New CLO of TrustToken on the Hectic Cryptocurrency Regulatory Environment, Outside Counsel Needs
TrustToken's Alex C. Levine recently spoke about his company, its regulatory challenges and what he looks for in outside counsel.
September 25, 2018 at 06:21 PM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
Alex C. Levine recently was named chief regulatory officer and head of legal for TrustToken Inc. based in San Francisco. TrueCoin LLC, a subsidiary of TrustToken, is the issuer of TrueUSD, a stable-value cryptocurrency (stablecoin) tied one-to-one to the U.S. dollar.
Levine, 40, has been a regulatory attorney and executive focusing on securities and derivatives law, and more recently on cryptocurrency, for more than 15 years. He has held senior-level legal posts at the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission during the regulatory response to the financial crisis and rule-making under the Dodd-Frank Act, according to the company.
He also has been chief compliance officer and head of legal at LedgerX, a derivatives exchange and clearinghouse for cryptocurrencies; and general counsel and chief compliance officer of the hedge fund Gladius Capital Management LP.
Levine, who has a law degree from Stanford University Law School and a master's degree in business administration from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, began his career as an associate at Kirkland & Ellis. He recently spoke to The Recorder affiliate Corporate Counsel about his company, its regulatory challenges and what he looks for in outside counsel. This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
Corporate Counsel: TrustToken Inc. is a one-to-one stable dollar cryptocurrency launched earlier this year, similar to Gemini Trust and Paxos Trust offerings that were recently licensed by the New York Department of Financial Services. What is the principal advantage of your product?
Alex C. Levine: Since we do not run an exchange, we have the ability to list in any exchange globally that would like to have our product. As a result of that agnostic change characteristic, we have a broader reach globally.
Who would be interested in this?
Traders in general looking to get in or get out of more volatile (cryptocurrency) like bitcoin or ethereum. This provides the ability to execute arbitrage or seek a safe haven. It provides the ability to use cryptocurrencies without having to constantly move in and out through a more cumbersome process.
How is TrustToken regulated?
The issuer of TrueUSD, TrueCoin LLC, has been registered and licensed since March 2018 as a Money Services Business with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, which is a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. No other registrations or licenses have been obtained as of yet. The issuer of TrueUSD has not registered with, nor sought to obtain, a BitLicense with the New York State Department of Financial Services, because no business occurs in New York and no purchases or redemptions are allowed by New York residents.
What legal or regulatory challenges does TrustToken face?
For companies within the blockchain-cryptocurrency space, such as TrustToken, the greatest regulatory challenge is the myriad of competing and developing regulatory requirements from different jurisdictions. Currently, U.S. regulators such as the SEC, CFTC, FinCEN, and OCC at the federal level, along with financial departments at 50 states plus territories, all have purview over cryptocurrency. Also, given the borderless nature of cryptocurrencies, there are scores of additional regulators in countries across the world, especially in Europe and Asia, that are developing their own regulatory regimes.
To state the obvious, all these regulatory bodies have competing interests and viewpoints. From a legal risk-management perspective, this makes it very difficult to cognize an overall regulatory framework for cryptocurrency, and to institute change-management procedures that can proactively respond to new regulations.
Is it difficult to find legal talent to deal with cryptocurrency?
I think it is. It is a very new area and we are figuring it out as we go. A lawyer with 50 years of experience may not be able to add any more value than one with five years' experience. There is the issue of finding people who are steeped in the space. That can be difficult. And it brings together a lot of issues that have never been brought together. For crypto, the SEC and CFTC are both regulators with jurisdictional hooks. You have lawyers who are SEC or CFTC experts and they can give you an answer, but they don't tell you what the other regulators think. So in a sense, the lawyers who are steeped in both regulatory worlds are very few. It's hard to get that perspective on how it's tied together.
On whom do you rely for outside legal counsel?
I rely on Katten Muchin Rosenman and Gary de Waal, who has deep expertise in this space. Also Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe for corporate structuring in the U.S. and elsewhere; the partner we have been working with is Joseph Perkins.
What kind of background or expertise is useful in virtual currency lawyers?
A technical or finance background is helpful, but lawyers who think about things from risk-management and finance perspective are most helpful. Before the crypto boom, talking to a regulator was a bad thing but now you want to proactively engage regulators.
What drew you to this niche as a career?
I found it intellectually to be a challenge … the whole intellectual and logical formulation around crypto was fascinating. Having the opportunity to do that, and combine intellectual curiosity and the regulatory [aspect]. The crypto regulatory world is moving at extraordinary speed, compared to what the regulatory world usually does. I don't think that happens but once in a generation or once in a lifetime. It makes me excited to get up to work every day. That is what drew me here and is keeping me here.
Finally, how would you as a chief legal officer like to see the regulatory hurdles or challenges of cryptocurrency companies like yours be addressed?
The best ways for this to be addressed would be threefold, with the goal of fostering consistency of regulation and expertise within regulatory bodies for addressing a maturing cryptocurrency landscape.
First, within the United States, many of the competing regulatory issues that exist between the federal and state regulators could be solved if Congress updates the current securities and commodities laws to assert jurisdiction at the federal level over spot transactions in cryptocurrency.
Second, until Congress takes such action—if ever—regulators in the United States could work together to share expertise and engage the crypto industry to ensure, at the very least, that the multiple regulatory frameworks are not at odds with each other.
Third, regulators across the globe could come together and agree on a set of principles to guide the creation of regulatory frameworks in different jurisdictions to adopt regulatory best practices. That would ensure consistency in the principles guiding their design, similar to the international standards put forth in the Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures issued by the Bank for International Settlements.
Read more:
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 All'A World of Credit': Ex-FTX Executive Gary Wang Sentenced to Time Served Following Cooperation
Inside Track: How 2 Big Financial Stories—an Antitrust Case and a Megamerger—Became Intertwined
FTC Sues Cash-Advance Fintech Dave, Says It Deceives the 'Financially Vulnerable'
'Absurd Costs'?: Visa Faces Antitrust Class-Action Surge Following DOJ Complaint
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Attorneys ‘On the Move’: Morrison Cohen Adds White Collar Partner; Corporate/Securities Partner Joins Olshan
- 2Jury Says $118M: Netlist Wins Another Patent Verdict Against Samsung
- 3Big Law Communications, Media Attorneys Brace For Changes Under Trump
- 4Will England Accept that Digital Assets Are ‘Property’?
- 5Congress and Courts Are Considering Litigation Financing: Is Disclosure Imminent?
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