Author Archives: Hedge Fund Lawyer

Digital Asset Regulatory Items – Third Quarter 2018

Leave a reply

The third quarter of 2018 saw increased interest from regulators in the digital asset space, as well as enforcement actions. For your convenience, we have provided an overview of key items from the quarter below.

***

SEC MATTERS

Enforcement

SEC Charges Digital Asset Hedge Fund Manager

On September 11, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced the settlement of charges against a digital asset hedge fund and its manager. The charges included misleading investors, offering and selling unregistered securities, and failing to register the hedge fund as an investment company. The manager marketed the fund as the “first regulated crypto asset fund in the United States” and claimed the fund had filed registration statements with the SEC. Based on investments in “digital assets that were investment securities”, the fund was required to register as an investment company with the SEC. However, the fund was not registered and did not meet any exemptions or exclusions from the investment company registration requirements. The settlement included cease-and-desist orders, censure, investor rescission offers, and a $200,000 penalty. This is the first action the SEC has taken against a digital asset fund based on violations of the investment company registration requirements.

SEC Charges ICO Platform for Operating as Unregistered Broker-Dealer

On September 11, the SEC settled charges against an initial coin offering (“ICO”) platform. The business and its principals were charged with failing to register as broker-dealers and selling unregistered securities. This is the SEC’s first charge against an unregistered broker-dealer in the digital asset space following the SEC’s 2017 DAO Report, which cautioned anyone offering or selling digital assets to comply with federal securities laws such as broker-dealer registration requirements. The business agreed to pay $471,000 plus prejudgment interest, and the principals each agreed to a three-year bar from certain investment-related activities and $45,000 in penalties.

SEC Fines and Halts Fraudulent ICO

On August 14, the SEC settled charges related to an ICO. The token issuer was charged with fraud and the sale of unregistered securities after it claimed the proceeds from its ICO would be used to fund oil drilling in California. However, the issuer falsely represented that it had the necessary drilling lease and misled investors about the potential for profit and the prior bankruptcy and criminal history of the issuer’s principal. The settlement included permanent cease and desist orders, a permanent bar from certain investment-related activities, and a $30,000 fine. In light of recent charges like this, fund managers investing in ICOs should ensure they complete adequate due diligence on investment opportunities.

Other

SEC Denies and Delays Bitcoin ETFs

On August 22, the SEC released three separate orders denying nine Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (“ETF”) proposals. These orders followed the SEC’s July 26 denial of another Bitcoin ETF. The SEC’s reasoning in these denials was mainly based on a concern that the price of Bitcoin may be susceptible to manipulation. However, on September 20, the SEC announced that it has begun a formal review for a physically-backed Bitcoin ETF. The acceptance of such an ETF would increase digital asset investment options and has the potential to promote the overall growth of the industry.

SEC Suspends Trading of Swedish Bitcoin Instruments

On September 9, the SEC temporarily suspended trading of two foreign cryptocurrency investment instruments commonly known as the “Swedish Bitcoin ETFs”. The instruments hold Bitcoin on behalf of shareholders and, prior to the suspension, had been tradable in U.S. brokerage accounts. The SEC suspended the ETFs out of a concern for investor confusion, which was likely based on inconsistent representations. The issuers’ broker-dealer applications referred to the instruments as ETFs, other sources characterized them as exchange-traded notes, and the issuers’ offering memoranda described them as “non-equity linked certificates”. With this suspension in mind, fund managers considering investing in novel digital asset instruments should ensure they understand the nature of the instruments.

CFTC MATTERS

Investor Alerts

CFTC Stresses Due Diligence in ICO Investments

On July 16, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) published an alert cautioning investors to conduct extensive research before investing in any ICO, especially those that claim to be utility tokens (i.e. non-securities). The alert includes factors that investors should consider before investing in a token offering, such as the potential for forks, mining costs, liquidity, and risk of hacks.

Enforcement

Court Enters Final Order for CFTC Charges Against Crypto Company

On August 23, a New York federal court entered final judgment against a digital asset company based on charges brought by the CFTC. The company claimed that, in exchange for sending digital assets, customers could receive expert crypto trading advice or have the company trade on their behalf. However, no such expert advice or trading services were provided. The company was charged with fraud and the final judgment included a permanent injunction from certain investment-related activities, more than $290,000 in restitution, more than $871,000 in civil penalties, and post-judgment interest.

NFA MATTERS

NFA Requires CPOs and CTAs to Disclose Digital Asset Activity

On July 20, the National Futures Association (“NFA”) released a notice that imposed new disclosure requirements on futures commission merchants, commodity pool operators (“CPOs”), and commodity trading advisers (“CTAs”) engaged in digital asset activity. Specific to CPOs and CTAs, the NFA is now requiring discussion of certain aspects of digital asset investing, such as volatility, liquidity, and cybersecurity, as well as the inclusion of certain standardized disclosures. Additional details are available in our recent blog post.

FINRA MATTERS

FINRA Charges Broker with Fraud and Unlawful Distribution for Token Offering

On September 11, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) charged a broker in connection with a token offering. The broker attempted to raise money through the offering for an allegedly worthless public company and, in the process, misled investors about the company’s operations and finances. The broker is charged with making material misrepresentations, offering and selling unregistered securities, and failing to notify the broker’s firm about the transactions. This is FINRA’s first disciplinary action involving digital assets.

FEDERAL LEGISLATION

Congressional Representative Introduces Crypto-Friendly Bills

On September 21, Minnesota Congressional Representative Tom Emmer announced three crypto-friendly bills. The first bill would codify an overall “light touch, consistent, and simple” approach to digital asset regulation. The second bill would provide a safe harbor for certain businesses that lack control over consumer funds by exempting them from certain regulations, such as money transmitter licensing requirements. Lastly, the third bill would limit fines for taxpayers that failed to fully report forked digital assets until the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) provides further guidance on how such forks should be reported.

STATE MATTERS

New York

New York Attorney General Releases Report on Digital Asset Exchanges

On September 18, the Office of the Attorney General of New York (the “OAG”) released a report summarizing a crypto exchange fact-finding initiative. The report outlines three primary areas of concern:

  • Conflicts of Interest – Crypto exchanges are exposed to potential conflicts of interest in several ways. For example, exchanges often have additional lines of business (e.g. broker-dealer) that would either be prohibited or carefully monitored in traditional securities contexts. Additionally, employees may have access to non-public information, and may hold and trade digital assets on their employer’s or competitors’ exchanges. Some exchanges also lack standards for determining which tokens are listed, and the possibility that an exchange may take fees for such a listing create a potential conflict of interest.
  • Lack of Anti-Abuse Efforts – Digital asset exchanges have not consistently implemented safeguards to protect the integrity of their platforms. Such safeguards include monitoring real-time and past trades, and restricting the use of bots. Additionally, some exchanges engage in proprietary trading (i.e. trading from the exchange’s own account in order to, for example, promote market liquidity) which may expose users to price manipulation or other abuse.
  • Limited Customer Funds Protections – Exchanges lack a consistent and transparent approach to auditing the digital assets they hold. Additionally, several exchanges do not have independent audits completed. These shortcomings make it difficult to determine whether crypto exchanges adequately maintain and protect customers’ assets. The OAG also raised concerns over whether exchanges have adequate protection against hacks and maintain sufficient insurance policies.

Digital asset fund managers should keep these concerns in mind and ensure they properly vet exchanges they may utilize.

Court Rules ICO Tokens May Be Subject to Securities Laws

On September 11, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled that a criminal case brought against the individual behind two ICOs can proceed to trial. The defendant faces conspiracy and securities fraud charges for allegedly making false claims that the tokens sold in the ICOs were backed by real estate and diamonds. The defendant moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that securities laws are too vague to apply to ICOs, and that the issued tokens were not securities. The issue of whether the tokens in question are securities may now ultimately be decided by a jury.

Texas

Texas Issues Emergency Cease and Desists Against Crypto Investment Scheme

On September 18, the Securities Commissioner of Texas (the “Commissioner”) released three orders related to digital asset investment schemes. First, the Commissioner issued a cease and desist order against a mining company that used promotional materials falsely implying third-party endorsements and associations. Second, the Commissioner issued a cease and desist order against a company that solicited investments to develop a biometric token wallet. The business misled investors with a video of former President Barack Obama that falsely implied he was discussing the company. The business also made unsubstantiated claims, for example, that it was backed by “a leading financial institution”. Lastly, the Commissioner issued a cease and desist order against a company that solicited investments for its crypto and forex trading programs. The company told investors they could earn 10x returns, that those returns were guaranteed, and that there was no investment risk. All orders allege that the companies violated securities laws by offering and selling unregistered securities, engaging in fraud, and making materially misleading statements. These orders further highlight the need for fund managers to conduct due diligence on digital asset investment opportunities.

OTHER MATTERS

Statements

Congressional Representatives Urge IRS to Provide Guidance on Cryptocurrency

On September 19, five members of the House of Representatives published a letter urging the IRS to issue updated guidance on digital asset taxation. The last major guidance from the IRS, Notice 2014-21, was issued in March 2014. Since then, the IRS has increased digital asset scrutiny by, for example, requesting transaction records from crypto exchanges and choosing not to provide leniency through a voluntary crypto disclosure program. Such guidance would hopefully resolve some of the tax uncertainties digital asset fund managers currently face.

NASAA Announces Coordinated Digital Asset Investigations

On August 28, the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) announced that regulators in the U.S. and Canada are engaged in more than 200 digital asset-related investigations as part of a coordinated NASAA initiative known as “Operation Cryptosweep”. While investigations have focused on suspected securities fraud, regulators have uncovered other violations, such as the offer and sale of unregistered securities. The initiative has resulted in at least 46 enforcement actions related to ICOs or digital asset investment products.

***

Bart Mallon is a founding partner of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP. Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP has been instrumental in structuring the launches of some of the first digital currency-focused hedge funds and works routinely on matters affecting the digital asset industry. Mr. Mallon can be reached directly at 415-868-5345

CoinAlts Fund Symposium Announces 3rd Conference in San Francisco

Leave a reply

Keynote and Panels to focus on Custody and Institutionalization

After two successful events, the CoinAlts Fund Symposium is excited to announce its third symposium will take place in San Francisco on September 20, 2018 at the St. Regis Hotel. Headlined by keynote speaker Tim Draper, founder of Draper Associates and the Draper Venture Network, additional speakers include crypto industry veterans as well as digital asset fund managers. The all-day conference will address legal and operational concerns germane to the digital asset industry, as well as emerging trends in operations and raising capital from institutional investors.

“We are excited to present a program that will focus on the institutionalization of the digital asset space, specifically: what is happening with custody of digital assets,” said conference co-chair Bart Mallon of the law firm Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP. Lewis Chong of Harneys, another conference co-chair, echoed those sentiments noting that, “clients are keenly aware of the various ways that custody is emerging and evolving to meet investor desire for the safety of digital assets.”

Sam McIngvale, the product lead at Coinbase Custody and a conference panelist, said “custody has been a big issue for digital asset funds, we are excited to be part of the emerging solution set and to talk about the other trends we are seeing with this asset class.”

Registration is now open on the CoinAlts Fund Symposium website – current early bird pricing for investment managers is $300 per person and $950 per person for service providers. Early bird pricing ends on August 31, 2018, after which the price will be $500 and $1,200 respectively. The Symposium together with Coinbase is also hosting a networking event exclusively for women in the digital asset community: Women in Crypto which will be held on September 19, 2018 at Rooftop, Hotel VIA.

***

About the CoinAlts Fund Symposium

The CoinAlts Fund Symposium was established by four firms with practices significantly devoted to fund managers in the cryptocurrency and digital asset space. Cohen & Company specializes in the investment industry and advises cryptocurrency funds on important tax, audit and operational matters. MG Stover & Co. is a full service fund administration firm built by former auditors and fund operators to deliver world class solutions to the global alternative investment industry. Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP is a premier boutique investment management law firm, providing top-tier, responsive and cost-effective legal solutions for cryptocurrency fund managers. Harneys is a leading international offshore law firm that acts for both issuers of digital assets and investment funds who invest in them. Members of our team are members of a number of the leading industry working groups in the BVI, Cayman Islands and the United States who are contributing to the thought leadership and industry insight in these areas.

NFA to Require Disclosure of Digital Asset Activities

Leave a reply

CPOs and CTAs to Augment Disclosure Documents

On July 20, 2018, the National Futures Association (“NFA”) submitted an Interpretive Notice titled Disclosure Requirements for NFA Members Engaging in Virtual Currency Activities to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”).  Through Section 17(j) of the Commodity Exchange Ac (“CEA”), the NFA has invoked the “ten-day” provision to allow the Interpretive Notice to become effective 10 days after its submission to the CFTC.  The NFA has proposed this Interpretive Notice in an effort to better inform and notify consumers of the risks involved with trading and investing in cryptocurrencies.  This Interpretive Notice sets forth disclosure requirements for two groups: (1) futures commission merchants (“FCMs”) and introducing brokers (“IBs”) and (2) commodity pool operators (“CPOs”) and commodity trading advisors (“CTAs”).

Proposed Interpretive Notice

The proposed Interpretive Notice specifies the following requirements:

For FCMs and IBs:

  • provide customers with the NFA Investor Advisory – Futures on Virtual Currencies Including Bitcoin and the CFTC Customer Advisory: Understand the Risk of Virtual Currency Trading (collectively, the “Advisories”) and for introduced accounts, the FCM or IB may provide the Advisories;
  • provide customers who traded a virtual currency derivative prior to the issuance of the Interpretive Notice with the Advisories within 30 calendar days of the Interpretive Notice’s effective date;
  • provide customers of FCMs and IBs offering services in spot market virtual currencies with a standardized disclosure[1] that specifically states that the NFA does not have regulatory oversight authority over underlying or spot virtual currency products or transactions or virtual currency exchanges, custodians, or markets;
  • provide the Advisories to a customer at or before the time the customer engages in a virtual currency derivative transaction;
  • provide the standardized disclosure at or before the time a customer or counterparty engages in any underlying or spot virtual currency activity with or through the FCM or IB;
  • provide retail customers the Advisories and standardized disclosure language in writing or electronically in a prominent manner designed to ensure that the customer is aware of them; and
  • display the standardized disclosure language on any promotional materials related to spot market virtual currencies.

For CPOs and CTAs:

  • address the following areas that are applicable to their activities in their disclosure documents, offering documents, and promotional material related to virtual currencies: (1) unique features of virtual currencies; (2) price volatility; (3) valuation and liquidity; (4) cybersecurity; (5) the opaque spot market; (6) virtual currency exchanges, intermediaries, and custodians; (7) the regulatory landscape; (8) technology; and (9) transaction fees;
  • customize disclosure documents and offering documents to address all the unique risks related to their particular activities;
  • include a standardized disclosure[2] in disclosure documents, offering documents, and promotional materials related to virtual currencies addressing the limits of the NFA’s oversight and informing investors that there currently is no sound or acceptable practice that the NFA can use to verify the ownership and control of underlying or spot virtual currencies (this is a requirement of CPOs or CTAs that operate a pool, exempt pool, or trading program that trades spot market virtual currencies); and
  • provide a standardized disclosure[3] to customers and counterparties that specifically states that the NFA does not have regulatory oversight authority over underlying or spot virtual currency activities and display it in any promotional materials for any spot market virtual currency activities (other than as an investment in a pool or managed account program) engaged in by a CPO or CTA.

“Spot” Digital Assets vs. Digital Asset Derivatives

Throughout the proposed Interpretive Notice the NFA discusses both spot and derivative digital assets.  “Spot” digital assets are digital assets that are purchased for cash intended for immediate delivery and not at some future date.  The CFTC generally does not oversee spot digital assets, other than in instances of fraud or manipulation.  In contrast, digital asset derivatives are instruments that stem from and are priced in comparison to the underlying digital asset, with the underlying asset intended to be delivered at a future date.  Digital asset derivatives include instruments such as futures and options.  Unlike spot digital assets, the CFTC and NFA have jurisdiction over the digital asset derivatives.

What comes next?

Over the last few days our law firm has spoken with both the NFA and CFTC about this matter.  Although they could not provide more information regarding the drafting of the Interpretive Notice, they mentioned that once the Interpretive Notice becomes effective, individuals subject to the Interpretive Notice will be given time to become compliant.  They also mentioned that it likely that the NFA will issue another announcement that will publicize the effective date of the notice and when qualifying members need to be in compliance.

Conclusion

It is unclear if the CFTC will take up the NFA’s Interpretive Notice for approval or if the Interpretive Notice will become effective 10 days after its submission to the CFTC.  However, it should be noted that the majority of NFA proposals sent to the CFTC are approved.  Despite this, all FCMs, IBs, CPOs, and CTAs should review the various indicated communications and documents to prepare for the potential approval of the Interpretive Notice.  We will continue to report on this issue.

***

Bart Mallon is a founding partner of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP.  Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP has been instrumental in structuring the launches of some of the first digital currency-focused hedge funds and works routinely on matters affecting the digital asset industry.   Mr. Mallon can be reached directly at 415-868-5345

Links to the other NFA items on digital assets:

[1] The standardized disclosure required is the following: [NAME OF NFA MEMBER] IS A MEMBER OF NFA AND IS SUBJECT TO NFA’S REGULATORY OVERSIGHT AND EXAMINATIONS. HOWEVER, YOU SHOULD BE AWARE THAT NFA DOES NOT HAVE REGULATORY OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY OVER UNDERLYING OR SPOT VIRTUAL CURRENCY PRODUCTS OR TRANSACTIONS OR VIRTUAL CURRENCY EXCHANGES, CUSTODIANS OR MARKETS.

[2] The standardized disclosure required is the following: [NAME OF NFA MEMBER] IS A MEMBER OF NFA AND IS SUBJECT TO NFA’S REGULATORY OVERSIGHT AND EXAMINATIONS. [NAME OF NFA MEMBER] HAS ENGAGED OR MAY ENGAGE IN UNDERLYING OR SPOT VIRTUAL CURRENCY TRANSACTIONS IN A [COMMODITY POOL OR MANAGED ACCOUNT PROGRAM]. ALTHOUGH NFA HAS JURISDICTION OVER [NAME OF NFA MEMBER] AND ITS [COMMODITY POOL OR MANAGED ACCOUNT PROGRAM], YOU SHOULD BE AWARE THAT NFA DOES NOT HAVE REGULATORY OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY FOR UNDERLYING OR SPOT MARKET VIRTUAL CURRENCY PRODUCTS OR TRANSACTIONS OR VIRTUAL CURRENCY EXCHANGES, CUSTODIANS OR MARKETS. YOU SHOULD ALSO BE AWARE THAT GIVEN CERTAIN MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THESE PRODUCTS, INCLUDING LACK OF A CENTRALIZED PRICING SOURCE AND THE OPAQUE NATURE OF THE VIRTUAL CURRENCY MARKET, THERE CURRENTLY IS NO SOUND OR ACCEPTABLE PRACTICE FOR NFA TO ADEQUATELY VERIFY THE OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF A VIRTUAL CURRENCY OR THE VALUATION ATTRIBUTED TO A VIRTUAL CURRENCY BY [NAME OF NFA MEMBER].

[3] The standardized disclosure required is the following: [NAME OF NFA MEMBER] IS A MEMBER OF NFA AND IS SUBJECT TO NFA’S REGULATORY OVERSIGHT AND EXAMINATIONS. HOWEVER, YOU SHOULD BE AWARE THAT NFA DOES NOT HAVE REGULATORY OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY OVER UNDERLYING OR SPOT VIRTUAL CURRENCY PRODUCTS OR TRANSACTIONS OR VIRTUAL CURRENCY EXCHANGES, CUSTODIANS OR MARKETS.

Cole-Frieman & Mallon 2018 Second Quarter Update

Leave a reply

Below is our quarterly newsletter.  If you would like to be added to our distribution list, please contact us.

****

July 12, 2018

Clients, Friends, Associates:

We hope that you are enjoying the start of summer.  Although the second quarter is typically not as busy as the first quarter from a regulatory or compliance perspective, we continue to see rapid developments in the digital asset space.  As we move into the third quarter, we would like to provide a brief overview of some items we hope will help you stay abreast of these developments.

In addition to the discussion below, we would like to announce a couple of firm items:

CFM Atlanta.  Our Atlanta office has just moved into new space in the heart of Buckhead.  The new office address is 3348 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 1030, Atlanta, GA 30326.

CoinAlts Fund Symposium. In April founding sponsor Cole-Frieman & Mallon hosted its second full day Symposium attended by over 300 professionals, students, and investors in New York.  Featuring twenty eight speakers, including key-notes, John Burbank of Passport Capital and Mark Yusko of Morgan Creek Capital Management, CoinAlts East presented a broad spectrum of content essential to managers and investors in the digital asset space.  Our next CoinAlts Fund Symposium will take place in San Francisco on September 20, 2018. More details to follow.

****

GDPR

GDPR Effective May 25.  The General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) went into effect on May 25, 2018 as part of the European Union’s effort to protect personal data.  Any person or business that handles EU residents’ personal data must comply with the regulation.  GDPR also applies to businesses established outside of the EU if their activities involve processing personal data related to offering goods or services to persons within the EU.  US fund managers with EU resident investors will need to: (i) maintain records of any data processing activities; (ii) obtain EU clients’ affirmative consent to process data; and (iii) provide EU clients with access to the fund’s privacy policy.

Managers with EU resident investors, but no presence within in the EU may also be required to appoint an EU local representative unless they can demonstrate processing is “occasional”, does not include special categories of EU resident personal data, including criminal, on a large scale, and is unlikely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons.  We believe most of our clients generally fall into this exclusion and will not need to appoint an EU representative, but it may be challenging at present to find EU counsel that will advise on this requirement in the absence of more guidance from EU regulators.  For more information on GDPR, including compliance items for hedge fund managers, please see our earlier post.

Legal and Regulatory Developments

SEC Proposes Rules Regarding Form CRS, Form ADV, and Disclosures in Retail Communications.  On April 18, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”)  proposed new rules and amendments to certain rules and forms under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (“Advisers Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  One proposal would require both registered investment advisers and broker-dealers to provide a summary (“Form CRS”) disclosing the nature and details of their relationship to retail investors.  Form CRS would be added as a section to Form ADV and would disclose: (i) the relationships and services the firms offer; (ii) the standard of conduct and fees and costs associated with the services; (iii) specified conflicts of interest; and (iv) reportable legal or disciplinary events on the firm’s part or its financial professionals.

The SEC also proposed two new rules to reduce investor confusion caused by communications with broker-dealers and investment advisers by placing additional requirements on retail investor communications.  One rule would restrict broker-dealers’ use of the terms “adviser” and “advisor” when communicating with retail investors.  The other rule would require broker-dealers and investment advisers to disclose their SEC registration status in retail investor communications.  It would also require associated natural persons and supervised persons to disclose their relationships with broker-dealers or investment advisers in retail investor communications.  Comments to the SEC are due on or before August 7, 2018.

SEC Proposes Interpretation of Standard of Conduct for Investment Advisers.  On April 18, 2018, the SEC proposed an interpretation of the conduct standard for investment advisers under the Advisers Act and requested comment on its proposal.  The SEC also seeks comment on the following proposed requirements for SEC registered investment advisers (“RIAs”): (i) federal licensing and continuing education; (ii) periodic account statements; and (iii) financial responsibility requirements similar to those required of broker-dealers.  Comments to the SEC are due on or before August 7, 2018.

SEC Charges 13 Private Fund Advisers for Repeated Form PF Filing Failures.  On June 1, 2018, the SEC  announced settlements with 13 SEC RIAs for repeatedly failing to provide risk monitoring information.  The SEC found that the advisers continually failed to file annual reports on Form PF.  Section 204(b) of the Advisers Act requires large fund managers to report information such as assets under management, fund strategy, and fund performance on Form PF.  The SEC uses these reports to inform their rulemaking process and to target examinations and enforcement investigations.  The SEC found that each of the advisers violated the Form PF reporting requirements under the Advisers Act.  Although the advisers did not admit or deny the SEC’s findings, they agreed to be censured, cease and desist, and to each pay a $75,000 civil penalty.

SEC Charges Hedge Fund Adviser with Deceiving Investors.  On May 9, 2018, the SEC charged a hedge fund adviser and certain principals, including the CEO and a former portfolio manager, for fraudulently overvaluing its funds by hundreds of millions of dollars.  Defendants are alleged to have placed trades in exchange for inflated broker-dealer quotes and applied “imputed” mid-point valuations in a manner that further inflated the value of securities.  The SEC is seeking permanent injunctions, the return of illicit profits with interest, and civil penalties.

SEC Charges Hedge Fund Firm for Asset Mismarking and Insider Trading.  The SEC announced on May 8, 2018 that a manager agreed to settle charges regarding insider trading and fraudulent overvaluation of certain assets held by its hedge funds.  The SEC found that two of the portfolio managers overstated the values of their hedge funds’ securities.  In a separate order, the SEC alleged that the CFO failed to supervise the two portfolio managers appropriately and respond to red flags regarding the mismarking.  The SEC also found that the portfolio managers violated insider trading laws by trading pharmaceutical securities on confidential information obtained through a former U.S. Food and Drug Administration official.

Second Circuit Amends Martoma Decision.  On June 25, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit amended its decision in United States v. Martoma to clarify tippee liability in insider trading cases.  As we discussed in a previous Quarterly Update, the Second Circuit once again upheld a former portfolio manager’s 2014 conviction for insider trading.  In its amended decision, the court confirmed that a “meaningfully close personal relationship” is not required for tippee liability in insider trading cases.

Digital Asset Matters

We see many thought-provoking items in the digital asset sector as the industry moves towards greater institutional infrastructure.  After numerous public statements by SEC officials, token issuers understand that there are several compliant ways to raise capital through token offerings.  One way is through Regulation A+, which has many advantages over other securities offering mechanisms.  We are also seeing many groups use airdrops as a way to try to circumvent the private placement regulatory regime.  One item to specifically note, is that privately placed tokens may have resale restrictions that could create issues for both the token issuers and token purchasers.  We are also aware of several groups beginning the process of registering as alternative trading systems or otherwise becoming broker-dealers and/or qualified custodians.

Outside of these items, we have summarized some notable regulatory developments in the second quarter.  For a complete review of these developments, please consult our Digital Asset Regulatory Items blog post.

CFTC Issues Advisory on Virtual Currency Derivatives.  On May 21, 2018, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) Division of Market Oversight and the Division of Clearing and Risk issued an advisory regarding virtual currency derivative products.  The CFTC outlined key expectations for exchanges and clearinghouses operating in the virtual currency derivatives space:

  • Enhanced Market Surveillance – an adequate market surveillance program would include sharing information on the underlying spot markets, allowing the CFTC to access a broad range of exchange trade data (i.e., trader identity, volumes, times, prices, and quotes), and real-time monitoring of all trading activity to identify red flags.
  • Close Coordination with the CFTC Surveillance Group – exchanges should engage in regular discussions with the CFTC on surveillance of virtual currency derivatives contracts and allow access to data on settlement processes referenced in such contracts.
  • Large Trader Reporting – exchanges should set large trader reporting thresholds for any contract at five BTC (or equivalent) to increase their ability to focus on relevant market information.
  • Outreach to Members and Market Participants – exchanges should obtain comments from stakeholders on listing issues beyond contract terms and conditions.  Comments should include explanations of opposing views and the exchanges’ perspectives.
  • Derivative Clearing Organization’s Risk Management – the CFTC requests information from derivative clearing organizations (“DCOs”) necessary to assess the suitability of proposed initial margin requirements.  The CFTC may require DCOs to amend inadequate initial margins.  They may also request information regarding the approval process of proposed contracts.

NASAA Combats ICO Fraud.  On May 21, 2018, the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) announced its involvement in “Operation Cryptosweep,” one of the largest coordinated enforcement efforts against fraudulent Initial Coin Offerings (“ICOs”), crypto-related products, and cryptocriminals.  Operation Cryptosweep is a combined effort between NASAA’s members, spanning more than 40 jurisdictions in the United States and Canada.  Since April 2018, the operation has produced almost 70 inquiries and investigations in addition to 35 pending or completed enforcement actions related to digital assets and ICOs, including multiple actions against private funds.  According to NASAA President Joseph Borg, these recent actions are only the beginning of further enforcement against ICO fraud.

Other Items

5th Circuit Issues Mandate on Fiduciary Rule.  On June 21, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a mandate regarding the Department of Labor’s (“DOL’s”) Fiduciary Rule (“Fiduciary Rule”) after months of uncertainty.  The Fifth Circuit’s mandate effectuates its March 15 decision to vacate the Fiduciary Rule.  Although the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule appears defeated, the court’s decision may prompt the SEC and other regulators to revisit their plans for fiduciary reform.

Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act Amended.  President Trump authorized the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (“Growth Act”) on May 24, 2018.  A portion of the Growth Act amends Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, by increasing the number of investors allowed in a qualifying venture capital fund from 100 to 250 investors.  The Growth Act —  which will take effect in late 2019 —  defines a qualifying venture capital fund as one with less than $10 million “in aggregate capital contributions and uncalled committed capital.”

The CFTC and NASAA Sign Information Sharing Memorandum.  The CFTC and NASAA signed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) regarding the sharing of non-public information on May 21, 2018.  The MOU aims to forge a closer working relationship between the CFTC and individual state securities agencies— represented by the NASAA— to better enforce the U.S. Commodity Exchange Act of 1936, as amended (“CEA”) by promoting voluntary, inter-agency sharing of non-public information.  NASAA President Joseph Borg believes the MOU could assist NASAA members in enforcing both securities and commodities law violations, particularly against schemes related to digital assets and other modern commodities.

NFA Develops Swaps Proficiency Program and Exam.  The National Futures Association (“NFA”) announced on June 5, 2018 that its board approved the creation of an online proficiency requirements program and exam for all associated persons participating in swaps activities.  The swaps proficiency program is part of the NFA’s mandate under the CEA, which requires the NFA to set training standards and proficiency testing for individuals and activities governed thereunder.  The online program and exam are expected to launch in early 2020.

Cayman Islands Revises and Clarifies AML Regulations.  As mentioned in previous updates, the Cayman Islands released the 2018 revisions to its Anti-Money Laundering (“AML”) regulations earlier this year.  The following are some notable changes:

  • Non-Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (“CIMA”) registered funds (i.e., 4(4) funds) will be subject to AML regulations;
  • All investment funds (registered and unregistered) must designate natural persons to act as Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Officers (“AMLCOs”), Money Laundering Reporting Officers (“MLROs”), and Deputy Money Laundering Reporting Officers (“DMLROs”) by September 30, 2018 or, for funds registering after June 1, 2018, upon submission of the registration application; and
  • All investment funds (registered and unregistered) will be subject to enhanced AML processes and procedures.

CIMA also released a notice on April 6, 2018 to clarify its guidance notes on the AML regulations.

The guidance clarified that a fund could designate the same individual to serve as its AMLCO and MLRO.  Also, if an MLRO, DMLRO, and AMLCO have been appointed, a person carrying out the relevant financial business of a fund may delegate to another the performance of functions outlined in the AML regulations.  Significantly, managers should also note that these officers may be exposed to criminal sanctions for breach of their obligations.  Failure to comply with CIMA’s AML regulations could result in an unlimited fine and imprisonment for two years.  We recommend that fund managers discuss AML compliance and implementation issues with offshore counsel and the fund’s administrator.

Cayman Islands Appeals Court Holds That a Liquidator May Not Adjust a Shareholder’s NAV.  The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal held that an official liquidator of a fund could not change a contractually agreed upon net asset value (“NAV”), even if it were based upon fraudulent numbers.  The judge agreed with the lower court that allowing adjustment of the NAV would “interfere with the shareholders’ proprietary rights,” an action that legislators did not intend to permit.  This outcome may benefit shareholders by providing certainty regarding a fund’s NAV and the benefits derived from “their rights under a valid and subsisting contract.”

Cayman Issues AEOI Portal Update.  On May 29, 2018, the Cayman Islands issued an update regarding the Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information Portal (“AEOI”).  The statutory deadline for filing Common Reporting Standard (“CRS”) and US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, as amended, (“FATCA”) reporting was May 31, 2018.  However, the Cayman Islands Department for International Tax Cooperation will allow Cayman Financial Institutions until July 31, 2018 to fulfill their 2017 CRS and US FATCA reporting obligations without facing adverse consequences, compliance measures, or penalties.

****

Compliance Calendar. As you plan your regulatory compliance timeline for the coming months, please keep the following dates in mind:

Deadline – Filing

  • June 29, 2018 – Delivery of audited financial statements to investors (private fund managers to fund of funds, including SEC, state, and CFTC registrants)
  • June 30, 2018 – Deadline for Cayman Island registered funds with a fiscal year end of December 31 to file the Fund Annual Return and audited financial statements with CIMA
  • June 30, 2018 – Deadline for making available AIFMD annual report for funds in or advertising in the EU (Alternative Investment Funds with a financial year ending on December 31st)
  • June 30, 2018 – Review transactions and assess whether Form 13H needs to be amended
  • July 15, 2018 – Quarterly Form PF due for large liquidity fund advisers
  • July 30, 2018 – Quarterly account statements due (CPOs claiming the 4.7 exemption)
  • July 30, 2018 – Collect quarterly reports from access persons for their personal
    securities transactions
  • July 31, 2018 – Cayman Islands CRS and US FATCA reporting deadline without adverse consequences (for those who missed the initial May 31, 2018 deadline)
  • August 14, 2018 – Form 13F filing (advisers managing $100 million in 13F Securities)
  • August 14, 2018 – CTA-PR filing with NFA
  • August 29, 2018 – Quarterly Form PF due for large hedge fund advisers
  • August 29, 2018 – CPO-PQR filing with NFA
  • September 30, 2018 – Review transactions and assess whether Form 13H needs to amended
  • September 30, 2018 – Deadline to designate an MLRO, DMLRO, and AMLCO for Cayman Islands AML compliance
  • October 15, 2018 – Quarterly Form PF due for large liquidity fund advisers
  • October 15, 2018 – Annual Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts Report deadline (for those who missed the April 17 deadline)
  • Periodic – Fund managers should perform “Bad Actor” certifications annually
  • Periodic – Amendment due on or before anniversary date of prior Form D filing(s), or for material changes
  • Periodic – CPO/CTA Annual Questionnaires must be submitted annually, and promptly upon material information changes
  • Periodic – Form D and blue sky filings should be current

****

Bart Mallon is a founding partner of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP.  Mr. Mallon can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

Digital Asset Regulatory Items – Second Quarter 2018

Leave a reply

The second quarter offers notable regulatory updates in the digital asset space. For your convenience, we provide an overview of these items down below.

***

SEC MATTERS

Speeches & Testimony

Chairman Testifies on Cryptocurrencies Before the House Committee on Appropriations

On April 26, 2018, Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Chairman Jay Clayton testified before the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee that digital assets are divided into 2 categories: (1) a “pure medium of exchange”—considered to be “not a security”; (2) tokens—a tool “to finance projects.” Given the uncertainty around cryptocurrencies, this may suggest that even the SEC might not readily view all tokens as securities yet.

SEC Director Hinman Testifies Before the House That Many ICOs are Securities Offerings, Certain Utility Tokens Do Not Have Hallmarks of a Security

On April 26, 2018, SEC Director William Hinman stated his position that it is “hard to have an initial sale without a securities offering.” Consequently, Hinman believes that initial coin offerings (“ICOs”) will likely require registering as a securities offering or operating under an exemption. He clarified that it is possible for a token not to have the hallmarks of a security if the token was purchased solely for its functional use and not as an investment. For many issuers, it could mean that they can offer tokens for sale by relying on appropriate exemptions without having to comply with the SEC securities registration.

SEC Director Hinman Speaks at the Yahoo Finance All Markets Summit on Crypto

On June 14, 2018, SEC Director of the Division of Corporation Finance William Hinman spoke at the Yahoo Finance All Markets Summit on Crypto in San Francisco.  He addressed questions regarding ICOs and token sales and whether a digital asset can be something other than a security.  He mentioned that currently, neither Bitcoin nor Ether meet the Howey test. However, he cautioned that classification of whether an instrument is a security is not static and the classification can change as the instrument changes.

Releases

SEC Creates Senior Advisor for Digital Assets and Innovation Position

On June 4, 2018, the SEC announced that Valerie A. Szczepanik would be the agency’s first ever Senior Advisor for Digital Assets and Innovation. This newly created position will allow the SEC to explore how U.S. securities laws would apply to digital asset technologies such as ICOs and cryptocurrencies. Ms. Szczepanik has been with the SEC since 1997. During her tenure, she has been an Assistant Director for the Division of Enforcement’s Cyber Unit. Currently, Szczepanik serves as the Head of the SEC’s Distributed Ledger Technology Working Group, Co-Head of the Dark Web Working Group, and a member of the FinTech Working Group.

Enforcement

SEC Takes Civil Actions Against Fraudulent ICO

On April 2, 2018, the SEC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Centra Tech., Inc. (“Centra”) for raising at least $32 million in unregistered securities through a fraudulent ICO. Centra falsely claimed that it had partnered with VISA, Mastercard, and Bancorp to create a “crypto debit card.” The complaint seeks a permanent injunction to stop Centra’s activities and to return the ill-gotten gains to investors. The U.S. Attorney’s Office has also filed criminal charges against the two founders.

SEC Files Charges Against Titanium Blockchain

On May 22, 2018, the SEC filed charges in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Titanium Blockchain for violating antifraud and registration provisions under federal securities laws. The company used false corporate relationships and testimonies to inflate the values of their digital assets. Under the guise of an ICO, they fraudulently raised up to $21 million in cash and digital assets.

Other

SEC Creates Mock Initial Coin Offering

The SEC has created howeycoins.com. The website is designed to educate the public about fraudulent ICOs and how to avoid being a victim.

CFTC MATTERS

Advisory

The CFTC Issues Advisory on Virtual Currency Derivatives

On May 21, 2018, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) issued key expectations for exchanges and clearinghouses regarding virtual currency derivative products. These include: i) enhanced market surveillance; ii) close coordination with the CFTC surveillance group; iii) large trader reporting; iv) outreach to members and market participants; and v) derivative clearing organization’s risk management. For more details on these key points, please refer to our second quarterly update.

Speeches

CFTC Gives Keynote at the FIA 40th Annual Law & Compliance Division Conference on the Regulation of Futures, Derivative, and OTC Products, Washington, D.C.

CFTC Commissioner Rostin Behnam.  On May 3, 2018, CFTC Commissioner Rostin Behnam spoke at the Futures Industry Association’s 40th Annual Law & Compliance Division Conference on the Regulation of Futures, Derivative, and OTC Products. In his speech, the Commissioner noted that institutions look at digital assets as something more than a currency. He also acknowledged the National Futures Association’s work on understanding and regulating virtual currencies and their derivatives.

Commissioner Quintenz Announces the Establishment of TAC Subcommittees

CFTC Commissioner Brian Quintenz. On June 4, 2018, CFTC Commissioner Brian Quintenz announced the creation of the Technology Advisory Committee’s (“TAC”) four new subcommittees. The subcommittees will be tasked with exploring automated and modern trading markets, cybersecurity, distributed ledger technology and market infrastructure, and virtual currencies.

Enforcement

CFTC Files Complaint Regarding Fraudulent ATM Coin

On April 16, 2018, the CFTC filed a complaint against three investment funds for their connection with a “binary options” scheme that defrauded at least 6 U.S. clients of about $618,810. The managers invited investors to transfer their fund balances to a virtual currency firm in return for the fraudulent virtual currency called “ATM Coin.” Neither the defendants nor the executed transactions were registered with the CFTC or a registered exchange. One of the fund managers also faces criminal charges for altering records and obstructing the FBI investigation.

NFA MATTERS

Notice to Members

NFA Encourages FCMs and IBs to Review OFAC FAQs for Compliance Obligations

On May 3, 2018, the National Futures Association (“NFA”) released a notice recommending that futures commission merchants (“FCMs”) and introducing brokers (“IBs”) review the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) FAQs about compliance and sanctions with regard to illicit digital currency activities. The FAQs detail OFAC’s goal to combat terrorism and criminal exploitation of digital transactions, as well as compliance obligations in dealing with blocked persons or property.

FINRA MATTERS

Enforcement

FINRA Suspends a Member for Failure to Disclose Outside Business Activity.

On April 18, 2018, FINRA issued a $20,000 fine and a two-year suspension to a broker for failure to disclose his private blockchain business activity with his firm. According to FINRA, all firms’ employees must report outside business activities and any material changes to their firms. This rule is intended to strengthen investor protections against outside activities.

STATE MATTERS

California Legislation

The following bills regarding the digital asset space are moving through the California legislature.

  • CA AB-2658: it would define blockchain technology in California and create a government working group to evaluate the use of blockchain technology by CA businesses and the state government. The bill passed the State Assembly on May 30, 2018 and is currently in the State Senate.
  • CA SB-838: it would allow certain privately-owned corporations to amend their articles of incorporation to include provisions for the use of blockchain technology in recording information related to stock transactions. The bill passed the State Senate on May 17, 2018 and is currently in the State Assembly.

Colorado Division of Securities Participates in Coordinated International Crypto Crackdown

On May 3, 2018, the Colorado Securities Commission announced that it signed orders requiring Linda Healthcare Corporation and Broad Investments, LLC to cease and desist from selling securities in the state. The companies violated Colorado securities laws by promoting ICOs to Colorado residents without disclosing the risks involved.

Florida Chief Financial Officer Announces New Cryptocurrency Oversight Position

Jimmy Patronis, Florida Chief Financial Officer, released a statement on June 26, 2018 that Florida would be creating an oversight position for its cryptocurrency industry.  In coordination with the Office of Financial Regulation and the Office of Insurance Regulation, this new oversight position aims to develop policy, legislation, and regulation regarding cryptocurrency.

***

Bart Mallon is a founding partner of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP and focuses his legal practice on the investment management industry. He can be reached directly at 415-868-5345

Regulation A+ for Token Offerings

Leave a reply

Overview of Regulation A+ for Token Sponsors

Token issuers have come under increasing scrutiny with respect to their offerings on the heels of various statements by SEC personnel (see here, here and here).  SEC representatives have testified recently before House and Senate committees that the initial coin offerings (“ICOs”) they have seen are securities offerings and that it is “hard to have an [ICO] without a securities offering.”  These statements along with recent SEC enforcement actions against ICOs have created the desire for token issuers to make their offerings SEC compliant.  Many token issuers have thus begun to offer and issue tokens through certain exemptions from the securities registration regime including Regulation D private offerings and the Simple Agreement for Future Tokens (“SAFT”).  One option many groups are looking into is using Regulation A+ (“Reg. A+”) to offer security tokens publicly.

Background

Regulation A was overhauled through the JOBS Act, resulting in what is now referred to as Regulation A+.  Reg. A+ allows for a registered security to go through a general solicitation process without going through the long and costly IPO process.  Securities issued under Reg. A+ can be freely traded, subject to some restrictions and holding periods.  Another unique feature is that it allows for “testing the waters,” soliciting investors to gauge interest in the offering before or after filing the offering statement.  To qualify to use Reg. A+, an issuer must have their principal place of business in the United States or Canada and not be an ineligible investor (please see our blog post Notes on Regulation A+ for more information).

Reg. A+ has two tiers; Tier 1 allows issuers to raise up to $20 million and Tier 2 allows issuers to raise up to $50 million over a 12-month rolling period.[1]  Below is a side-by-side comparison of the two tiers.

Tier 1 and Tier 2 Comparison
Tier 1

  • Can raise up to $20 million
  • No limit on amount investor can purchase
  • All types of investors (qualified purchasers, accredited investors, and unaccredited investors)
  • 2,000 investor limit pursuant to Section 12(g) of the ’34 Act
  • Do not need audited financial statements except in special circumstances
  • Must comply with state “blue sky” laws regarding securities registration
 Tier 2

  • Can raise up to $50 million
  • Limits on how much an unaccredited investor can purchase (see below)
  • All types of investors (qualified purchasers, accredited investors, and unaccredited investors)
  • Conditional exemption from Section 12(g) of the ’34 Act restrictions[2]
  • Audited financial statements
  • State “blue sky” laws regarding securities registration are preempted
  • Must file annual, semi-annual, and current event reports after the offering with the SEC

Process

The process will look something like the following:

  • Step 1: Entity Formation
    • To start the process, the entity must first be created.  This includes putting together the articles of incorporation and operating agreement, registering the entity with the state(s) in which it will operate, drafting promissory note distribution agreements (a SAFT can be used here instead), and issuing securities.
  • Step 2: Draft Form 1-A
    • There are three parts to Form 1-A: Part I: Notification Filing, Part II: Offering Circular, and Part III: Exhibits.
    • Part I: Notification Filing
      • This is a brief summary of information about the issuer, offering, and jurisdictional information.  It can be filled out online and is formatted like the Form D filing.  It requires information such as balance sheet financials, determination of eligibility, a summary of the offering, and designation of the jurisdiction.
    • Part II: Offering Circular
      • The offering circular is a simplified and scaled down version for the Form S-1 and is similar to hedge fund offering documents. It is the primary disclosure document prepared in connection with the Reg. A+ offering.  This section requires information such as risk factors, the business plan, plan of distribution, Management’s Discussion & Analysis (“MD&A”) of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, management interests, and detailed analysis of the securities being offered.
    • Part III: Exhibits
      • The exhibit that are required as part of the Form 1-A include:
      • Issuer formation documents (e., operating agreement, articles of incorporation, etc.)
      • Promissory note agreement (or SAFT)
      • Agreement between issuer and broker-dealer
      • Opinion from legal counsel
      • Consent of auditor
      • Testing the waters materials
      • Escrow agreement (if necessary)
  • Step 3: Submission to the SEC
    • Once all the materials for the Form 1-A are assembled, the Form 1-A will be filed for qualification on the SEC’s Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (“EDGAR”) system.  Issuers can request that their offering statement be non-public as long as they are publicly filed no later than 21 calendar days before qualification.  Once Form 1-A has been submitted, the issuer will correspond with the SEC regarding the submission to ensure that it is complete.  The offering statement on Form 1-A only needs to be qualified by order of the SEC and issuers will receive a notice of qualification from the Division of Corporation Finance.  With the consent of the Director of the Division of Corporation Finance, issuers are allowed to withdraw an offering statement so long as none of the securities under it have been sold and the offering statemen is not subject to a temporary order suspending the Regulation A exemption.
  • Step 4: Notice Filing
    • For this step, the issuer will need to determine in which states to concentrate their selling efforts.  Once the states have been selected, the issuer will need to conduct the required notice filings in each state.  Although Tier 2 offerings preempt state securities registration and qualification provisions, state securities regulators can still require issuers to file any documents that were with the SEC with state with state securities regulators.
  • Step 5: Ongoing Compliance
    • Tier 2 issuers are required to file Form 1-K, Form 1-SA, and Form 1-U with the SEC.
      • Form 1-K is an annual report that is filed 120 days after the fiscal year end. It consists of two parts: part 1 contain basic fillable information; part 2 requires the following: business operations of the issuer; transactions with related persons; information about directors, executives, and significant employees; MD&A; and two years of audited financials.
      • Form 1-SA is a semiannual report which is filed 90 days after end of first 6 months of fiscal year. It does not require an audit and includes financial statements and MD&A.
      • Form 1-U needs to be filed within 4 business days of any of the following:
        • Fundamental changes in the nature of the business;
        • Bankruptcy or receivership;
        • Material modification of the rights of security holders;
        • Changes in the certifying accountant of the issuer;
        • Non-reliance on previous financial statements or a related audit report or completed interim review;
        • Changes in control of the issuer;
        • Departures of the principal executive officer, principal financial officer or principal accounting officer; or
        • Unregistered sales of 10 percent or more of outstanding equity securities.
  • Final Step: Exit Reporting
    • Tier 1 issuers are required to file an exit report on Form 1-Z through EDGAR no later than 30 calendar days after the termination or completion of an offering.
    • Tier 2 issuers may file an exit report on Form 1-Z if the offering has fewer than 300 security holders of record, offers and sales are not ongoing, and the issuer is up to date on all filings required by Regulation A.

Timeline

The timeline for a Reg. A+ offering will look something like the following:

  • Week 1: The initial discussion of terms and the offering will take place.  The issuer and their legal counsel will create a detailed legal and operational timeline.
  • Week 2: The issuer will form the necessary entities, start drafting Form 1-A, and begin gathering the needed financials statements and other documents.
  • Week 3-4: All documents and financials will be finalized and submitted to the SEC.
  • Week 5: The issuer will begin the notice filing process and conduct the necessary ongoing compliance.
  • Week 6 and on: The issuer will begin back and forth discussion process with the SEC regarding the offering.

Issues & Other Items to Consider

There are a few items to consider when choosing to register under the Regulation A exemption:

  1. Testing the Waters – If testing the waters occurs after filing the offering statement, any solicitation materials used must be preceded or accompanied by a preliminary offering circular or contain a notice informing potential investors where and how the most current preliminary offering circular can be obtained.  These solicitation materials must also be included as an exhibit when the offering statement is submitted for nonpublic review or filed.
  2. Tier 2 Unaccredited Investor Limit – In a Tier 2 offering, an unaccredited investor can purchase no more than: (a) 10% of the greater of annual income or net worth (for natural persons); or (b) 10% of the greater of annual revenue or net assets at fiscal year end (for non-natural persons).
  3. Auditing – Tier 2 issuers will need to have their financial statements audited and should begin this process as soon as possible.  However, if a Tier 1 issuer has had previously audited financial statements, in certain cases they may need to submit these.
  4. Solicitation through Electronic Communication – An issuer is allowed to “test the waters” through platforms that limit the number of characters or text that can be included and still satisfy the requirements of Rule 255 if: (a) the electronic communication is distributed through a platform that limits the number of characters or text that may be included in the communication; (b) including the required Rule 255 statements together with the other information would cause the communication to exceed the platform’s characters or text limit; and (c) the communication contains an active hyperlink to the required Rule 255 statements and prominently conveys important or required information through the hyperlink.  However, if an electronic communication can contain the Rule 255 statements in their entirety along with the other information without exceeding the platform’s characters or text limit, it is not appropriate to only include hyperlink to the required statements.
  5. Payment for Securities – For both tiers, an issuer can accept payment for the sales of its securities only after its offering material have been qualified by the SEC.  In addition, issuers under Tier 1 offerings generally must have their offering materials qualified by state securities regulators in each state in which it plans to sell securities.
  6. Secondary Sales – For the 12 months following its first offering, no more than 30% of the aggregate offering price may be sold by security holders.  After the 12 months, secondary sales by affiliates will be subject to the 30% limit over a 12-month period.  Secondary sales by non-affiliates at this point will only be curtailed by the maximum offering allowed under each tier.

Conclusion

Thus far, Reg. A+ provides the most flexibility for SEC compliant ICOs.  Although there are reporting obligations and other restrictions, Reg. A+ allows for what is essentially a “mini-IPO” without the cumbersome process.  As token issuers look to be compliant, we are likely to see an uptick in Reg. A+ offerings.

****

Bart Mallon is a founding partner of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP.  Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP has been instrumental in structuring the launches of some of the first digital currency-focused hedge funds and works routinely on matters affecting the digital asset industry.  Bart can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

****

[1] This rolling 12-month period means that each month you will need to recalculate the aggregate sales, dropping off the sales from more than 12 months ago. For example, if an offering pursuant to Reg. A+ started in January of 2018, it means that by February of 2019 initial sale of securities from January 2018 are no longer in the aggregate total (thus only calculating February 2018 – February 2019 sales).

[2] As long as the issuer remains current with their periodic reporting, engages the services of a transfer agent registered with the SEC pursuant to Section 17A of the Exchange Act, and meets the size-based requirements similar to those of a “smaller reporting company” under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act.

Airdrops and Securities Laws

Leave a reply

Legal Issues Surrounding Digital Asset Airdrops

Given the regulatory scrutiny on initial coin offerings, many digital asset company sponsors (those launching an ICO token/product/security/utility/etc) have been looking for ways to get their assets in the hands of a large number of people to begin creating network effects so the digital asset become valuable.  One way to accomplish this is through an “airdrop” where the sponsor gives away the digital asset to certain persons under certain circumstances.  Airdrops come in many shapes and forms – in some, the sponsor deposits only the digital asset they have created and in others a sponsor or other third party might deposit a variety of digital assets created by different groups.  Some airdrops require users to do something (sign up for a list or tweet a link related to the sponsor) and some are done for “free”.  In any event, there are potentially securities laws issues related to the airdrops and any transactions in the digital asset after the airdrop.  The below analysis is intended as a broad overview, but each airdrop should be considered in light of its facts and circumstances.  Additionally, the regulation of airdrops, including how they may be taxed, is beginning to evolve and subject to change.

Potential Application of Securities Laws to Airdrops

The legal status of digital assets is uncertain and continually developing – whether a token is a security ultimately depends on the particulars of each token.  Given recent statements by the SEC, however, it is safest to assume that any airdropped tokens are securities.  The public offering or sales of securities must be registered with the SEC or qualify for an exemption, though many token companies are not complying with these requirements.  As a result, a number of these airdrops may be violating securities laws, even if the teams behind the assets claim they are not securities, or if they do not realize their activities fall within the scope of the securities laws.  In light of this, the following legal issues may apply to an airdrop:

  • Transfer Restrictions – Even if a token qualifies for an exemption from registration with the SEC, it may be subject to transfer restrictions. For example, many securities are exempt from SEC registration via the private placement exemption under Regulation D (also known as “Reg D”), which requires a certain holding period (e.g. 6-12 months) before a purchaser can transfer the securities.  While the Reg D exemption applies to purchases and sales of securities, the Reg D holding restrictions may apply because the SEC may view the exchange of personal information and/or public promotion as payment.  In light of this, the recipients of digital assets (unknowingly) may be restricted from transferring those assets and should be careful.
  • Free Stock Enforcement Actions – In the late 1990’s the SEC brought enforcement actions in cases of “free stock” offerings. In such instances, companies gave out “free” stock in exchange for something of value to the company.  For example, recipients provided personal information, solicited additional investors, and linked to issuers’ websites.  The SEC was concerned that investors were not receiving full and fair disclosures about the securities.  Airdrops resemble free stock since the airdrop teams give “free” tokens, often in exchange for information like email addresses or social media shares.  Additionally, these airdrop programs are often promoted in mediums such as Telegram chats where disclosures are entirely absent.  Because of these similarities with free stock, the SEC could bring enforcement actions against the sponsors of the airdrops in the future.
  • Broker-Dealer Regulations – Generally, a broker is anyone that engages in securities transactions on behalf of another person for compensation, and must be registered with the SEC. If a team airdrops digital assets on behalf of other token companies, it could be deemed a broker if it receives compensation for the airdrop.  This compensation could take the form of tokens or marketing services from issuers of the airdropped assets.
  • Underwriter Liability – An underwriter is someone that acts on behalf of a securities issuer, for example, by distributing securities of the issuer. Depending on the circumstances, underwriters can be liable for an issuer’s securities violations.  If an airdrop team deposits tokens that are issued by another company, it could also be liable for the securities violations of that company, which very well may be the case, as described above.
  • Pump & Dump – Pump and dump schemes occur when an organized group coordinates to artificially change the price of an asset. The SEC and CFTC have issued warnings about token pump and dump schemes, and the SEC has already pursued certain groups for these schemes.  In light of this, airdrop announcements and marketing materials will likely be subject to heightened scrutiny by the SEC and CFTC.
  • KYC/AML – Know Your Customer (“KYC”) and Anti-Money Laundering (“AML”) laws are aimed at combatting money laundering and bribery and require certain due diligence on clients. KYC and AML regulations typically apply to banks, broker-dealers, FINRA members, and other financial institutions, as well as large cash transactions.  Many token exchanges already implement KYC and AML procedures, for example, by requiring new users to upload a driver’s license in order to prove their identities.  It’s possible that an airdrop team may be subject to KYC and AML requirements such that it would need to verify the identity of each recipient.

Conclusion

As the digital asset industry becomes more aware of the securities laws and the nuances of the application of those laws to the digital asset space, sponsors of digital assets are working to make sure their business plan and token distribution structure fit within the laws.  While airdrops (“free tokens”) seem like one way to get around certain securities laws, there are still risks and sponsors should vet any potential distribution, even if free, with legal counsel.  We do expect to see a wider variety of token offering structures used in the future, including Regulation A+ which has fewer restrictions on securities transfers.

***

Bart Mallon is a founding partner of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP.  Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP has been instrumental in structuring the launches of some of the first digital currency-focused hedge funds and works routinely on matters affecting the digital asset industry.  Please contact Mr. Mallon directly at 415-868-5345 if you have any questions on this post.

Token Distribution and Unregistered/Restricted Securities

Leave a reply

Digital Assets and Restricted Securities Background

Many recent Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) and other token sales are being conducted through a Simple Agreement for Future Tokens (SAFT) or other private placement that exempts the token from registration as a security with the SEC. Tokens sold through these structures have become hot investments, and access to deals selling these tokens is generally difficult to obtain. Accordingly, many investors are creating private funds, unincorporated investment groups, syndicates or other types of investment-fund-like structures (“syndicates” or “investors” for the purposes of this post) to invest in these tokens or SAFTs. Many times these syndicates are established with the stated intent or objective to make distributions of the tokens immediately upon receipt. Effectively the sponsors of such structures have created a de-facto distribution system for VC like investments into blockchain projects. The question is how such a distribution structure fits with traditional securities regulations – specifically, can privately placed tokens (securities) be distributed shortly after receipt? The answer is probably no.

Background on Unregistered Securities

SAFTs, tokens from a SAFT, or other private placements are in most cases going to be unregistered securities (unless the token or instrument later becomes registered with the SEC which is highly unlikely).  In general federal securities laws prohibit the transfer of unregistered securities unless an exemption applies to the transfer.  Any person then who has possession of, and then transfers, an unregistered security without complying with an applicable exemption is breaking the securities laws and subject to civil penalty (fine, rescission, bar from industry, etc).  Additionally, many private placements and SAFTs contain contractual provisions that restrict transfer of tokens for a certain amount of time after issuance (with a wink and a nod from the token issuer that “everyone transfers them anyways”). Unless there is an exemption allowing for the transfer of the tokens (restricted securities), the transferor would be both breaking securities laws and breaching contractual representations made to the token sponsor.

Potential Exemptions

Section 4(a)(1)

Given the above framework, investors or syndicates will want to find an exemption so they can transfer the tokens in accordance with securities laws (the risk posed by breaching a contractual representation to the token sponsor is beyond the scope of this post). Among statutory exemptions, Section 4(a)(1) the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) provides an exemption from registration of the securities if the sales/transaction is not conducted by an issuer, dealer, or underwriter. These terms all have precise definitions, but in this context we would be most concerned about the transferor being deemed an “underwriter” which is defined, in part, as “any person who has purchased from an issuer with a view to, or offers or sells for an issuer in connection with, the distribution of any security, or participates or has a direct or indirect participation in any such undertaking.” This is a broad definition, and because of the stated or not-stated intent of creating a distribution structure for tokens, the syndicates described above may well be considered “underwriters” in this context and need to find another exemption on which to rely.

Investors my be in luck though as there are two other common exemptions that may be available – Rule 144 and Section 4(a)(1 ½).

Rule 144

Rule 144 of the Securities Act allows public resale of restricted securities if certain conditions are met.  The central condition is that the unregistered securities are held by the investor for a period of at least one year.  Further, the transferor/investor may not be an affiliate of the issuer.  There may be reduced holding period requirements if the issuer is subject to the Exchange Act Reporting requirements, but this is not a likely scenario in the digital asset space.  We believe for most syndicate groups, Rule 144 is the best way to comply with the transfer restriction. Of course, certain syndicates operating in this space might want or need to distribute the tokens before the expiration of Rule 144’s one-year holding period, and while imperfect as a solution, Section 4(a)(1 ½) (discussed below) may grant another option.

Section 4(a)(1 ½)

As mentioned above, Section 4(a)(1) of the Securities Act provides an exemption from registration for transactions by any person other than an issuer, underwriter, or dealer.  Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act provides a separate exemption for transactions by an issuer through a private offering. Over time, through case law and acknowledged by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), the “Section 4(a)(1 ½)” exemption was created.  This exemption generally is an exemption for private offerings, similar to Section 4(a)(2), but for entities that are not issuers.

To avoid being deemed an underwriter (and to ensure that a resale is sufficiently private), the investor/transferor must be able to show that it did not purchase the restricted securities with a view to distribution or resale.  In order to show this the investor/transferor should examine the following criteria :

  • Number of Purchasers – there should be a limited number of purchasers of the restricted security.  This generally can be satisfied if there are less than 25 purchasers.
  • Investment Intent – the investing entity’s intent in purchasing the tokens or SAFT should be to hold for an indefinite period of time and not with a view to resell or distribute.  The longer the investing entity holds the tokens or SAFT, the better the argument for the investor/transferor’s original intent.  Generally, in conjunction with other facts and circumstances, holding the security for at least six months will evidence the investor/transferor’s investment intent. The investor/transferor should also obtain a representation from purchasers that (1) the purchase is being made as an investment and not for resale and (2) any subsequent transfer will be made only in an SEC-registered transaction or in compliance with an exemption from registration.
  • Offeree Qualification – the investor/transferor of the token or SAFT should determine whether the buyer can hold the securities for an indefinite period of time and assume the risk of the investment by looking to the experience and sophistication of the buyer.
  • Information – the investor/transferor should provide access to all information about the investment and business of the issuer that would be necessary to the buyer. The investor/transferor should also provide access to any nonpublic information if it is an insider with such information.
  • Private Offering – No form of general advertising or general solicitation may be used in reselling the securities.

Because of the facts and circumstances determination for Section 4(a)(1 ½), the safest approach to addressing these restricted securities’ holding periods is for the investor/transferor to hold the securities for greater than one year in order to fall under the Rule 144 safe harbor.

Other Issues to Consider

There are a number of additional items that should be considered in the context of transferred digital assets that may have been issued as private securities:

  • Securities v. Non-Securities.  The restricted securities transfer rules apply to securities – they do not apply to non-security instruments.  Entities that invest in tokens and SAFTs may want to consider taking a position that the tokens are not securities and therefore not subject to securities laws.  Such a position would entail a facts and circumstances determination, and taking such a position is likely a risky strategy based on recent comments from SEC Chairman Clayton.  Also, taking the position that a SAFT is not a security would be problematic if the SAFT included language that it was a restricted security or otherwise contained a restrictive legend.
  • Distribution to syndicate owners.  If an entity wants to distribute the tokens or a SAFT instrument to its underlying owners, it should be aware that the above exemptions do not apply to a distribution to a syndicate’s underlying owners.  Additionally, the SEC would likely consider an in-kind distribution of tokens in exchange for redemption of interests in a syndicate as consideration sufficient to constitute a sale.
  • Regulation S.  Non-US investors may consider investing in a SAFT or purchasing tokens under Regulation S of the US securities laws.  While such investors would be non-US investors, Regulation S contains a one-year holding period similar to Rule 144 for sales to US persons so resale of such instruments would potentially be limited.
  • Timing.  No official guidance has been issued regarding holding periods and SAFT instruments.  We do not know whether the holding period begins when a SAFT is issued or once the actual tokens are issued (i.e. whether the SAFT and tokens are separate securities).  In cases where tokens are issued after a significant period of time following the SAFT execution, this determination may be significant.  Again, a determination one way or another will require a facts and circumstances analysis.

Conclusion

Investors should be aware that SAFTs and tokens in which they invest may be restricted securities that may not be resold absent an applicable exemption. With respect to digital assets, this issue is nascent and evolving, but investment managers should be cognizant to follow the securities laws in the absence of additional guidance from the SEC. Please reach out if you have questions on any of the above.

****

Bart Mallon is a founding partner of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP.  Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP has been instrumental in structuring the launches of some of the first digital currency-focused hedge funds and works routinely on matters affecting the digital asset industry.  Please contact Mr. Mallon directly at 415-868-5345 if you have any questions on this post.

SEC Issues Cryptocurrency/Digital Asset/ICO Report

Leave a reply

By: Bart Mallon (Co-Managing Partner of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP)

Certain Digital Assets are Securities Based on “Facts and Circumstances”

As has been widely anticipated by the cryptocurrency community, the SEC has finally made an initial declaration of the agency’s view that certain digital assets are securities subject to jurisdiction and regulation by the SEC.  In a series of four items (press release, investigative report, statement and investor bulletin), the SEC comes out with a strong warning to sponsors of Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) to be careful of the U.S. securities laws.  While many will undoubtedly think the SEC missed a great opportunity to provide robust guidance (and leniency) to the industry, most market participants recognize that this series of discussions was the most likely outcome for many of these instruments (i.e. it is clear that they are securities).  Although it is not perhaps what the industry wanted, we at least have *something* to now go by and the industry can begin to figure out how it will structure itself from here.

Below we provide an overview of the various parts of the release as well as some of our observations.

SEC Four Items

The SEC released the following four items today which we describe in greater depth below:

  1. Press Release 2017-131
  2. Release No. 81207 (report)
  3. Divisions of Corporation Finance and Enforcement Statement (July 25, 2017)
  4. Investor Bulletin: Initial Coin Offerings

Press Release – the release discusses the investigative report it published on The DAO and discusses the investor bulletin created regarding ICOs.  The SEC cautions market participants to make sure they examine their activity with respect to ICOs and other structures built on blockchain and distributed ledger technology.  Most importantly the release states:

In light of the facts and circumstances, the agency has decided not to bring charges in this instance, or make findings of violations in the Report, but rather to caution the industry and market participants:  the federal securities laws apply to those who offer and sell securities in the United States, regardless whether the issuing entity is a traditional company or a decentralized autonomous organization, regardless whether those securities are purchased using U.S. dollars or virtual currencies, and regardless whether they are distributed in certificated form or through distributed ledger technology

SEC Report on the DAO – the report describes the rise and fall of The DAO, discusses how the related facts would be analyzed under the existing securities laws (Howey test), determines that DAO Tokens are securities, and makes the determination that certain “Platforms” are securities exchanges that should be (and should have been) registered with the SEC as securities exchanges.  The report ends by listing a number of SEC enforcement actions involving virtual currencies.  The SEC also provides the following warning to the industry:

Whether or not a particular transaction involves the offer and sale of a security—regardless of the terminology used—will depend on the facts and circumstances, including the economic realities of the transaction. Those who offer and sell securities in the United States must comply with the federal securities laws, including the requirement to register with the Commission or to qualify for an exemption from the registration requirements of the federal securities laws…These requirements apply to those who offer and sell securities in the United States, regardless whether the issuing entity is a traditional company or a decentralized autonomous organization, regardless whether those securities are purchased using U.S. dollars or virtual currencies, and regardless whether they are distributed in certificated form or through distributed ledger technology. In addition, any entity or person engaging in the activities of an exchange, such as bringing together the orders for securities of multiple buyers and sellers using established nondiscretionary methods under which such orders interact with each other and buyers and sellers entering such orders agree upon the terms of the trade, must register as a national securities exchange or operate pursuant to an exemption from such registration.

CorpFin/Enforcement Statement – the statement basically provides an overview of the U.S. securities regulatory framework and describes how the framework of laws and regulations are designed to protect investors.  It discusses the importance of “facts and circumstances” analysis, states that DAO Tokens are securities based on “facts and circumstances” and implores cryptocurrency market participants  to seek counsel from private attorneys or the SEC.  The statement also warns of bad actors and red flags.

Investor Bulletin – provides background on ICOs, discussed various concepts applicable to the digital asset industry (blockchain, virtual currency, virtual currency exchanges, smart contracts), and discusses the crowdfunding regulations.  The bulletin also alerts investors to the issues with getting money back in the event of a scam (tracing issues, international scope of digital assets, the fact there is no central regulator and there is no ability for the SEC to freeze digital assets) and describes the normal things to be careful of that are common in many scams.

Observations

The following are some quotes from the various items produced by the SEC which we found interesting, and our thoughts on those quotes.

Press Release

“Those participating in unregistered offerings also may be liable for violations of the securities laws.”

HFLB: we note that the SEC is intentionally being vague when it references “those participating” – this indicates they will be looking at all parties related to a particular transaction, from sponsors to exchanges to other persons within the ICO distribution chain.  

“Additionally, securities exchanges providing for trading in these securities must register unless they are exempt.”

HFLB: here they are basically saying any exchange that DAO Tokens were available on were acting as securities exchanges and needed to be appropriately registered as such.

“The DAO has been described as a “crowdfunding contract” but it would not have met the requirements of the Regulation Crowdfunding exemption because, among other things, it was not a broker-dealer or a funding portal registered with the SEC and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.”

HFLB: we find it interesting that the SEC is specifically talking about the crowdfunding regulations.  We think that many ICOs / token sales would be good candidates for these platforms (and some tokens have started in that way) and the SEC seems to be highlighting an option for certain fund sponsors.  Crowdfunding platforms are regulated by the SEC and FINRA (and do not have as onerous requirements as normal securities registration statements) so they may become an acceptable compromise distribution platform for both ICO sponsors and the SEC.

Report on The DAO

“The United States Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“Commission”) Division of Enforcement (“Division”) has investigated whether The DAO, an unincorporated organization; Slock.it UG (“Slock.it”), a German corporation; Slock.it’s co-founders; and intermediaries may have violated the federal securities laws.”

HFLB: the “sponsors” of The DAO were investigated, which is to be expected.  We find it interesting they used the word “intermediaries” which is probably intentionally vague.

“The automation of certain functions through this technology, “smart contracts,” or computer code, does not remove conduct from the purview of the U.S. federal securities laws. This Report also serves to stress the obligation to comply with the registration provisions of the federal securities laws with respect to products and platforms involving emerging technologies and new investor interfaces.” (citations omitted)

HFLB: pretty much what securities lawyers have been saying all along.

“From April 30, 2016 through May 28, 2016, The DAO offered and sold approximately 1.15 billion DAO Tokens in exchange for a total of approximately 12 million Ether (“ETH”), a virtual currency used on the Ethereum Blockchain.” (citations omitted)

HFLB: we believe that the SEC is saying here that Ether is not a security, but is instead a virtual currency.  This is important because it shows that some ICOs or digital assets (like ETH) can be instruments other than securities.

“The Commission is aware that virtual organizations and associated individuals and entities increasingly are using distributed ledger technology to offer and sell instruments such as DAO Tokens to raise capital. These offers and sales have been referred to, among other things, as “Initial Coin Offerings” or “Token Sales.” Accordingly, the Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest to issue this Report in order to stress that the U.S. federal securities law may apply to various activities, including distributed ledger technology, depending on the particular facts and circumstances, without regard to the form of the organization or technology used to effectuate a particular offer or sale.”

HFLB: unfortunately looking to the “facts and circumstances” is all we have here – the SEC is not going to come out with a list of tokens they think our securities so we have to use the “sniff test” to determine whether any particular token is a security.  The best advice we have here is to look at the Coinbase Securities Law Framework to come up a best guess.

“The Platforms that traded DAO Tokens appear to have satisfied the criteria of Rule 3b-16(a) and do not appear to have been excluded from Rule 3b-16(b). As described above, the Platforms provided users with an electronic system that matched orders from multiple parties to buy and sell DAO Tokens for execution based on non-discretionary methods.”

HFLB: the SEC is putting those website where DAO Tokens were bought/sold on notice that they were operating as a securities exchange.  This will likely give unregistered crypto exchanges pause with respect to many digital asset instruments.

CorpFin / Enforcement Statement

“Market participants in this area must also consider other aspects of the securities laws, such as whether a platform facilitating transactions in its securities is operating as an exchange, whether the entity offering and selling the security could be an investment company, and whether anyone providing advice about an investment in the security could be an investment adviser.”

HFLB: the SEC makes reference to the mutual fund regulations (also applicable to private funds via 3(c)(1) and 3(c)(7) exemptions) as well as the investment advisor regulations, which are applicable to cryptocurrency fund managers.

“Although some of the detailed aspects of the federal securities laws and regulations embody more traditional forms of offerings or corporate organizations, these laws have a principles-based framework that can readily adapt to new types of technologies for creating and distributing securities.”

HFLB: this is exactly why we were surprised that the SEC has not previously issued guidance when it was clear there were other groups who have conducted ICO sales that clearly were securities offerings.  The SEC has had the opportunity (and, really, the obligation) to be enforcing the current securities laws in this space and the SEC has specifically chosen not to.  

“Finally, we recognize that new technologies also present new opportunities for bad actors to engage in fraudulent schemes, including old schemes under new names and using new terminology. We urge the investing public to be mindful of traditional “red flags” when making any investment decision, including: deals that sound too good to be true; promises of high returns with little or no risk; high-pressure sales tactics; and working with unregistered or unlicensed sellers.”

HFLB: we agree.  We fully expect to a number of frauds and other enforcement actions taken with respect to ICOs in the future.

Investor Bulletin

“Although ICOs are sometimes described as crowdfunding contracts, it is possible that they are not being offered and sold in compliance with the requirements of Regulation Crowdfunding or with the federal securities laws generally.”

HFLB: we believe that these various releases will ultimately push more ICOs to look toward crowdfunding platforms for their initial offerings.  We also believe that there is the possibility in the future for some sort of digital asset specific crowdfunding platform or a digital asset broker-dealer.

“Ask what your money will be used for and what rights the virtual coin or token provides to you.  The promoter should have a clear business plan that you can read and that you understand.  The rights the token or coin entitles you to should be clearly laid out, often in a white paper or development roadmap.  You should specifically ask about how and when you can get your money back in the event you wish to do so.  For example, do you have a right to give the token or coin back to the company or to receive a refund? Or can you resell the coin or token? Are there any limitations on your ability to resell the coin or token?”

HFLB: we believe this guidance is not really helpful for many ICO structures.  

“Fraudsters often use innovations and new technologies to perpetrate fraudulent investment schemes.  Fraudsters may entice investors by touting an ICO investment “opportunity” as a way to get into this cutting-edge space, promising or guaranteeing high investment returns.  Investors should always be suspicious of jargon-laden pitches, hard sells, and promises of outsized returns.  Also, it is relatively easy for anyone to use blockchain technology to create an ICO that looks impressive, even though it might actually be a scam.”

HFLB: we agree.  We believe it is highly likely there will be a number of scams that will be perpetuated through ICOs.

Conclusion

This is a first step of sorts toward more robust regulation of the digital assets.  Although we get some insight from the SEC, we don’t really see anything new and we don’t see how the SEC is going to protect the digital asset markets in the U.S.  Instead, this probably plays into fears that the U.S. is not a hospitable jurisdiction to novel ideas and structures and will ultimately push ICOs that would be based in the U.S. to offshore jurisdictions.  We hope the SEC uses these statements as a springboard to a dialogue with the industry to keep (and attract) innovators to the U.S.  More obviously forthcoming…

****

For more information on this topic, please see our collection of cryptocurrency fund legal and operational posts.

Bart Mallon is a founding partner of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP.  Cole-Frieman & Mallon has been instrumental in structuring the launches of some of the first cryptocurrency focused hedge funds. For more information on this topic, please contact Mr. Mallon directly at 415-868-5345.

Bitcoin Hedge Fund FAQs

Leave a reply

Common Questions Related to Cryptocurrency Funds

[Note: information posted on May 19, 2017.  Certain areas below will be updated periodically and we will update the timing of the information in each particular section.]

We recently wrote an overview of bitcoin/altcoin hedge funds.  That post led to a number of conversations with current and future cryptocurrency managers which yielded a number of questions regarding the business and regulatory issues applicable to these fund structures.  Some of the items we discussed are issues of first impression.  Some of the items probably don’t have “for sure” answers and instead we look to industry best practices for guidance.  While there will be a lot of “grey areas” and “probablys” and “I don’t knows” in this space as the regulators start to become more involved, I have tried my best to address these items below in my answers to these common questions.

****

Are Bitcoins and other Cryptocurrencies “securities” under the Securities Act of 1933?

Many of the very large cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum are probably not “securities”, and can probably be classified as “digital currencies” for now.  Other cryptocurrencies or tokens would need to be examined on a facts and circumstances basis.  For such an inquiry, I believe the Coinbase Securities Law Framework (See Appendix A) is a great place to start.

Why does it matter?

If a hedge fund invests in or buys a cryptocurrency, and that cryptocurrency is deemed to be a security, then the fund’s management company (general partner) will be, by definition, an investment adviser under federal law and most likely the laws of the state where the management company operates (where the sponsor/owner of the management company is physically located).  If the management company is an investment adviser, then the management company will need to register with the SEC (upon reaching certain asset levels, generally $150M) or with a state securities commission.  Some states may have exemptions from registration, like the Exempt Reporting Adviser (ERA) regime.  (See here for information on the SEC ERA regime and here for California’s ERA regime.)  If a management company registers as an investment adviser or ERA, the manager will be required to have the fund undergo an annual audit, and there will also be a requirement that performance fees be charged only to qualified clients.  Additionally, regardless of manager’s registration status (SEC, state or is an ERA) the manager will be subject to the anti-fraud provisions of Section 206-4 of the Investment Advisers Act which generally governs the manner in which the adviser communicates with the public.

If a cryptocurrency is deemed to be a security, then the fund would also technically be subject to the Investment Company Act of 1940.  Most hedge funds utilize either the 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) exemption from registration under the ICA.  In general this will not wildly change the fund’s offering documents, but it will be an item that needs to be addressed.

What if the cryptocurrencies are not deemed to be securities?

If the fund only invests in assets that are not securities, then the investment advisory regulatory regime does not apply.  This means there would be no regulatory requirement for an audit (assuming no CFTC regulations apply) and the manager could charge performance fees to non-qualified clients.  The Investment Company Act would also not apply which means that the fund would be able to have more than 99 investors.  The fund would, however, still be limited to 35 non-accredited investors over the life of the fund to maintain the 506 exemption under the Securities Act.

What about state regulations and New York’s BitLicense registration requirement?

Outside of the investment advisory regulations that would be applicable to a manager if the cryptocurrency or token was deemed to be a security, the states don’t really have regulations applicable to bitcoin managers.

With respect to New York’s BitLicense requirement, we believe that currently these regulations are not applicable to the standard bitcoin hedge fund manager who is only buying and selling bitcoin (and other tokens/altcoins) for the fund’s account.  The BitLicense requirements may apply (depending on facts and circumstances) to managers who engage in other aspects of the cryptocurrency industry – such as issuing coins or otherwise acting as an exchange platform.  We expect other states to develop legal and regulatory frameworks similar to New York in the future, and in the event the SEC attempts to shoehorn bitcoin managers into the definition of investment adviser, we believe the states would shortly follow suit.

What about an auditor?  If I have to have an audit, what will that be like and how much will it cost?

In the event a manager engages an auditor, the auditor will be able to discuss the process and procedures that will be employed.  Because there is additional work involved in a bitcoin launch, it is likely that an audit will be more expensive than for a similarly sized fund investing only in publicly traded securities.

There are not many groups who can audit funds in this space.  Some groups can audit in this space, but can only audit major cryptocurrencies. As more groups get into the space and procedures become more defined, we expect that audit prices will eventually come down a bit.

Cryptocurrencies present a number of issues for audit firms including: (1) existence of the asset/currency, (2) control of the asset/currency, and (3) custody.  For many altcoins, the first two issues can be addressed with a review of the blockchain and the manager showing control of the asset by moving it on the blockchain in some manner.  The last issue is potentially more problematic in that the investment management industry is used to a certain definition of custody (holding something) that may not fit within the digital asset space, where control and the ability to utilize an asset is really more of the applicable context.

What about an administrator?

A hedge fund administrator provides certain accounting and other operational functions for the fund like subscription document processing.  Normally the fund administrator will be responsible for calculating NAVs on a monthly/quarterly basis and when investors enter and exit the fund.  They also compute management and performance fees.  Having an administrator is not a regulatory requirement for a cryptocurrency fund, but it is a best practice.  We will note that all of the cryptocurrency funds we have worked with have decided to engage an administration firm.

What about bank accounts?

One to two years ago, there was no issue for a manager to get a bank account for a bitcoin hedge fund.  Since then, bitcoin has become a risk for banks and over the last six months we’ve seen banks fully eschewing this space.  Groups who previously banked bitcoin funds will not bank new funds (although they would continue to maintain existing accounts) and groups who were not in the space are completely staying away.  We have fortunately been introduced to a couple of banks who are now more comfortable with banking cryptocurrency clients.  While these banks can provide the very basic subscription account for funds, there also may be value-added services, especially with respect to transfers to and from exchanges, as well as API integration.

The process to get a bank account is going to be a little longer than for a traditional hedge fund because the bank will complete more due diligence than for a normal fund (i.e., look into the business background of the manager, the proposed investment program, who the investors are, etc).  While these groups are comfortable with the cryptocurrency space in general, they likely will not bank groups who pose even the slightest reputational risk or groups who have had regulatory issues in the past.

What about compliance and outside compliance consultants?

Right now compliance really only applies to the fund structure (as opposed to the manager as would be the case if the manager was an investment adviser).  Fund compliance really just involves the legal requirements related to the Regulation D 506 offering applicable to the issuance of fund interests (e.g. Form D filings, annual updates and amendments, blue sky filings, etc).

Compliance related to the management of a cryptocurrency portfolio is really nonexistent.  We would expect that the managers would adhere to normal anti-fraud provisions, and a best practice would be to have certain business continuity plans and other standard fund management policies and procedures, even if there is no outside regulatory requirement.  Some groups have asked us about setting up compliance programs in anticipation of future compliance needs and we think this is a good idea.  Either a law firm or a compliance consulting firm would be able to draft a compliance manual for the needs of a cryptocurrency fund manager.

What about ICOs?

As of right now, there are no extra regulatory requirements around participation in initial coin offerings (ICOs).  We believe that this will change in the future.

What are some common terms of bitcoin funds?

The biggest questions are around lock ups and liquidity.  In general most managers will tend to want to provide less liquidity than investors are looking for and some managers have thought about instituting gate provisions, especially if the investment program is focused on smaller altcoins that may have less liquidity.  We are also seeing a number of managers who would like to allow in-kind contributions and distributions, which will implicate certain tax regulations.

How is bitcoin taxed?

The IRS addressed this issue in 2014 when it released Notice 2014-21, IRS Virtual Currency Guidance.  Right now most cryptocurrencies (and other “virtual currencies”) are treated as property and subject to the normal tax principles regarding property.  This means that dispositions of virtural currencies will result in short-term or long-term capital gains or losses and not foreign currency gains or losses.  Standard ways to determine gain or losses at disposition will apply (for most cryptocurrencies), and we would look to the various exchanges to determine a price of a cryptocurrency at any particular point in time.  This would be important if a manager or other investor in a fund decided to invest in a fund through an in-kind cryptocurrency contribution.

According to Notice 2014-21, bitcoin is deemed to be a “convertible” virtual currency because it has an equivalent value in real currency.  Early this year bitcoin became legal tender in Japan.

What about separately managed accounts or prop trading?

As of right now we do not know of any way to create a traditional separately managed account structure for an investment in cryptocurrencies.  In a SMA structure in the traditional securities space the client will typically establish a brokerage account at a large broker (Schwab, Fidelity, etc) and the manager will be given power of attorney to trade the account.  The relationship is governed by some kind of advisory agreement laying out the fees and term of the relationship.  Typically the brokers will have a way for the manager to have trading only access to the client’s account.  We do not believe that any of the exchanges currently have this functionality.  We anticipate that sometime after the regulatory agencies implement a regulatory structure that the exchanges will create mechanisms to implement such relationships on their platforms.

Other Items 

We anticipate writing about the following soon in some fashion:

  • Creating structures to allow funds to invest on exchanges that do not allow U.S. persons
  • Creating structures to allow funds to invest on exchanges that do not allow New York persons
  • Third party marketing in the cryptocurrency space
  • Using the ICO process to launch a private fund
  • Issues around Regulation D, including the Bad Actor regulations

Final Notes

Please reach out if you have questions on any of the above.  We will continue to update as we run into more issues and common questions.

****

Bart Mallon is a founding partner of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP. Cole-Frieman & Mallon has been instrumental in structuring the launches of some of the first digital currency-focused hedge funds. For more information on this topic, please contact Mr. Mallon directly at 415-868-5345.