Crypto Not So Cryptic: Southern District Applies Traditional Securities Law Analysis to Digital Currency
Although the 'Owen' decision is detailed and carefully reasoned, it is perhaps most notable for its relative straightforwardness. For all that hype that technologies like blockchain get as "disruptors" requiring new legal paradigms, sometimes the existing legal regime works just as well.
January 14, 2022 at 12:00 PM
12 minute read
It is a common complaint, from inventors and lawyers alike, that the law tends to have trouble keeping up with new technologies, especially when they become widespread and assimilated in unexpected ways. It is certainly true that applying decades old statutes in new contexts can present substantial challenges. But sometimes, once the tech trappings are stripped away from the latest shiny new thing, courts find a familiar structure underneath and the applicable law becomes more clear.
An example of this arose recently in the world of crypto. The term "crypto" refers to a class of digital assets (including cryptocurrencies and non-fungible tokens or NFTs) backed by an unalterable digital ledger called a "blockchain". No single person or entity controls the blockchain—it is "distributed" among multiple servers—and every transaction in the associated asset is recorded on it. It is functionally impossible to alter, delete, or destroy records once they are entered on the blockchain. In theory, this system permits the creation of a digital asset that can be tied to an "owner" (who may remain anonymous) and never counterfeited. A "cryptocurrency" (such as Bitcoin) is a digital asset backed by a blockchain, intended for use as an investment or to purchase goods and services. (Other systems, such as NFTs, attempt to use blockchain technology to guarantee "uniqueness" of a digital object or backstop intellectual property or contractual rights.)
At first glance, cryptocurrency would seem to present many of the classic difficulties faced by courts assessing new technologies. It is generally a purely non-tangible asset, often developed by companies or individuals with limited presence in the United States. Many cryptocurrencies are designed to be untraceable or anonymous, and transactions in them are, by definition, highly distributed—spread out over computers and servers around the world. Courts must therefore ask some basic questions: where are cryptocurrencies "located?" Where do transactions involving them take place, and where can they be regulated? These new assets also present definitional questions: what is cryptocurrency and which legacy statutes apply to it? Is it a currency? A commodity? A security? What form of regulation is most applicable to this new construct?
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
Bank of America's Cash Sweep Program Attracts New Legal Fire in Class Action
3 minute readDOJ: TD Bank Agrees to Pay $3B Over Anti-Money Laundering Program Violations
2 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250