New York State has taken measures this year to modernize its approach to regulation for blockchain-based companies. Even before Assembly Bill A8783B established a government task force to study the effects of blockchain and digital assets on financial markets in the state, in October, the New York State Department of Financial Services (“NYSDFS”) announced that it would allow companies engaged in “virtual currency business activity” (as defined in the New York State “BitLicense” requirements) to utilize the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System and Registry (“NMLS”) to apply for, update, and renew their operating licenses, including BitLicenses. The NMLS was created in 2008 by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors to act as a central licensing repository and has expanded over the past decade from servicing non-bank mortgage companies to including a variety of non-bank firms. The system is intended to allow for enhanced supervision, as license applications and registrations can be managed by a number of governmental agencies through NMLS. In addition to businesses engaged in virtual currency business activity, other nonbank financial institutions currently under the oversight of the NMLS platform include licensed check cashing companies, budget planners, sales finance agencies, money transmitter licensees, and mortgage providers. Continue Reading
On December 10th, 2018, a U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey denied Latium Network, Inc. (“Latium”) and its co-founders’ motion to dismiss a class action alleging violations of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Act”) for offering and selling unregistered securities in the form of Latium X (“LATX”) tokens. Continue Reading
Proskauer authored a Practice Note published by Practical Law, which provides an overview of the use of blockchain and smart contracts in the supply chain context, including the legal issues, concerns, benefits and risks associated with its use. It includes, among other topics, information on key distinctions between public and private blockchains and important considerations regarding the use of blockchain consortia.
The full text of our Practice Note is available here: Practice Note: Blockchain and Supply Chain Management
On November 16, the SEC announced that it settled charges against CarrierEQ, Inc. (“Airfox”) and Paragon Coin, Inc. (“Paragon”) for securities offering registration violations in connection with their respective initial coin offerings (“ICOs”).
The settlement orders represent the first time the SEC has imposed civil penalties against ICO issuers solely for securities offering registration violations (i.e., without any allegations of fraud or misrepresentation) and notably, require Airfox and Paragon to make remedial undertakings that include offers of rescission to token purchasers pursuant to Section 12(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and registering with the SEC under Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The two issuers, both of whom conducted their ICOs in 2017 after the release of the SEC’s DAO Report, will be subject to $250,000 in civil penalties. The settlements were entered into by the companies without any admission or denial of the SEC’s findings.
The full text of the settlement orders are available here:
The SEC recently announced its settlement of charges against boxer Floyd Mayweather and producer DJ Khaled for their failure to disclose payments they received for promoting Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) on their social media accounts.
The federal securities laws contain an “anti-touting provision,” which regulates paid promotions of securities offerings. Specifically, Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 makes it unlawful for a person to “publish, give publicity to, or circulate any notice…or communication which, though not purporting to offer a security for sale, describes such security for a consideration received or to be received…without fully disclosing the receipt, whether past or prospective, of such consideration and the amount thereof.” Importantly, the provision applies even to those not directly offering a security for sale. The SEC’s orders instituting cease-and-desist proceedings against Mayweather and Khaled both cited violations of Section 17(b).
According to the charges, Mayweather failed to disclose $300,000 he received from three ICO issuers. He received $100,000 from Centra Tech Inc. for posting on his social media accounts that “Centra’s…ICO starts in a few hours. Get yours before they sell out, I got mine and as usual I’m going to win big with this one!” Mayweather promoted ICOs on his social media accounts a number of other times and even dubbed himself “Floyd Crypto Mayweather” in one post (not to be confused with his usual moniker, Floyd “Money” Mayweather). Khaled also received $50,000 from Centra for posts calling Centra an “ultimate winner” and a “game changer.” Centra has been the subject of its own SEC scrutiny, with the SEC filing a civil action against Centra’s founders and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York filing corresponding criminal charges. Continue Reading
Uncertainty regarding the compatibility of blockchain technology and the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has often been highlighted as a potential obstacle to the development and widespread implementation of blockchain systems involving personal data.
To address tensions between blockchain technology and the GDPR, Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL), the French data protection regulator, published an initial report analyzing certain fundamental questions regarding the interaction between blockchain technology and the GDPR’s requirements (the “Report”). The Report was the first guidance issued by a European data protection regulator on this topic.
CNIL’s Approach to Identifying Blockchain Data Controllers and Data Processors
The Report highlights the challenges of identifying data controllers and data processors in the blockchain context – an important distinction that determines which set of regulatory obligations applies.
In discussing the likely classification of the various types of persons and entities involved in a blockchain, the CNIL primarily distinguished between (i) participants (i.e., those who transact on the blockchain) that have the ability to determine what data will be entered into a blockchain or have permission to write on it or cause data to be written to it, and (ii) miners or other validators (i.e., those who do not transact and instead validate transactions submitted by participants). The CNIL also provided an analysis as to how to classify smart contract developers and natural persons who enter personal data in a blockchain, distinguishing, with respect to the latter, between those engaging in personal or household activities and those engaging in professional or commercial activities. Continue Reading
Today, Ohio reportedly becomes the first US state to allow taxes to be paid in the form of bitcoin. Although the program, which is spearheaded by Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel, will not be available to individual taxpayers until a later time, businesses operating in Ohio are now able to register on OhioCrypto.com to pay 23 types of Ohio state taxes using bitcoin.
In the Office of the Ohio Treasurer’s own words, this initiative represents Treasurer Mandel’s belief “in leveraging cutting-edge technology to provide Ohioans more options and ease while interfacing with state government. The Treasurer’s office is also working to help make Ohio a national leader in blockchain technology.”
Bitcoin tax payments submitted on OhioCrypto.com will be processed through BitPay, a payment processing service provider, which will convert the bitcoin into US Dollars and then remit the cash to Ohio’s coffers. To address bitcoin market price volatility, BitPay reportedly will lock the exchange rate for a 15-minute window once a business begins the payment process. The Ohio website’s FAQs indicate the Treasurer’s intention to add other cryptocurrencies to the tax payment options in the future.
As we noted in an earlier post, the making of a payment using digital assets such as bitcoin can itself be a taxable event, a consideration which businesses should factor into their analysis of whether (and when) to take advantage of Ohio’s new option.