information can be added by the network participants.  Each added layer of information or data is referred to as a block. The network participants can share and retain identical cryptographically secured information and records.

DLT uses either a public or private network. A public network is open and accessible to anyone that joins, without restrictions. All data stored on a public network is visible to anyone on the network, although it is encrypted. A public network has no central authority and relies solely on the network participants to verify transactions and record data on the network. Algorithm and computational technology is used to protect the integrity of the data.

A private network is limited to individuals and entities that are granted access by a network operator. Access can be tiered with different entities being allowed differing levels of authority to transact and view data. In the financial services industry, it is likely that networks will be private.

The transactions and data on the network usually represent an underlying asset that may be digital assets, such as cryptosecurities and cryptocurrencies, or a representation of a hard asset stored offline (a token representing an interest in a gold bar, for example). Assets on a DLT network are cryptographically secured using public and private key combinations. The public key combination allows access to the network itself, and the private key is for access to the asset itself and is held by the asset holder or its agent.

A transaction may be initiated by any party on the network that holds assets on that network. When a transaction is initiated, it is verified using a predetermined process that can be either consensus-based or proof-of-work based, although new verification processes are being explored. In layman’s terms, the verification process is based on computer computations. The settlement of the transaction is occurs when verification is completed. Currently this can occur immediately or take a few hours.

Once verified, a transaction is “cryptographically hashed” and forms a permanent record on the DLT network. Records are time-stamped and displayed sequentially to all parties with network access. Currently, historical records cannot be edited or changed, though technology is being developed to change that.

DLT Securities Industry Applications and Potential Impact

Currently, market participants are experimenting with several uses of DLT within the market infrastructure and ecosystem. DLT can be used in specific markets, such as debt, equity and derivatives, and in specific market functions, such as clearing. Many discrete applications exist for the use of DLT, including, for example, clearing arrangements, recordkeeping requirements, and trade and order reporting and processing. In addition, DLT can impact financial condition recordkeeping and reporting, verification of assets, anti-money laundering, know-your-customer, supervision and surveillance, fees and commissions, payment to unregistered persons, customer confirmations, materiality impact on business operations, and business continuity plans.

The most common current use of DLT is related to private company equities. DLT can be used to track transfers, maintain shareholder records and for capitalization tables. Nasdaq has utilized DLT technology to complete and record a private securities transaction using its Nasdaq Linq blockchain ledger technology. The Nasdaq platform allows private companies to use DLT to record and track trading of private securities.

DLT will eventually be used for public company equities, but the regulatory aspects are behind the technology. However, Overstock’s Patrick Byrne has created and launched a private platform to allow for public trading of securities using blockchain, called t0 Technologies. The platform only currently trades Overstock’s digital shares, but as an SEC licensed alternative trading system (ATS), the foundation is in place for utilizing the platform to launch and trade public offerings of third-party securities.

The debt market also sees the benefit of DLT. The current average settlement time for the secondary trading of syndicated loans is approximately a month. The repurchase agreement marketplace is filled with inefficiencies, as is the trading market for corporate bonds.  DLT could be used in all aspects of these markets. It is thought that DLT can also be used to automate the derivative marketplace and create greater transparency.

DLT technology is being worked on to create operational processes with the securities industry itself as well, including by creating central repositories of standardized reference data for various securities products, creating efficiencies for all participants. DLT can also centralize identity management functions, on a global scale.

In addition to the centralization of data, DLT can be used to process transactions by using overlaid software. For example, “smart contracts” can be created that would automatically execute agreed-upon terms in a contract based on certain triggering events. Smart contracts can be used for escrow arrangements, collateral management and corporate actions such as dividends and splits.

In addition to discrete areas, DLT can have market-wide impacts as well.  One area that is gaining traction is the clearing process.  Overstock’s platform is called t0 as a play on the widely used T+2 (formerly T+3) time for settlement. t0 references the immediate clearing and settlement of trades using DLT technology. However, despite the technological abilities, FINRA notes that it is unclear what the ideal settlement time would be for various segments of the securities market. Some market participants advocate for a netting and end-of-day settlement rather than a real-time contemporaneous process.

Real-time settlements would also impact short trading and other hedging transactions, including by market makers. On the positive side, it is thought that real-time settlement will reduce market risk, free up collateral and create overall efficiencies. As FINRA notes, it is likely that considerations related to settlement times will differ based on asset type, volume of transactions, liquidity requirements, impact on market makers and current market efficiencies.

Clearly DLT will increase market transparency. The basis of the technology is a series of blocks with a complete history available for view by network participants. Market participants and the investing public could be provided with access to relevant information on the network without the need to create a new reporting infrastructure. FINRA notes that regulators need to consider the benefits of such total transparency and the counter need to protect privacy, personally identifiable information and trading strategies. Also, consideration must be given to the need to ensure that material information available to a private network does not disadvantage the rest of the public.

DLT has the ability to alter or even eliminate the roles of intermediaries in the securities industry. The process of executing a trade as well as the subsequent settlement and clearing of such trade could be done directly between the issuing company and purchaser or third-party buyers and sellers. In addition, the need for market participants that effectuate transaction netting and maintenance of margin requirements could be reduced or eliminated.

The operational risks associated with the securities markets can be changed including sharing information over a network of multiple entities, the use of private and public keys to obtain access to assets, the use of smart contracts and other automated operations. The very nature of DLT as a shared network creates cybersecurity risks and the need for robust countermeasures.

Factors to Consider When Implementing DLT

As discussed, DLT applications have already impacted the securities industry. Many financial institutions have already established in-house or third-party research teams to build and test DLT networks and applications. FINRA’s report provides a good high-level summary of the obvious factors to consider with implementing DLT technology in capital markets, including governance, operational structure and network security.

Governance

A basis of DLT technology is that it is an open network with no centralized governing power or operator. FINRA notes that although there are benefits to this system, there are also issues, such as how to handle a large volume of transactions effectively. As a result, closed networks have started where participants are pre-vetted trusted parties. In the capital markets, questions will need to be answered related to the operation of the network and who has responsibility for what aspects—for example, who would decide governance and internal controls and procedures, who would enforce these governance rules, who would be responsible for day-to-day operations including addressing system failures or technical issues, how errors would be rectified and conflicts of interests addressed.

Operational Structure

Any DLT Network will need to consider its operational structure including a framework for: (i) network participant access and related onboarding and offboarding procedures; (ii) transaction validation; (iii) asset representation (such as shares of stock); and (iv) data and transparency requirements.

A network will need to establish criteria and procedures for establishing and maintaining participating members and determining their level of access. Controls and procedures will need to address: (i) criteria for participants to gain access to the network; (ii) a vetting and onboarding process including identity verification and user agreements; (iii) an offboarding process for both involuntary offboarding as a result of noncompliance and voluntary offboarding; (iv) monitoring and enforcement procedures for compliance with rules of conduct; (v) establishing various levels of access; and (vi) access for regulators.

Networks will need to determine a method for transaction validation. In the short history of blockchain, there have already been different methodologies. Validation could be consensus-based, single-node verifier or multiple-node verifier. Each method has pros and cons, and the specific algorithms and processes would need to be ferreted out.

On the topic of asset representation, networks will need to determine if the actual asset will be directly issued digitally (which only works for certain assets such as intangibles, stock or agreements representing ownership interests) or issued traditionally and be tokenized on the network. If tokenized, further thought must be given to security, handling loss or theft of the underlying asset, fractionalization issues, handling changes such as reverse or forward stock splits or conversions, and new issuances as some examples.

Likewise, thought must be given to the handling of cash on the network, including the settlement of transactions. In that regard, could tokens become a form of cash and if so, how would they ultimately be converted into established government currencies?  Ownership in almost any asset could also be tokenized (such as diamonds, gold, precious metals, art, etc.), creating issues of custodianship and security for the underlying asset. Intangible assets would be relatively easy to tokenize. Fungible assets would be easier than non-fungible assets, with unique assets being the most difficult.

A network will need controls and processes related to data transparency including public or shared information versus private information.

Network Security

In addition to the security of the underlying asset, there are security concerns with the network itself. The issue is more complex due to the decentralized nature of, and global access and participants to, the network. A DLT Network must have security for external and internal risks while maintaining the privacy of personal information for network participants.

Network participants will need to consider: (i) how DLT fits within their current recordkeeping framework including maintenance and backup systems; (ii) cybersecurity issues, including hacking, phishing, malware and other forms of threats and program and testing requirements; (iii) updating written supervisory procedures and policy procedures; and (iv) business controls for identity and transaction verification and fraud prevention.

Regulatory Considerations

Broker-dealers are currently exploring issuing and trading securities, facilitating automated actions such as dividend payments and maintaining transaction records on a DLT network. These areas are regulated by both the SEC and FINRA. The FINRA report points out the potential for a “paradigm shift for several traditional processes in the securities industry through the development of new business models and new practices incorporating DLT” that requires regulatory attention.

I personally believe this shift will occur in a shorter period of time than some others predict. I can see a time in the not-too-distant future where the role of transfer agents is minimalized or completely changed to a reviewer of opinion letters for legend removals; the DTC will be drastically changed and much less powerful; there will no longer be a separation between clearing firms and introducing brokers and all trades will clear instantaneously (t+0).

The FINRA report specifically discusses some major areas of consideration including: (i) customer funds and securities; (ii)

Customer Funds and Securities

DLT will create new ways to hold customer funds and securities and thus custodial changes. Broker-dealers that hold funds and securities must generally comply with Exchange Act Rule 15c3-3, which generally requires the broker to maintain physical possession or control over the customer’s fully paid and excess margin securities. Where funds and securities are purely digital, such as cryptosecurities, consideration will need to be made over how they are accounted for and who has the obligation. In addition, certain activities and access levels could amount to “receiving, delivering, holding or controlling customer assets” such as having access to a private key code for a customer.

Also potentially implicated in this area are Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1 related to net capital requirements, FINRA Rule 4160 on verification of assets and Exchange Act Rule 17a-13 related to quarterly security accounts.

Broker-Dealer Net Capital

Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1 requires a firm to maintain a minimum level of net capital at all times. The FINRA Rule 4100 series sets forth the rules and requirements for complying with net capital requirements including calculations and which assets are allowable or non-allowable within those calculations. Regulations need to address how cryptosecurities, digital currency, and tokens in general will be accounted for, for purposes of net capital calculations.

Books and Records Requirements

Exchange Act Rule 17a-3 and 17a-4 and FINRA Rule 4511 regulate book and record requirements for broker-dealers. DLT allows books and records to be maintained on the network itself, though consideration must be made as to how this will comply with regulations, and what changes need to be made with the regulations to update for the new technology.

Clearance and Settlement

It is my view that DLT could have the biggest impact on clearance and settlement from a pure industry disruption viewpoint. FINRA notes, “Depending on how trade execution and settlement is ultimately structured, broker-dealers and other market participants may wish to consider whether any of their activities in the DLT environment meet the definition of a clearing agency and whether corresponding clearing agency registration requirements under Section 17A of the Exchange Act would be applicable.”

In addition, as mentioned, DLT could eliminate the distinction between introducing and clearing brokers and the corresponding carrying agreement rules.

Anti-Money Laundering and Customer Identification Programs

DLT allows for global and anonymous participation, and accordingly practices and regulations will need to address anti-money laundering (AML) and customer identification obligations (CIP). The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 requires controls and procedures to detect and prevent money laundering. FINRA Rule 3310 addresses AML obligations.  For more on this topic, see HERE.

In addition, FINRA Rule 2090, the Know Your Customer (KYC) rule, requires firms to “use reasonable diligence, in regard to the opening and maintenance of every account, to know (and retain) the essential facts concerning every customer and concerning the authority of each person acting on behalf of such customer.” Technology is already being explored to centralize identity management functions such that once a customer identity is verified, the information can be shared with all network participants. Obviously this would greatly streamline processes for broker-dealers and customers alike.

It is likely that DLT technology will surpass regulatory changes in the AML/CIP/KYC sectors. The FINRA report notes that the current rules allow a firm to outsource functions to third parties, but not overall responsibility. Accordingly, a firm could utilize DLT technology for these functions now if they can fashion internal controls and procedures that comply with the ultimate rule responsibilities.

Customer Data Privacy

Broker-dealers have an obligation to protect personal customer information (Regulation S-P). The rules also require that a firm provide an annual notice to customers related to the protection, and sharing, of their personal information. DLT by nature will include customer information and transaction histories that will be available to network participants. Regulations, as well as internal controls and procedures, will need to adapt for DLT technology.

Trade and Order Reporting Requirements

FINRA regulates the trading and order reporting requirements for the over-the-counter (OTC Markets) and requires certain reports to a centralized Securities Information Processor for listed securities. DLT may be soon be used for the facilitation of OTC Markets equity transactions. This may involve tokenizing existing securities and trading on a different network. FINRA Rule 6100 Series (Quoting and Trading in NMS Stock), Rule 6400 Series (Quoting and Trading on OTC Equity Securities), Rule 4550 Series (Alternative Trading Systems) and Rule 5000 Series governing offering and trading standards and practices would all be implicated.  I note that t0 Technologies has registered as an ATS.

Supervision and Surveillance

DLT networks will present new and unique challenges related to maintaining supervisory rules and procedures as well as surveillance systems themselves. This area includes the ability to review customer accounts and correct order errors. Like other areas of DLT technology, centralized systems available to all network participants are being developed that can perform some of these functions.

Fees and Commissions

Certain additional fees may be necessary for a DLT network, such as wallet management, key management and on-boarding, whereby other areas may reduce fees as centralization brings economies. In addition, consideration must be given to the payment of fees to third parties that are not registered broker-dealers but that provide DLT outsource functions.

Customer Confirmations and Account Statements

Exchange Act Rule 10b-10 requires firms to provide customers with certain records including trade confirmations and account statements.  DLT technology will change the flow and availability of information.

Material Impact on Business Operations

NASD Rule 1017(a)(5) requires broker-dealers that undergo a material change in business operations to file a Continuing Membership Application (CMA) prior to implementing the material change. Many of the aspects of DLT technology may result in a material change and broker-dealers need to consider the need to file 1017 applications.

Business Continuity Plans

FINRA Rule 4370 requires broker-dealers to maintain business continuity plans. Firms must consider the impact of DLT technology on their plans and update accordingly.