Dapper Labs: A 'Private' Joke or Much Ado About Nothing?
Friel v. Dapper Labs is important to the NFT industry because the Securities and Exchange Commission has refrained from providing formal guidance on this very question. The procedural posture of the decision, however, including certain oddities underlying its rationale, likely limits its substantive significance.
May 15, 2023 at 12:15 PM
8 minute read
Special SectionsThe Southern District of New York recently issued the first opinion addressing whether nonfungible tokens (NFTs) are securities under the Securities Act of 1933. Friel v. Dapper Labs, 2023 WL 2162747 (2023), is important to the NFT industry because the Securities and Exchange Commission has refrained from providing formal guidance on this very question. The procedural posture of the decision, however, including certain oddities underlying its rationale, likely limits its substantive significance.
The court denied Dapper Labs' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for failure to register "Moments" NFTs as securities under Section 5 of the Securities Act. Moments are part of "NBA Top Shot," a blockchain marketplace for digital collectibles established by Dapper Labs and the National Basketball Association. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's Securities and Exchange Commission. v. Howey decision, the complaint asserts that Moments are securities because they involve the plaintiffs' investment of money in a common enterprise with an expectation of profit based on the efforts of others.
The court assumed the truth of the complaint's allegations in assessing whether it states a claim for relief that is "plausible on its face" and "above the speculative level." Friel *6 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).) The court also liberally applied the judicial notice doctrine to rely on external sources in denying the motion but emphasized that "here, it is a close call and the court's decision is narrow." "If there is a defining line separating those offerings that are securities from those that are not, whether Moments qualify toes that line intimately." This is a big "if" about a "defining line" the NFT industry has been anxiously seeking for years. The court, though, specifically avoided defining that line, reiterating twice that its decision "is narrow"—language that litigants, and judges, often rely on to limit a decision to its specific facts and diminish its precedential value.
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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Philadelphia Bar Association Executive Director Announces Retirement
- 2SEC Chair Gary Gensler to Resign on Trump's Inauguration Day
- 3How I Made Partner: 'Develop a Practice Area You Really Care About,' Says Jennifer A. Gniady of Stradley Ronon
- 4Indian Billionaire Gautam Adani Indicted in Brooklyn for Alleged Orchestration of $250 Million Bribery Plot
- 5St. Ivo: Patron Saint of Lawyers
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