[PDF] Securities Regulation And Initial Coin Offerings eBook

Author : Philipp Maume
Publisher :
Page : 44 pages
File Size : 38,77 MB
Release : 2019
Category :
ISBN :

GET BOOK

Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) are currently the hottest topic in the financial markets. They typically use blockchain technology to offer so-called 'tokens' that can confer various rights. Experts estimate that the amount of money raised via ICOs will reach US$ 20 billion by the end of 2018. Commentators have described the ICO bonanza as a new gold rush. Nevertheless, the legal framework for ICOs remains unclear because traditional securities regulation is designed for classical securities that are traded on a stock exchange. In late 2017, the US Securities and Exchange Commission released two statements that highlighted that tokens may be subject to US securities regulation if they meet the requirements for 'investment contract' as laid out in the Howey test. However, regulators in Asia and Europe remain quite vague on the issue. In this article we analyze the legal framework for ICOs in the European Union. It is our view that investment tokens (including hybrid tokens with some investment functions) are 'transferable securities' under Directive 2014/65/EU on Markets in Financial Instruments. Despite resting on a highly dissimilar definition, the financial markets law of the European Union, if applied correctly, applies to token classifications - this is comparable with the US Securities and Exchange Commission's approach. The result would be a similar framework in two of the most vibrant regions for ICOs. It would be a first step towards a harmonized application of securities laws to ICOs, avoiding regulatory patchwork and a possible 'race to the bottom'

Author : Oscar Bruderer
Publisher :
Page : pages
File Size : 24,25 MB
Release : 2019
Category :
ISBN :

GET BOOK

Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) have been gaining popularity as an alternate way of funding through the issuance of tokens on a blockchain network. While this new technology has the potential to fundamentally alter the way in which the capital market operates, there is a lot of confusion as to what a token actually is and how it should be regulated. Since the tokens used in ICOs come in a variety of shapes and sizes, their status under securities laws is often unclear. For this reason, this paper will investigate whether different types of tokens used in ICOs fall under the definition of a security under Swiss, EU, and U.S. securities laws in order to ultimately determine how they should be regulated in the U.S. Based on legal analysis, we find that while the three nations define a security differently, they all struggle to set the boundaries in the case of utility tokens. Whereas Switzerland has the clearest regulation in this regard, U.S. securities laws are by far the most ambiguous when it comes to defining the legal status of a utility token. Finally, for tokens that meet the definition of a security, this paper argues that current securities regulations in the U.S. are not apt for facilitating the growth of ICOs. Therefore, the Securities and Exchange Commission should: (1) provide more clarity as to how they will regulate token sales, (2) create a safe harbor for token exchanges, and (3) create an exemption for token sales. Not doing so would prompt issuers from leaving to another jurisdiction which would make ICOs harder to regulate, chill innovation, and cause the U.S. to lose their spot as a global hub for this new form of raising capital.

Author : Dominika Nestarcova
Publisher : BRILL
Page : 177 pages
File Size : 10,86 MB
Release : 2019-09-02
Category : Law
ISBN : 9004416587

GET BOOK

A Critical Appraisal of Initial Coin Offerings: Lifting the “Digital Token’s Veil” examines the merits of regulating initial coin offerings under traditional securities regulations and provides and in-depth analysis of digital tokens as a new asset class.

Author : Massimiliano Caruso
Publisher : Singulab
Page : 22 pages
File Size : 50,97 MB
Release : 2019-02-11
Category : Law
ISBN : 1796623792

GET BOOK

The rise of crypto-assets and crypto-assets corporate finance transactions – like Initial Coin Offerings, Security Token Offerings, Initial Exchange Offerings, and respective variants – are disrupting the way companies raise funds. At the same time the sudden rise of crypto finance transactions has created unprecedented challenges for regulators, financial market authorities, corporate finance lawyers and professionals. Crypto-assets corporate finance transactions are essentially borderless, global and interconnected. Their borderless nature was the core inspiration of this work. This book, indeed, is an attempt to address to a comparative and functional analysis of crypto-assets corporate finance transactions. I believe it’s neutral, international, functional and short. It’s neutral because while it’s true that the variety of crypto-assets necessitates a case-by-case analysis, it’s unquestionable that some types and hybrid forms of crypto-assets fall within existing securities laws and regulations. Securities offerings, however, are highly regulated in most developed jurisdictions, while, by contrast, the rapid rise of these crypto-assets corporate finance transactions is very likely nothing else than a mere market response to overregulation. It has to be noted that: (i) regulations should be technologically neutral, and in order to become so, address the actors and not the products themselves; (ii) far too often (non-accredited, non-qualified, non-sophisticated) investors are denied the opportunity to invest in new and promising technologies and in new companies — all which undermine productive capital formation and economic growth; (iii) crypto finance transactions are part of a self-contained system and this unique context requires to carefully weigh competing goals – protecting investors (that can lead to a larger and healthier crypto finance environment) while promoting capital raising and economic liberty. This is why these crypto-assets should be treated as a new type of asset whose use – currently falling within existing regulations – should be governed by new and ad hoc regulations, above all in the securities field, in order not to disregard their unique operational and technological features. Existing securities rules and best practices are frequently nonsensical or even counterproductive in the context of many crypto finance transactions. Regulation is certainly necessary to allow crypto-assets and crypto- assets corporate finance transactions to achieve their potential, but the regulatory system should have an appropriate balance and a high degree of clarity. I believe, however, optimal regulatory structures will emerge and converge over time. The final part of the book, then, sketches some proposals for regulators – based on a weighted approach – that, if adopted, would enhance legal certainty and seek to balance support for innovation and investor protection. It’s international because it contains summary information on the securities law regimes in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, EU / EAA (Austria, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Norway, United Kingdom), Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, Nigeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, United States, including the principal prospectus exemptions and private placements rules in each jurisdiction. Securities offerings are highly regulated and significant civil and criminal penalties can be incurred as a result of offerings which are not authorized by the relevant authorities or compliant with the applicable securities regime. There are good reasons why similar measures have arisen in the wider corporate world over time – to ensure a sustainable ecosystem with resources directed at better quality projects, to ensure that bad actors are (to the extent possible) eliminated, and to ensure that legal and professional risks are mitigated by a better balance between the interests of all stakeholders. This is why crypto-assets corporate finance transactions falling within existing securities laws and regulations can’t be conducted assuming the law doesn’t exist – in the meantime specific regulations arise. Also, while the lack of widely accepted global standards has led to a great deal of regulatory arbitrage, as crypto-assets issuers shop for jurisdictions with the lightest touch (or no touch), I believe they should not attempt to flee from regulation. By contrast, they should talk with financial market authorities. It’s functional because with regard to crypto-assets with real intrinsic usage (non- speculative crypto-assets) this book discusses how a proactive self-regulation, ethical human behaviors, rigorous due diligence, improved governance, disclosure, investors protection and accountability measures could be applied to lead to better quality Initial Coin Offerings, a more sustainable fundraising environment for all the parties involved and mitigate risks due to regulatory uncertainty. At the same I propose (and encourage the adoption of) a Corporate Crypto Conduct Code for businesses in this space. It’s short because my project in writing this book is to give a quick framework for understanding the most important securities law regimes. This book is not intended to be an exhaustive guide to the regulation of crypto-assets corporate finance transaction globally or in any of the included jurisdictions. Instead, for each jurisdiction, I have endeavored to provide a sufficient overview for the reader to understand the current legal and regulatory environment. I hope that it remains short enough to attract the readers I would like to reach: (i) my colleagues in international business and corporate law and related legal fields (who can start from these frameworks to make a more detailed analysis of the securities laws in the core jurisdictions summarized in this book); (ii) regulators and lawmakers (with the hope they will find this book a helpful guide to develop new strategies, policies and regulations); (iii) crypto-assets issuers (with the hope they understand the importance of being compliant with the law – even if and when, on the spot, it seems economically irrational – and the reasons why the current measures have arisen in the wider corporate world over time).

Author : Aurelio Gurrea-Martínez
Publisher :
Page : 44 pages
File Size : 14,33 MB
Release : 2020
Category :
ISBN :

GET BOOK

The rise of new technologies is changing the way companies raise funds. Along with the recent increase of crowdfunding in the past years, a new form of funding has emerged more recently: the use of Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs). In 2017, companies raised more than $4 billion through ICOs in the United States, and more than $17billion has been raised during the first three quarters of 2018. In a typical ICO, a company raises cryptocurrencies giving some rights in return. The different nature and features of these rights, known as “tokens”, are generating many controversies among securities regulators around the world. Namely, it is not clear whether and, if so, when these tokens should comply with securities law. Securities regulators are addressing this issue in a very different manner across jurisdictions: while countries like the United States, Switzerland and Singapore are requiring companies to comply with existing securities rules only when a company issues “security tokens”, other jurisdictions, such as China and South Korea, have prohibited ICOs, and Mexico subject any issuance of tokens to a system of full control ex ante. Nevertheless, ICOs not only generate these challenges for securities regulators. They also arise many other issues from an accounting, finance, corporate governance, data protection, anti-money laundry and insolvency law perspective. By providing a comparative and interdisciplinary analysis of ICOs, our paper seeks to provide regulators and policy-makers with a set of recommendations to deal with ICOs in a way that may promote innovation and firms' access to finance without harming investor protection, market integrity and the stability of the financial system.

Author : James J. Park
Publisher :
Page : 36 pages
File Size : 10,2 MB
Release : 2020
Category :
ISBN :

GET BOOK

In addressing the problem of unregistered sales of digital tokens through initial coin offerings (ICOs), the SEC has proceeded through a strategy we call Regulation by Selective Enforcement. Rather than impose penalties on a significant number of violators, the SEC has brought a small number of significant cases. The SEC issued several extensive settlement releases that established without court intervention regulatory guidance about when ICO tokens are securities. The SEC has been able to pursue this strategy in part because there are multiple enforcers of the securities laws. State regulators and private plaintiffs have brought a significant number of cases against fraudulent ICOs, permitting the SEC to focus on developing issues of national importance. We conclude that while the SEC's Regulation by Selective Enforcement strategy has been thoughtful and successful, some aspects of the agency's approach are problematic.

Author : Marco Dell'Erba
Publisher :
Page : 52 pages
File Size : 17,3 MB
Release : 2019
Category :
ISBN :

GET BOOK

This Article analyzes the way the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has enforced securities laws with regard to Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs). In a speech held in 2016, the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Chairman Christopher Giancarlo emphasized the similarities between the advent of the blockchain technology and the internet era, and referred to the “do no harm” approach as the best way to regulate blockchain technology. The “do no harm” approach was implemented in the 1990s' by the Clinton administration at the beginning of the Internet Era, when regulators fully supported technological innovations without stifling them with burdensome rules.The Article suggests that the SEC adopted a “do no harm approach” and successfully pursued two of its fundamental institutional goals when enforcing securities laws in the context of ICOs: investor protection and preservation of capital formation. After providing a brief description of the basics of ICOs and the way they evolved in the last two years, this Article examines the stages of the transition towards the new phase of full enforcement action implemented by the SEC. The shift from inactivity to enforcement was gradual, characterized by clearly identifiable steps. Data on ICOs demonstrates that this rigorous enforcement of securities laws has not damaged the industry in the U.S. and may suggest that entrepreneurs have adapted to this enforcement approach. By contrast, a lack of enforcement would probably have increased uncertainty to the detriment of investors and entrepreneurs and put the U.S. at a disadvantage in the international arena. Furthermore, the paper emphasizes the importance to pursue specific goals in the short-to-medium term, in particular to make securities regulation uniform and avoid differences at the state and federal levels, and to encourage industry authorities such as Self-Regulatory Organizations (SROs) to develop high standards for self-regulation.

Author : Thijs Maas
Publisher :
Page : 77 pages
File Size : 37,89 MB
Release : 2019
Category :
ISBN :

GET BOOK

This article presents a comparative analysis of the application of US and EU securities laws to initial coin offerings (ICOs), or token sales. An extensive token taxonomy framework is proposed to categorize digital assets in order to advance a more precise discussion on the legal classification and regulation of tokens. For the US, a full analysis of the application of the Howey test to different types of tokens gives insight into classification of tokens as a security (“investment contract”) under Section 2(a)(1) of the US Securities Act of 1933 and 3(a)(10) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The analysis shows that most, if not all, so-called utility tokens can be classified as a security in the US. A possible 'sufficiency-of-decentralization-test' is also explored, while taking prior case law and the multiple dimensions of decentralization of blockchain projects into account. For EU financial law, the analysis in this paper focuses on the classification of tokens as 'transferable securities' under Art. 4(1)(44) of MIFiD II. The analysis shows that, in contrast to the US, pure utility tokens might not be deemed transferable securities under the EU securities regime. Across EU Member States however, large differences exist in terms of the legal classification of most tokens, which result from the freedom provided to EU Member States in transposing the MIFiD II definition of transferable securities into national law. The analysis in this paper provides insight into the two main approaches adhered to by EU Member States in the implementation of this definition, as well as their consequences for the legal classification of tokens. Conclusions are subsequently drawn on possible offering strategies adopted by issuers for future token sales and regulatory developments in the US and EU.

Author : James D. Cox
Publisher :
Page : 194 pages
File Size : 11,60 MB
Release : 2006
Category : Business & Economics
ISBN :

GET BOOK

Covers the Offering Rules, the sweeping reforms for the public offering of securities adopted by the SEC in June 2005. This work includes the Dura Pharmaceuticals decision, with note material examining the full implications; examines the developments regarding forward looking statements and the significant Supreme Court decision; and more.