securities trading

SEC Chairman Issues warning on ICO’s

  • By:Bennett Jay Yankowitz

In his Opening Remarks at the Securities Regulation Institute on January 22, 2018, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Jay Clayton warned that the SEC is on high alert for ICO’s that are technically structured to avoid being regulated as securities but nevertheless violate the “spirit” of the securities laws.  The following is the exact text of his comments on the SEC’s “expectations for market professionals, particularly when dealing with new products or new forms of old products,” in particular ICO’s:

My first message is simple and a bit stern. Market professionals, especially gatekeepers, need to act responsibly and hold themselves to high standards. To be blunt, from what I have seen recently, particularly in the initial coin offering (“ICO”) space, they can do better.

Our securities laws – and 80 plus years of practice – assume that securities lawyers, accountants, underwriters, and dealers will act responsibly. It is expected that they will bring expertise, judgment, and a healthy dose of skepticism to their work. Said another way, even when the issue presented is narrow, market professionals are relied upon to bring knowledge of the broad legal framework, accounting rules, and the markets to bear.

Legal advice (or in the cases I will cite, the lack thereof) surrounding ICOs helps illustrate this point. Let me posit a few scenarios. First, and most disturbing to me, there are ICOs where the lawyers involved appear to be, on the one hand, assisting promoters in structuring offerings of products that have many of the key features of a securities offering, but call it an “ICO,” which sounds pretty close to an “IPO.” On the other hand, those lawyers claim the products are not securities, and the promoters proceed without compliance with the securities laws, which deprives investors of the substantive and procedural investor protection requirements of our securities laws.

Second are ICOs where the lawyers appear to have taken a step back from the key issues – including whether the “coin” is a security and whether the offering qualifies for an exemption from registration – even in circumstances where registration would likely be warranted. These lawyers appear to provide the “it depends” equivocal advice, rather than counseling their clients that the product they are promoting likely is a security. Their clients then proceed with the ICO without complying with the securities laws because those clients are willing to take the risk.

With respect to these two scenarios, I have instructed the SEC staff to be on high alert for approaches to ICOs that may be contrary to the spirit of our securities laws and the professional obligations of the U.S. securities bar.

I recognize that in some ICOs there is no market professional involved. The SEC is undertaking significant efforts to educate the public that unregistered securities investments offered by unregistered promoters, with no securities lawyers or accountants on the scene, are, in a word, dangerous.

The message is very clear: the SEC will not take kindly to elaborate attempts to disguise a securities offering as a sale of securities “utility tokens.”  In other pronouncements, including the SEC’s July 2017 Report on The Dao, they emphasized that if a token is marketed as an investment with the possibility of significant investment returns, this will be a key consideration in finding that it is a security.

Posted in: ICO Legal Developments