As a researcher with a background in securities law and experience following the regulatory landscape of cryptocurrency exchanges, I find the ongoing legal battle between the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Coinbase particularly intriguing. The latest development in this case is the SEC’s opposition to Coinbase’s request for an interlocutory appeal regarding a “controlling question” in the lawsuit.
The SEC has countered Coinbase’s application for an early appeal in their ongoing legal dispute, arguing that the crypto exchange is attempting to manipulate the meaning of a pivotal issue in the case.
“In our May 10 filing with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, we, the Securities and Exchange Commission, made it clear that Coinbase’s efforts to rephrase their issue in a way that fits under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) for expedited appeal are misguided.”
The SEC has made clear once again that Coinbase expresses displeasure towards the Howey Test and the current regulatory framework for securities. In response, Coinbase has opted to structure its business in a manner that may entail greater expenses to abide by existing laws.
“Coinbase just does not like the answer. Having made the weather, Coinbase cannot now complain that it is raining.”
After Coinbase submitted an interlocutory appeal on April 12, they argued that for an investment contract to be valid, there must be a requirement for obligations following the sale.
According to the SEC’s opposing view, the pivotal question of whether Coinbase complies with certain regulations is a matter of dispute and significant importance in determining the final result of this legal case.
The SEC contends that Coinbase is raising this point as a controlling issue because the exchange is unable to clearly define what exactly represents a “contractual obligation” in this context.
The SEC stated that Coinbase has failed to put forward a clear and unified explanation for this issue, which they now argue raises significant questions.
In the past eighty years, no court has required parties to make additional contractual commitments following a sale.
The SEC argued that an interlocutory review is not necessary just because Coinbase presented a novel legal argument that was rejected by the court.
“However, Coinbase’s move to challenge established legal norms with the intention of aligning them to its objectives, lacks a strong justification for expediting the approval of an appeal in this particular case.”
In June 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a lawsuit against Coinbase, accusing the cryptocurrency exchange of breaking federal securities regulations by listing and trading 13 digital tokens that the SEC believed qualified as securities.
As a financial analyst, I would rephrase it this way: From my perspective, Coinbase maintains that the transactions carried out on its platform don’t fall under the definition of securities and thus are exempt from SEC jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the Securities and Exchange Commission holds a contrasting stance on this matter.
The SEC declared in a court filing on March 27 that certain transactions on Coinbase’s platform and associated services fall under the category of “investment contracts,” which have been considered securities under U.S. securities laws for a long time.
Read More
- DOGS PREDICTION. DOGS cryptocurrency
- SQR PREDICTION. SQR cryptocurrency
- LDO PREDICTION. LDO cryptocurrency
- KNINE PREDICTION. KNINE cryptocurrency
- JASMY PREDICTION. JASMY cryptocurrency
- UXLINK PREDICTION. UXLINK cryptocurrency
- METIS PREDICTION. METIS cryptocurrency
- CLOUD PREDICTION. CLOUD cryptocurrency
- STG PREDICTION. STG cryptocurrency
- USD HKD PREDICTION
2024-05-11 07:57