Senate - Reverse-Merger.com

The Senate Banking Committee’s Hearing On Cryptocurrencies

Posted by Securities Attorney Laura Anthony | March 6, 2018 Tags: The Senate Banking Committee’s Hearing On Cryptocurrencies

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 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.

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.

« The Treasury Department Report To The President On Capital Markets The 2017 SEC Government-Business Forum On Small Business Capital Formation »

The Senate Banking Committee Passes Several Pro-Business Bills

On March 9, 2017, the Senate Banking Committee approved the first set of bills to go through the committee under the new administration. The five bills were cleared as one package and are aimed at making it easier for companies to grow and raise capital. The bills are bipartisan and could be some of the first to pass through Congress under the new regime. Only two Democrats opposed the bills: Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is consistently pushing for greater investor protections regardless of the impact on businesses, and Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed.

Interestingly, in 2016, most of these pro-business bills were passed by the House and never made it through the Senate. For a brief outline of the numerous House bills passed in 2016, see my blog HERE. Each of the current bills had already been presented in prior years, either as stand-alone bills or packaged with other provisions, but never made it through the Senate. The following is a summary of the new bills.

Fair Access to Investment Research Act of 2017 (S.327)

The Fair Access to Investment Research Act would require the SEC to expand a safe harbor for certain investment fund research reports. The bill would amend Rule 139 covering the publications or distributions of research reports on investment funds by brokers or dealers distributing securities. In particular, the bill clarifies that a covered investment fund research report that is published or distributed by a broker-dealer would not be deemed an offer for sale or offer to sell a security under Sections 2(a)(10) or 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933, even if such broker-dealer was participating in a registered offering of that fund’s securities. The bill would require FINRA to make conforming changes as well.

Section 2(a)(10) of the Securities Act defines the term “prospectus” and Section 5(c) prohibits the offer or sale of securities unless a registration statement has been filed (or there is a valid exemption from registration). The Fair Access to Investment Research Act would remove investment fund research reports from the definition of an offer for sale or offer to sell and related prospectus delivery requirements.

The House passed a substantially similar provision as part of the Financial Choice Act—to wit: the H.R. 5019 – Fair Access to Investment Research Act (expanding exclusion of research reports from the definition of an offer for or to sell securities under the Securities Act).

Previously, Title I of the JOBS Act amended Section 2(a)(3) of the Securities Act to eliminate restrictions on publishing analyst research and communications while IPO’s for Emerging Growth Companies (EGC’s) are under way. Section 2(a)(3) defines the terms sale or sell and related offers. Under prior law, research reports by analysts, especially those participating in an underwriting of securities of the subject issuer, could be deemed to be “offers” of those securities under the Securities Act and, as a result, could not be issued prior to completion of an offering. Section 2(a)(3) of the Securities Act as amended by Section 105(a) of the JOBS Act provides that publication or distribution by a broker or dealer of a research report about an EGC that is the subject of a proposed public offering of its securities does not constitute an offer of securities, even if the broker or dealer that publishes the research is participating or will participate as an underwriter in the offering. Moreover, the term “research” is defined broadly as any information, opinion or recommendation about a company and includes oral as well as written and electronic communications.This research need not be accompanied by a full prospectus and need not provide information “reasonably sufficient upon which to base an investment decision.”

Section 105(b) of the JOBS Act also eliminated restrictions on publishing research following an IPO or around the time the IPO lockup period expires or is released. Prior to that time, under SEC and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) rules, underwriters of an IPO could not publish research for 25 days after the offering (40 days if they served as a manager or co-manager), and managers or co-managers cannot publish research within 15 days prior to or after the release or expiration of the IPO lockup agreements (so-called “booster shot” reports). The JOBS Act eliminated those provisions related to an EGC. On October 11, 2012, FINRA amended its rules to conform to the requirements.

The new rules would expand the safe-harbor provisions to include research related to covered investment funds.

Supporting America’s Innovators Act of 2017 (S. 444)

This bill expands a registration exemption under the Investment Company Act of 1940 for venture capital funds with less than $10,000,000 in capital contributions.

A very similar bill was passed by the House on December 5, 2016, i.e. the Supporting America’s Innovators Act (H.R. 4854). The House bill would create a new small “qualifying venture capital fund” under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and increase the current registration exemption under Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act to allow for up to 250 investors in such qualifying venture capital fund. Currently Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act exempts pooled funds, such as hedge funds, from registering under the Act as long as they have fewer than 100 equity holders. Currently, there is no limit on the amount of invested capital in a fund to qualify for the 3(c)(1) exemption. H.R. 4854 would create a new class of pooled fund, called a “qualifying venture capital fund,” which would be defined as any venture fund with $10 million or less of invested capital and allow up to 250 investors in such fund.

The Senate bill only includes the $10,000,000 threshold and does not refer to the number of investors in a qualifying venture capital fund.

Securities and Exchange Commission Overpayment Credit Act (S. 462)

This bill requires the SEC to give a credit to any national securities exchange or national securities association for any fees or assessments paid to the SEC within the last ten (10) years that were more than the amount such exchange or association was required to pay. The bill is strictly retroactive, providing credits for past overpayments, and does not apply to pre-bill payments.

U.S. Territories Investor Protection Act of 2017 (S. 484)

This bill amends the Investment Company Act of 1940 to terminate an exemption for companies located in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands or any other possession of the United States. The Investment Company Act currently exempts companies organized and having their principal place of business in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands or any other possession of the U.S. as long as such companies do not sell securities to any resident outside of such territory. The Act provides a 3-year safe harbor for compliance with the ability for the SEC to add an additional 3 years by passing a rule extending the time for compliance.

Encouraging Employee Ownership Act (S. 488)

This bill would raise the threshold for disclosure obligations under Rule 701 under the Securities Act from $5,000,000 to $10,000,000. In particular, under the current Rule 701, a company must provide enhanced and specifically delineated disclosures to employees where such company sells in excess of $5,000,000 to employees under a written incentive or stock option plan, in any 12-month period. A substantially similar bill passed the House in 2016 (H.R. 1675). The bill would amend the rule to increase that threshold to $10,000,000. For more information on Rule 701, see my blog HERE.

Click Here To Print- PDF Printout The Senate Banking Committee Passes Several Pro-Business Bills

The Author