Category: Cryptocurrency

A Flurry of CFTC Actions Shock the Cryptocurrency Industry

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) sent shockwaves across the cryptocurrency industry when it issued a $1.25 million settlement order with Kraken, one of the industry’s largest market participants. The next day, the CFTC announced that it had charged each of 14 entities for offering cryptocurrency derivatives and margin trading without registering as a futures commission merchant (FCM). While the CFTC has issued regulatory guidance in the past and engaged in some regulatory enforcement activities, it has now established itself as a key regulator of the industry along with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the US Department of the Treasury (Treasury). Market participants should be aware that the CFTC will continue to take a more active role in regulation and enforcement of commodities and derivatives transactions moving forward.

The CFTC alleged that each of the defendants were acting as an unregistered FCM. Under Section 1a(28)(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act (the Act), 7 U.S.C. § 1(a)(28)(A), an FCM is any “individual, association, partnership, or trust that is engaged in soliciting or accepting orders for the purchase or sale of a commodity for future delivery; a security futures product; a swap . . . any commodity option authorized under section 6c of this title; or any leverage transaction authorized under section 23 of this title.” In order to be considered an FCM, that entity must also “accept[] money, securities, or property (or extends credit in lieu thereof) to margin, guarantee, or secure any trades or contracts that result or may result therefrom.” (See: 7 U.S.C. § 1(a)(28)(A)(II).) 7 U.S.C. § 6d(1), requires FCMs to be registered with the CFTC.

IN DEPTH

THE KRAKEN SETTLEMENT

On September 28, 2021, the CFTC issued an order, filing and settling charges against respondent Payward Ventures, Inc. d/b/a Kraken for offering margined retail commodity transactions in cryptocurrency—including Bitcoin—and failing to register as an FCM. Kraken is required to pay a $1.25 million civil monetary penalty and to cease and desist from further violations of the Act. The CFTC stated that, “This action is part of the CFTC’s broader effort to protect U.S. customers.”

The CFTC’s order finds that from approximately June 2020 to July 2021, Kraken violated Section 4(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6(a)(2018) by offering to enter into, entering into, executing and/or confirming the execution of off-exchange retail commodity transactions with US customers who were not eligible contract participants or eligible commercial entities. The CFTC also found that Kraken operated as an unregistered FCM in violation of Section 4d(a)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6d(a)(1) (2018). According to the order, Kraken served as the sole margin provider and maintained physical and/or constructive custody of all assets purchased using margins for the duration of a customer’s open margined position.

Margined transactions worked as follows: The customer opened an individual account at Kraken and deposited cryptocurrency or fiat currency into the account. The customer then initiated a trade by selecting (1) the trading pair they wished to trade, (2) a purchase or sale transaction and (3) a margin option. All trades were placed on Kraken’s central limit order book and executed individually for each customer. If a customer purchased an asset using margin, Kraken supplied the cryptocurrency or national currency to pay the seller for the asset. If a customer sold an asset using margin, Kraken supplied the cryptocurrency or national currency due to the buyer. Trading on margin allowed the customer to establish a position but also created an obligation for the customer to repay Kraken at the time the margined position was closed. The customer’s position remained open until they submitted a closing trade, they repaid the margin or Kraken initiated a forced liquidation based on the occurrence of certain triggering events, including limitations on the duration of an open margin position and pre-set margin thresholds. Kraken required customers to exit their positions and repay the assets received to trade on margin within 28 days, however, customers could not transfer assets away from Kraken until satisfying their repayment obligation. If repayment was not made within 28 days, Kraken could unilaterally force the margin position to be liquidated or could also initiate a forced liquidation if the value of the collateral dipped below a certain threshold percentage of the total outstanding margin. As a result, actual delivery of the purchased assets failed to occur.

The CFTC asserted that these transactions were unlawful because they were required to take place on a designated contract market. Additionally, by soliciting and accepting orders for, and entering into, retail commodity transactions with customers and accepting money or property (or extending credit in lieu thereof) to margin these transactions, Kraken was operating as an unregistered FCM.

Coinciding with the release of the enforcement action against Kraken, CFTC Commissioner Dawn D. Sump issued a “concurring statement.” In it, she appeared to be calling upon the CFTC to adopt more specific rules governing the products that are the subject of the enforcement action. Commissioner Sump seemed to indicate that it would be helpful to cryptocurrency market participants if the CFTC clarified its position on the applicability of the Act, as well as registration requirements. The CFTC will likely issue guidance or rules to clarify its position on which cryptocurrency-related products trigger registration requirements.

CFTC CHARGES 14 CRYPTOCURRENCY ENTITIES

On September 29, 2021, the CFTC issued a press release and 14 complaints against cryptocurrency trading platforms. The CFTC is seeking a sanction “directing [the cryptocurrency platforms] to cease and desist from violating the provisions of the Act set forth herein.” Each of the platforms have 20 days to respond.

All of the complaints are somewhat similar in that the CFTC alleges that each of the cryptocurrency platforms “from at least May 2021 and through the present” have offered services to the public “including soliciting or accepting orders for binary options that are based off the value of a variety of assets including commodities such as foreign currencies and cryptocurrencies including Bitcoin, and accepting and holding customer money in connection with those purchases of binary options.”

The CFTC has taken the position that “binary options that are based on the price of an underlying commodity like forex or cryptocurrency are swaps and commodity options as used in the definition of an FCM.” (The CFTC has previously taken the position that Bitcoin and Ethereum constitute “commodities,” doing so in public statements and enforcement actions.) In a prominent enforcement action previously filed by the CFTC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the court held that “virtual currency may be regulated by the CFTC as a commodity” and that it “falls well-within the common definition of ‘commodity’ as well as the CEA’s definition of commodities.” (See: CFTC v. McDonnell, et al., 287 F. Supp. 3d 213, 228 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2018); CFTC v. McDonnell, et al., No. 18-cv-461, ECF No. 172 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2018).) In the action the CFTC filed against BitMEX in October of 2020, it alleged that “digital assets, such as bitcoin, ether, and litecoin are ‘commodities’ as defined under Section 1a(9) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(9). (See: CFTC v. HDR Global Trading Limited, et al., No. 20-cv-8132, ECF 1, ¶ 23 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2020).)

The CFTC has previously taken the position that Bitcoin, Ethereum and Litecoin are considered commodities. However, in these recently filed complaints, the CFTC did not appear to limit the cryptocurrencies that would be considered “commodities” to just Bitcoin, Ethereum and Litecoin. Instead, the CFTC broadly referred to “commodities such as foreign currencies and cryptocurrencies including Bitcoin.” It remains to be seen which of the hundreds of cryptocurrencies on the market will be considered “commodities,” but it appears that the CFTC is not limiting its jurisdiction to just three. It is also an open question as to whether there are certain cryptocurrencies or cryptocurrency referencing financial products that the SEC and CFTC will determine are subject to the overlapping jurisdiction of both regulators, similar to mixed swaps under the derivatives rules.

The CFTC also singled out two of these cryptocurrency platforms, alleging that they issued false statements to the effect that it “is a registered FCM and RFED with the CFTC and member of the NFA.” The CFTC noted that neither of these entities were ever registered with the National Futures Association (NFA) and one of the NFA ID numbers listed “identifies an individual who was once registered with the CFTC but has been deceased since 2009.”

WHAT’S NEXT

While the SEC, Treasury and DOJ are often considered the most prominent federal regulators in the cryptocurrency space, this recent sweep by the CFTC is not the first time it has flexed its muscles. The CFTC went to trial and won in 2018, accusing an individual of operating a boiler room. In October 2020, the CFTC filed a case against popular cryptocurrency exchange BitMEX for failing to register as an FCM, among other counts. However, unlike those one-off enforcement actions, the recent actions targeting multiple market participants within two days is a big step forward for the CFTC. Cryptocurrency derivative trading has been rising in popularity over the last few years and it is unsurprising that the CFTC is taking a more active enforcement role.

It is expected that regulatory activity within the cryptocurrency space will increase from all US regulators, including the CFTC, SEC, Treasury and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, especially as cryptocurrency products are increasingly classified as financial products subject to regulation. While the CFTC and other regulators have issued some regulatory guidance, regulators appear to be taking a “regulatory guidance by enforcement action” strategy. Market participants will need to thoughtfully consider all relevant regulatory regimes in order to determine what compliance activities are necessary. As we describe, multiple classifications are possible.

© 2021 McDermott Will & Emery
For more on cryptocurrency litigation, visit the NLR Cybersecurity, Media & FCC section.

Agencies and Regulators Focus on AML Compliance for Cryptocurrency Industry

This year, regulators, supported by a slate of new legislation, have focused more of their efforts on AML violations and compliance deficiencies than ever before. As we have written about in the “AML Enforcement Continues to Trend in 2021” advisory, money laundering provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2021 (the NDAA) expanded the number of businesses required to report suspicious transactions, provided new tools to law enforcement to subpoena foreign banks, expanded the AML whistleblower program, and increased fines and penalties for companies who violate anti-money laundering provisions. The NDAA, consistent with Treasury regulations, also categorized cryptocurrencies as the same as fiat currencies for purposes of AML compliance.

In addition, as discussed in the “Businesses Must Prepare for Expansive AML Reporting of Beneficial Ownership Interests” advisory, the NDAA imposed new obligations on corporations, limited liability companies, and similar entities to report beneficial ownership information. Although the extent of that reporting has not yet been defined, the notice of proposed rulemaking issued by FinCEN raises serious concerns that the Treasury Department may require businesses to report beneficial ownership information for corporate affiliates, parents and subsidiaries; as well as to detail the entity’s relationship to the beneficial owner. Shortly after passage of the NDAA, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen stressed that the Act “couldn’t have come at a better time,” and pledged to prioritize its implementation.

Money laundering in the cryptocurrency space has attracted increased attention from regulators and the IRS may soon have an additional tool at its disposal if H.R. 3684 (the bipartisan infrastructure bill) is signed into law. That bill includes AML provisions that would require stringent reporting of cryptocurrency transactions by brokers. If enacted, the IRS will be able to use these reports to identify large transfers of cryptocurrency assets, conduct money laundering investigations, and secure additional taxable income. Who qualifies as a “broker,” however, is still up for debate but some fear the term may be interpreted to encompass cryptocurrency miners, wallet providers and other software developers. According to some cryptocurrency experts, such an expansive reporting regime would prove unworkable for the industry. In response, an anonymous source from the Treasury Department told Bloomberg News that Treasury was already working on guidance to limit the scope of the term.

In addition to these legislative developments, regulators are already staking their claims over jurisdiction to conduct AML investigations in the cryptocurrency area. This month, SEC Chair Gary Gensler, in arguing that the SEC had broad authority over cryptocurrency, claimed that cryptocurrency was being used to “skirt our laws,” and likened the cryptocurrency space to “the Wild West . . . rife with fraud, scams, and abuse” — a sweeping allegation that received much backlash from not only cryptocurrency groups, but other regulators as well. CFTC Commissioner Brian Quintez, for example, tweeted in response: “Just so we’re all clear here, the SEC has no authority over pure commodities . . . [including] crypto assets.” Despite this disagreement, both regulatory agencies have collected millions of dollars in penalties from companies alleged to have violated AML laws or BSA reporting requirements. Just last week, a cryptocurrency exchange reached a $100 million settlement with FinCEN and the CFTC, stemming from allegations that the exchange did not conduct adequate due diligence and failed to report suspicious transactions.

With so many governmental entities focused on combatting money laundering, companies in the cryptocurrency space must stay abreast of these fast-moving developments. The combination of increased reporting obligations, additional law enforcement tools, and heightened penalties make it essential for cryptocurrency firms to institute strong compliance programs, update their AML manuals and policies, conduct regular self-assessments, and adequately train their employees. Companies should also expect additional regulations to be issued and new legislation to be enacted in the coming year. Stay tuned.

©2021 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

7 Keys to Selecting the Best Corporate Intelligence Firm

When you need to conduct a corporate investigation or gather intelligence in order to make a strategic business decision, you need to know that you are relying on complete and accurate information. There is no tolerance for uncertainty, and there is no room for error. If the information gathered is anything less than comprehensive, you will not have the insights you need; and, while you could get lucky, what was supposed to be an informed decision could end up doing more harm than good.

With this in mind, when you need to make an informed decision on a matter with significant business implications, you need to rely on the advice of experienced investigators and advisors. In short, your choice of corporate intelligence firms matters. So, how do you choose? Here are seven key factors to consider:

1. Professional Background and Corporate Intelligence Experience

While you are choosing a corporate intelligence firm, it is ultimately the people you choose that matter most. It is the firm’s personnel who will be investigating, gathering intelligence, and providing advice, so you need to know that these individuals have the background and experience required in order to assist your company effectively.

In most cases, companies will benefit greatly from choosing a corporate intelligence firm that employs former federal investigative agents—and ideally former federal investigative agents who spent decades in civil service. This includes not only former agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), but former agents with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), and subject matter-specific agencies and departments such as the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Working within these agencies in an investigative capacity offers extensive training and high-level experience, and this experience will often translate directly to the corporate intelligence sector.

Of course, there are differences between conducting a government investigation and proactively gathering corporate intelligence, so experience in the private sector is an important consideration as well. When choosing a corporate intelligence firm, you should feel free to inquire about the public and private experience of each of the individuals who will be assisting your company. There are plenty of corporate intelligence firms out there—some of which offer far more experience than others—and you should look until you find a firm with personnel who you believe have the knowledge and capabilities required to meet your company’s needs.

2. Experience in Your Company’s Specific Area of Need

In addition to general investigative and intelligence-gathering experience, it is also important to choose a firm with personnel who have experience in your company’s specific area of need. For example, conducting a routine compliance audit is a very different matter from investigating an employee’s allegations of harassment or discrimination. Likewise, investigating a possible data security breach is wholly unlike conducting an internal investigation in response to a federal target letter, civil investigative demand (CID), or subpoena.

Different investigative and intelligence-gathering needs call for different procedures, the implementation of different policies, and the utilization of different skill sets. As a result, when looking for a corporate intelligence firm, it is important to focus not only on experience in general, but experience in similar and related scenarios as well.

3. State-of-the-Art Technological Resources

In today’s world, the extraordinary amount of data that companies generate and utilize on a day-to-day basis adds a layer of complexity to corporate investigations that did not exist 20 years ago. When gathering data, it is necessary to rely on state-of-the-art technological resources that ensure both (i) comprehensive data gathering, and (ii) industry-standard (or better) data security. If any data or (any data resources) get overlooked, then not only could the investigation fail to provide necessary intelligence, but it could also potentially expose the company to greater risk as the result of failing to uncover a possible litigation threat or defense strategy.

A corporate intelligence firm should be able to quickly and seamlessly connect its technological resources with your company’s IT platform, and its personnel should be able to work with the senior members of your company’s IT department to quickly implement a systematic and effective data collection plan. Your company’s corporate intelligence firm should be able to work directly with your company’s IT, data storage, and data security vendors as well—all while maintaining strict confidentiality and absolutely preserving the integrity of your company’s sensitive and proprietary data.

4. Nationwide Capabilities

In many cases, it is difficult to tell exactly where a corporate investigation will lead. While some intelligence-gathering efforts (i.e. compliance audits) will remain entirely internal affairs, investigations spurred by government inquiries, third-party allegations, and possible data security breaches can lead to additional investigative needs and the potential for litigation across the country (if not around the world). As a result, when choosing a corporate intelligence firm, it is important to choose a firm that has nationwide capabilities. It should have sufficient personnel and technological resources to follow your company’s investigation wherever it may lead, and it should have a track record of efficiently handling corporate investigations on a nationwide scale.

Additionally, COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way that many companies do business. In some cases, these changes are likely to be permanent. In particular, the substantially increased prevalence of remote working and service delivery are likely here to stay. Not only does this mean that there will be additional challenges during the corporate investigative process, but it means that data (and paper files) will be spread across a much broader geographic area as well. This makes it imperative to choose a corporate intelligence firm with the capabilities required to quickly and effectively gather data, conduct interviews, and undertake other necessary investigative measures wherever it may be necessary to do so.

5. Preservation of the Attorney-Client Privilege

When preparing for a corporate investigation, it is important not to overlook the critical importance of preserving the attorney-client privilege. Without establishing the attorney-client privilege and ensuring that it covers the entirety of the investigation, any and all information uncovered through the investigative process could potentially become subject to disclosure during a government investigation or through discovery in civil litigation.

“When conducting a corporate investigation, it is imperative to preserve the attorney-client privilege. If your corporate intelligence firm is not able to do so, then the government or any counterparties in civil litigation may be entitled to access the data obtained during – and the records generated as the work product of – the investigation.” – Attorney Nick Oberheiden, Ph.D., Founder of Oberheiden P.C.

While some corporate intelligence firms work in conjunction with independent law firms, others utilize the services of in-house lawyers. The latter model not only streamlines the process and ensures that all individuals who are working on the investigation are able to efficiently work together, but it can also substantially reduce the costs involved. By engaging a corporate intelligence firm that can handle all aspects of your company’s investigative needs while also preserving the attorney-client privilege, you can ensure that your company is protecting its legal and financial interests to the fullest extent possible.

6. Relevant Subject Matter Knowledge

Earlier, we noted the importance of choosing a corporate intelligence firm with personnel who have specific experience with the type of inquiry that your company needs to conduct (i.e. a compliance audit, data security breach assessment, or pre-litigation internal investigation). In addition, it is important to choose a firm with personnel who have relevant subject matter as well. From data security to federal securities and antitrust law compliance, corporate intelligence needs can pertain to an extremely broad range of issues, and it is essential that the investigators and advisors working with your company are well-versed in the substantive issues at hand.

7. Support and Insights Beyond the Investigation

Finally, when choosing a corporate intelligence firm, you need to choose a firm that can provide support and insights beyond your company’s immediate investigative needs. Based on the intelligence that has been gathered (or that is likely to be gathered), what are your company’s next steps? If your company is facing a federal investigation or a potential lawsuit, what defensive measures are necessary, and how does this inform the investigative process? If the investigation reveals shortcomings in your company’s compliance policies and procedures, what additions or modifications are necessary? Depending upon the circumstances at hand, these are just a few of the numerous critical questions that may need to be answered.

When choosing a corporate intelligence firm, it is imperative to look beyond the firm’s investigative and intelligence-gathering capabilities to its ability to advise your company based upon the intelligence it gathers. The broader the firm’s capabilities – and the broader its investigators’, consultants’, and attorneys’ experience and subject matter knowledge – the more your company will be able to get out of the engagement. When a corporate investigation is necessary, cutting corners is not an option, and choosing a firm that cannot follow through on the intelligence it gathers can be a costly mistake.

Oberheiden P.C. © 2020
For more, visit the NLR Corporate & Business Organizations section.

Uncle Sam Wants to Protect Blockchain Technology

On August 27, 2020, the head of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division (“DOJ”), Makan Delrahim, spoke at the Thirteenth Annual Conference on Innovation Economics and emphasized that one of the DOJ’s top priorities is to protect innovation and ensure that antitrust laws do not act as an impediment to the burgeoning cryptocurrency market.  COVID-19 has illuminated the importance of innovative solutions, as businesses develop new ways to operate during the pandemic. In particular, Delrahim highlighted blockchain as an innovative technology that the DOJ seeks to protect because of its potential to topple existing monopoly structures.

Blockchain technology is essentially a shared ledger of information and transactions that is distributed across a number of computers on the network, the ledger updates with every transaction on each computer and is viewable by anyone with access to that particular blockchain at any time.  In traditional networking solutions, the company that owns or controls the network infrastructure (the intermediary) may be able to raise the cost of doing business on the network as it becomes larger.  In contrast, blockchain technology can operate a network without a centralized intermediary, resulting in potentially lower networking costs and limiting the concentration of market power.

Although blockchain technology offers tremendous value, Delrahim also underscored the potential for abuse.  He noted that those with current market power could use blockchain technology in an anti-competitive manner. This is particularly a concern with closed or permissioned blockchain networks where only insiders are allowed to operate a computer on the network. For example, seafood harvesters could collusively condition access to a permissioned blockchain, which tracks useful supply chain data, on agreeing to certain prices or output.  Such collusive activity would cause tremendous harm to competition and consumers.

In an effort to combat such potentially anticompetitive activities, Delrahim noted that the DOJ is taking proactive measures to understand how emerging technologies work and how they can affect competition. The Antitrust Division has implemented a new initiative to train its attorneys and economists in innovative technologies such as blockchain technology, machine learning, and artificial intelligence, to prepare itself for monopolists who may take advantage of these new technologies.

Delrahim’s speech is an acknowledgement that the DOJ looks favorably on innovative technologies, in particular blockchain solutions.  The DOJ wants to protect and promote the growth of these technologies by combating anticompetitive behavior.  Delrahim’s speech is also an important signal that the DOJ is focused on potentially anti-competitive applications of blockchain technology.  Any group of firms that are considering working together in developing a blockchain technology solution in their industry should take appropriate precautions to make sure their activities do not constitute a violation of U.S. anti-trust laws.

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California
For more articles on Cryptocurrency, visit the National Law Review Communications, Media & Internet section.

Under Siege from the SEC, Steven Seagal Ponies Up to Settle Charges for Promoting an Initial Coin Offering

Steven Seagal just learned the hard way that, unlike the title of his 1988 police action movie, he is not Above the Law. Unfortunately for the prolific action movie star, the SEC took notice of his recent actions and was Out for Justice. In order to avoid a Maximum Conviction, the SEC recently announced that Seagal made the Executive Decision to settle charges brought by the agency related to the actor’s failure to disclose the nature, scope, and amount of compensation he received for promoting an investment in an initial coin offering (ICO) conducted by Bitcoiin2Gen.

The SEC has taken the position that cryptocurrency coins/tokens may qualify as “securities,” and celebrities or other individuals who promote cryptocurrency may run afoul of the federal securities laws if they fail to make adequate disclosures of the compensation they received in exchange for the promotion. One could think of this as a Code of Honor, but the SEC calls it the anti-touting provisions of the Securities Act of 1933. Specifically, Section 17(b) states:

It shall be unlawful for any person . . . to publish, give publicity to, or circulate any notice . . . or communication which, though not purporting to offer a security for sale, describes such security for a consideration received or to be received, directly or indirectly, from an issuer, underwriter, or dealer, without fully disclosing the receipt, whether past or prospective, of such consideration and the amount thereof.

This broad language makes the anti-touting provision The Perfect Weapon for the SEC to go after issuers who seek to use well-known individuals to promote risky cryptocurrency products to vulnerable populations. Indeed, the SEC has previously used this provision to go after other celebrities for similar conduct, including boxer Floyd Mayweather Jr. and music producer DJ Khaled.

Seagal found himself in the Belly of the Beast when he promoted the ICO on his social media accounts and issued a press release titled “Zen Master Steven Seagal Has Become the Brand Ambassador of Bitcoiin2Gen.” He also permitted the company to issue a press release that included a quote demonstrating his strong endorsement. In exchange for this publicity, Seagal was promised $250,000 in cash and $750,000 of the company’s coins.

As a result of the settlement, Seagal was ordered to pay over $330,000 in disgorgement, civil penalties, and interest. Seagal also agreed not to promote any security for a period of three years. With Exit Wounds this severe for the well-known movie star, this case should serve as a stark reminder that the SEC is committed to examining all aspects of ICOs and cryptocurrencies with a careful eye. If the SEC catches wind of similar conduct by other celebrities, future cases could be Hard to Kill.

© 2020 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved.

For more on the SEC Segal settlement see the National Law Review Securities & SEC law section.

Cryptocurrency is At The Center of Multi-Million Dollar Investment Security and Commodities Fraud

The Criminal Division of the IRS arrested Swedish businessman Roger Nils-Jonas Karlsson, for allegedly operating a fraudulent pension plan using cryptocurrency. Karlsson allegedly used fake websites “registered to a fictitious person” to advertise shares of a “Pre-Funded Reversed Pension Plan” (PFRPP). The criminal complaint states that Karlsson allegedly invited potential investors to buy shares of this plan at $98 per share. In exchange, Karlsson promised to eventually return 1.15 kilograms of gold per share to the shareholder as return on investment. In early 2019, 1.15 kilograms of gold was worth $45,000, making investors in the plan a 460 percent return for each share owned. The plan’s investors made payments using virtual currencies, also known as cryptocurrency. Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Litecoin prominent cryptocurrencies and were allegedly used to pay Karlsson. With the assistance of his company, Eastern Metal Securities, Karlsson allegedly defrauded victims into losing more than $11 million.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission does not regulate cryptocurrencies, which are considered risky. The lack of regulation makes it sometimes impossible to get cryptocurrency refunded from fraudulent transactions because banks or government organizations do not guarantee these currencies. In cases where a company or individual commits securities or commodities fraud against the government, private citizens often play an essential role by acting as whistleblowers.

© 2019 by Tycko & Zavareei LLP

More on cryptocurrency enforcement actions via the National Law Review Criminal Law & Business Crimes page.

Japan’s New Crypto Regulation – 2019 Amendments to Payment Services Act and Financial Instruments and Exchange Act of Japan

Japan will fundamentally change its crypto asset regulations effective in spring of 2020.

In May, 2019, the National Diet, the Japanese national legislature, passed an amendment bill to the Payment Services Act (the “PSA”) and the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (the “FIEA”), which was promulgated on June 7, 2019 (the “2019 Amendment”).  The 2019 Amendment will become effective within one year from promulgation, following further rulemaking by the Japan Financial Services Agency (the “JFSA”) to implement the 2019 Amendment, which is anticipated sometime soon and includes public comment process.

Key Takeaways of the 2019 Amendment

The 2019 Amendment, coming into force within one year of the promulgation, will bring certain significant and fundamental changes to how crypto assets are regulated in Japan.  Key takeaways are:

  • Crypto asset margin trading and other crypto asset derivative transactions will become subject to Japanese regulations on derivative transactions generally.  Broker-dealers and exchanges will likely need to revisit and update their registration status and policies and procedures.  While it may be possible to rely on a limited grandfathering provision for 6 months after the effective date, a notification must be submitted to a relevant local Finance Bureau within two weeks after the effective date of the 2019 Amendment.
  • Certain crypto assets distributed through distributed ledger technologies (such as blockchain) will be expressly regulated as Type I securities.  Consequently, solicitation and offering of such crypto assets, including Initial Coin Offerings, to Japanese investors will require careful review and structuring to avoid any regulatory pitfalls.
  • Crypto asset-related custodial activities will be subject to licensing.
  • Crypto asset trading activities will be subject to various prohibitions on unfair trading and practices.
  • A detailed rulemaking process will follow and involve opportunities to submit comments during the public consultation process.

Copyright 2019 K & L Gates

ARTICLE BY Tsuguhito Omagari of K&L Gates.
More on cyprocurrency regulation on the National Law Review Financial Institutions & Banking law page.

Five Tips to Mitigate Risk in Cryptocurrency Mergers and Acquisitions

Congratulations!

Your client just closed on the purchase of a cutting-edge, blockchainbased payment processing startup. Before this deal, you had heard of bitcoin and blockchain. But, you had never seen a company that actually accepted payment in bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. You were a little confused by the whole idea. However, your client liked the prospect of purchasing a company that had dealt in digital assets, so you didn’t think much about it.

Arriving to the office the day after the closing, you open up your computer to learn news of a hack at one of the big bitcoin exchanges. The article explains that hackers had accessed the hot wallets on the exchange and made off with over $150 million in digital assets. News of the hack sent the price of bitcoin tumbling 15% in the four hours following the incident. Other digital assets had plunged even further. The headline jumped out at you because the company that your client just purchased used custodial wallets on the exchange to store a lot of its digital assets.

Five minutes after you finish reading the article, you get a call from your client. Sure enough, a good chunk of the digital assets that your client had just purchased were lost in the hack. To make matters worse, the new company had just lost 5 percent of its book value because of the crashing cryptocurrency market.

Volatility of Digital Assets Means Risk

The world of cryptocurrencies has matured somewhat. But, scenarios like the previous hypothetical above remain a real possibility. Indeed, 15 percent price swings in a matter of hours are still common for cryptocurrencies, also known as digital assets, especially for less established currencies. In addition to big price swings, the digital asset industry continues to face regulatory uncertainty, especially in the United States with the SEC, CFTC, FINRA and other regulators undecided about how exactly to regulate digital assets. Despite the volatility and regulatory ambiguity, for risk hungry participants, the potential for large gains has helped drive an increase in merger activity in the digital asset world during the past two years.

Acquiring or selling a company that deals heavily in digital assets presents a litigation risk. Many of the factors that increase the risk of litigation in mergers or acquisitions in the digital asset industry are outside the control of the parties to a transaction. Deal lawyers try to control for these externalities but, in the new and vibrant realm of companies who deal in cryptocurrencies, those controls can be elusive, which in turn enhances the risk of litigation.

There are, however, ways to minimize the chance of a dispute. The following are a few practical tips for transactional lawyers and litigators to help contain the risks inherent in digital asset M&As.

    • Valuation Methodology: Transaction and litigation counsel should pay close attention to valuation methods used in a digital asset transaction. Cryptocurrencies and digital tokens are new and the methods used to value them may be untested. Different digital assets have different applications, e.g., utility tokens versus value storage tokens, and valuation theories should be tailored to the transaction and assets involved. In light of these unique issues and the attendant risks, transactional lawyers should give particular scrutiny to the valuation formulas to avoid a dispute. Litigators, too, should take note of the valuation methods used since they may be fodder for a dispute. And, of course, litigators should also be aware of the possibility for a Daubert-type challenge of any expert valuation witness that may arise in a subsequent dispute.
    • Earn-Outs/Purchase Price Adjustments: Transactional lawyers should pay special attention to earn-out or purchase price adjustment provisions in a digital asset M&A deal. Valuating digital assets is difficult; thus, inclusion of an earn-out or purchase price adjustment clause might help the parties reach a deal more easily. Given the volatility of digital assets, there is a higher than typical likelihood that the value of the earn-out or purchase price adjustment will also fluctuate substantially. Litigators, in turn, should also be especially cognizant of earn-out and purchase price adjustment provisions. Earn-out provisions can be especially ripe for dispute since the earn-out periods often extend for years after closing. While long earn-out periods might not present problems in more traditional fields, the fast pace of change and high levels of volatility in the digital asset industry mean that long earn-out periods are particularly susceptible to disagreement.
    • Reverse Break Up Fees: Transactional lawyers should consider including a reverse breakup fee or a reverse termination fee. These are fees paid by the buyer if the buyer breaches the governing agreements or is unable to close the transaction. For example, imagine you represent the seller in a deal set to close in three days when news breaks about a lawsuit filed by a state attorney general against a new cryptocurrency company. The enforcement action sends the price of all digital assets plummeting by 20 percent in a matter of hours. Your client still meets all of the closing conditions, but the client’s value, which consists largely of digital assets, has just taken a huge hit and the buyer’s counsel is telling you that her client is going to walk away from the deal unless your client drops the price. A reverse breakup fee will help to lessen the buyer’s willingness to run from the transaction and may also help your client recoup costs incurred in the event the buyer does walk away. Litigators representing a buyer or seller should also pay particular attention to whether the conditions in a breakup fee or reverse breakup fee clause have been satisfied.
  • Heightened Importance of Stock Terms: Transactional lawyers should give extra consideration to the applicable law and venue selection provisions in the deal documents. Some states, e.g., Wyoming, among others, have adopted more crypto-friendly regulatory regimes than other states. Consequently, transaction lawyers should consider the pros and cons of each viable state law. And, corporate attorneys should consider obtaining review of deal documents by experienced cryptocurrency litigators who can help position the transaction as best as possible in case of future litigation.
  • Last, transaction lawyers should consider the appropriateness of a mandatory arbitration provision. Arbitration has its drawbacks, e.g., the cost of the arbitrator, absence of clear rules for discovery, restricted appeal rights, etc., but the benefits of arbitration may be particularly helpful when dealing with a digital asset M&A dispute. For example, the parties can make their proceedings confidential, which can avoid the disclosure of trade secrets or other proprietary information in public court proceedings. Further, in the highly technical field of cryptocurrencies, the parties have greater latitude to ensure that the proceeding is adjudicated by an arbitrator with pertinent knowledge of and/or experience in digital assets or blockchain technology.

Of course, the foregoing is not an exhaustive list of the ways to reduce risk in digital asset M&A deals. Other terms and conditions in the transaction contracts for a digital asset M&A deal should not escape scrutiny. Representations and warranties, contract exhibits and schedules should be tailored to the deal and the nature of digital assets in play. Due diligence is also an especially important component of risk mitigation since the nature of digital assets makes for a more difficult diligence process than a traditional transaction. Regardless of which contractual provisions are used, litigators and transactional lawyers should both be aware of and understand the heightened risk of a dispute in the volatile world of cryptocurrencies and digital assets.

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

ARTICLE BY Thomas H. Wagner of Polsinelli PC.
For more on cryptocurrency, see the Financial Institutions & Banking law page on the National Law Review.

Jurisdictional Lessons from Mt. Gox Cryptocurrency Litigation

Last week, on the heels of a significant decline in Bitcoin prices, Forbes reported that China’s Central Bank is set to launch the world’s first state-backed cryptocurrency. The cryptocurrency will be made available initially to seven of China’s largest financial institutions, including three banks and two financial technology companies (including Alibaba).  It is planned to eventually reach the virtual wallets of U.S. consumers, through relationships with Western correspondent banks.

Meanwhile, in the United States, litigation rages on against Mark Karpeles, the President and CEO of Mt. Gox. Formerly the world’s leading bitcoin exchange platform, Mt. Gox filed for bankruptcy protection in Japan in 2014 amidst reports of rampant security breaches and refusal by its Japanese banking partner, Mizuho Bank, to process withdrawals for Mt. Gox users. Before its bankruptcy, Mt. Gox announced that 850,000 bitcoins valued at more than $450 million had gone “missing,” likely due to cyber theft.

In the aftermath, Mt. Gox account holders filed putative class actions against Karpeles and Mizuho in the Central District of California, the Northern District of Illinois, and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, asserting causes of action for negligence, fraud, and tortious interference. In each action, both defendants filed motions to dismiss, claiming lack of personal jurisdiction due to their residences in France and Japan, respectively.

Earlier this year, all three courts dismissed Mizuho from the litigation, agreeing that the bank did not purposefully direct any activity at the forum states. Mt. Gox’s bank accounts with Mizuho were located in Japan, the decisions not to process withdrawals from those accounts were made by Mizuho employees located in Japan, and all wire transfers were initiated or received in Japan.

However, all three courts denied Mr. Karpeles’ motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Mr. Karpeles,  a French citizen, argued that his contacts with the forum states were merely the incidental result of where some Mt. Gox users lived. The courts unanimously disagreed.

In the most recent of these three decisions, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, relying on the previous decisions by the courts in California and Illinois, held that it has specific jurisdiction over Karpeles “because he availed himself of the privilege of conducting business in Pennsylvania through soliciting business from [a named plaintiff] and thousands of other Pennsylvania residents through the Mt. Gox website.” Pearce v. Karpeles, No. CV 18-306, 2019 WL 3409495, at *4 (E.D. Pa. July 26, 2019).

The Court applied the “sliding scale” test established by Zippo Manufacturing v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119, 1123-24 (W.D. Pa. 1997), which has been characterized as “a seminal authority regarding personal jurisdiction based upon the operation of an internet website,” to determine that Karpeles’ internet presence sufficiently gave rise to personal jurisdiction over him. Karpeles, 2019 WL 3409495, at *4-5. The Zippo scale “ranges from situations where a defendant uses an interactive commercial website to actively transact business with residents of a forum state (personal jurisdiction exists) to situations where a passive website merely provides information that is accessible to users in the forum state (personal jurisdiction does not exist).” Id. at *4. Under that Pennsylvania precedent, a defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in the state if its website “repeatedly attracts business from a forum or knowingly conducts business with forum state residents via the site.” Id. at *5.

The Court held that Mt. Gox’s internet activity fell at the “interactive end of the Zippo spectrum.” Id. Mt. Gox’s website was interactive, allowing users to open and manage accounts, make purchases and trades, and transfer and deposit cash. Id. Further, Mt. Gox had knowledge of the residences of its users because at the time they opened accounts, they had to provide Mt. Gox with their addresses and other personal information. Id. Users could also purchase “Yubikeys” (a hardware authentication device that allows users to securely log into their accounts) to be sent to their physical addresses. Id. Approximately 4% of all Mt. Gox users (over 19,000 individuals) who registered with addresses were Pennsylvania citizens, making Karpeles’ interactions with the forum state neither random, isolated, nor fortuitous. Id. at *6.

The Court also rejected Karpeles’ assertion that it would be unfair to force him to defend in the United States since he is on probation in Japan and prohibited from leaving the country, holding that the interests of the plaintiffs and the forum state justified any burden of defending in Pennsylvania. Karpeles, 2019 WL 3409495, at *8-9.

The increased use of cryptocurrency looks inevitable, with Facebook’s cryptocurrency, Libra, poised to launch in 2020, and some economists proposing that a cryptocurrency backed by central banks throughout the world will email one day replace the U.S. dollar as the world’s global reserve currency. As cryptocurrency proliferates, it is likely that so too will cryptocurrency litigation, bringing with it a host of jurisdictional challenges for litigants. The Mt. Gox-related orders provide valuable insight into how some such challenges may be resolved in the future.

© 2019 Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP

ARTICLE BY Shalia Sakona and Philip R. Stein of Bilzin Sumberg.

Bitcoin Boom: Are Cryptocurrencies Securities Subject to Regulation by the SEC?

Bitcoin was launched in January 2009 as the world’s first cryptocurrency — a digital asset designed to function as a currency that is created and managed by decentralized computers, using encryption techniques instead of a central bank or other government authority.

Until early 2017, Bitcoin barely registered on the average investor’s radar screen. But beginning in 2017, the price of Bitcoin jumped dramatically from $1,290 in early March to $19,500 in mid-December. With the sharp rise in the price of bitcoin, alternative cryptocurrencies (a/k/a “altcoins”) such as Litecoin and Ethereum saw investor interest spike as well. By May 2018, over 1,800 cryptocurrencies had been created.

Cryptocurrency Boom

The cryptocurrency boom (or bubble, as many economists warn) has spawned interest in the blockchain technology that underlies cryptocurrencies. Broadly, blockchain technologies enable the creation of digital ledgers, or lists of records (or “blocks”) that can be used to share information, transfer value, and record transactions in a secure, decentralized environment. For example, several governments are experimenting with blockchain technologies in land registries to reduce the risk of fraud in real property transactions. The ledger of a particular property would contain a verifiable and validated history of transactions concerning the property. Bloomberg reports that law firms are exploring the use of blockchain to generate, execute and authenticate agreements. IMS anticipates that such applications and many others will increase reliance on experts who understand the underlying technologies and can competently testify concerning infringement of any related patents and/or theft or misappropriation of trade secrets.

Of course, as exciting new technologies become commercialized and investors find themselves smitten by the promise of high returns, there is a foreboding a dark side with con artists seeking to capitalize on gullibility. With cryptocurrencies, frauds have frequently taken the form of initial coin offerings (ICO’s) in which entrepreneurs purport to raise capital for a new venture by exchanging digital “tokens” for investor funds.

The Dispute

In one such scam, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York secured an indictment for securities fraud against a defendant who had offered tokens in an ICO for REcoin Group, and promised to invest the proceeds in real estate, and then diamonds. U.S. v. Zaslavskiy, 17 CR 00647 (E.D.N.Y). The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction based on an interesting defense — he argued that the tokens he had peddled were not securities, but currencies, which are exempted by statute from the definition of “securities.” The broad question thus raised was whether a cryptocurrency issued in an allegedly fraudulent ICO qualifies as a security subject to regulation by the SEC.

In a memorandum of law opposing the motion to dismiss, the government argued that while nominally labeled a currency, the tokens were securities in economic substance since the defendant promised purchasers of the tokens that they would receive a return on their investment. In support, the government cited the Supreme Court’s decision SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946), which defined an “investment contract” as an investment of money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived solely from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others. In analyzing a particular transaction, the Supreme Court stressed that “form [should be] disregarded for substance and the emphasis placed upon economic reality.”

Here, investors in the REcoin ICO pooled their money in a common enterprise through the purchase of tokens with the expectation that REcoin would pay profits based on the defendant’s skill and effort managing real estate or trading diamonds; they were not directly purchasing real estate or diamonds. Thus, the tokens were securities, the government maintained.

The government further argued that the term “currency” is traditionally defined as a “medium of exchange” approved for the payment of debts and purchase of goods. Typically, courts have found that only cash, or a cash substitute qualifies as currency. Here, the tokens sold by defendant could not function as a medium of exchange anywhere in the physical world or any digital realm. Nor did defendant market the tokens as a substitute for cash.

After oral argument, the judge in the case has taken the matter under advisement. In the meantime, in Congressional testimony and public appearances, SEC officials have repeatedly taken the position that where the economic substance of an ICO is the same as a standard securities offering, the tokens qualify as securities. In contrast, where investors purchase tokens because they require the functionality that the token itself provides — for example, to record a deed or execute a contract in a digital ledger that uses blockchain technology — then the token is not a security.

For example, in April 2018 testimony before the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, Chairman of the SEC, Jay Clayton distinguished between cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, which are a “pure medium of exchange,” and thus not securities, and tokens used to finance new ventures, which are securities. Subsequently, in a June 14, 2018 presentation at a tech conference, the Director of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance, William Hinman, reiterated that a cryptocurrency is not a security when it operates principally as a medium of exchange in a network without any central third party upon whose efforts the success of the network depends.

Conclusion

Hinman added, however, that whether a digital token qualifies as a security or not in a specific context can be a close call, and the outcome will depend on a fact-intensive inquiry. He cited a laundry list of factors that the SEC will examine (including the degree of the promoters’ ongoing involvement and control, the expectations and motivations of investors when making their purchases, the independent utility of the token offered for sale, and the breadth and method of the tokens’ distribution), and invited promoters of digital assets and their counsel to help the SEC work through the issues in particular cases before proceeding. IMS’s roster of blockchain experts can assist counsel with navigating these factors and related intellectual property, technical, and regulatory matters with your own clients.

© Copyright 2002-2018 IMS ExpertServices, All Rights Reserved.
This article was written by Joshua Fruchter, IMS ExpertServices