MetaLawMan Profile picture
Mar 6 5 tweets 1 min read
1/ Shocking New Case Filed by the SEC

The SEC has just filed a case alleging that:

Selling crypto mining equipment and offering hosting services for the equipment constitutes an "investment contract" under Howey.

Yes. You read that right.

Here's what you need to know. 👇
2/ The case was filed in federal court in Utah.

Some of the mining machines at issue are Bitcoin Antminers.

To my knowledge, the SEC has NEVER issued guidance (formally or informally) that even hinted that selling mining equipment could be an unregistered securities offering.
3/ Many public companies doing business in the US today are selling mining equipment and offering hosting services right now--

And they have been in this business for years--with no apparent complaint from the SEC.
4/ The SEC's attempt to extend its jurisdiction to sales of mining equipment (with no prior warning) is just the latest in a growing line of cases where the SEC is attempting to stretch beyond its statutory authority.

The overreach is accelerating.

Congress needs to act.
5/ Note: I previously worked with the lawyers representing some of the defendants in the Utah case.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with MetaLawMan

MetaLawMan Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MetaLawMan

Mar 8
I just finished reading Judge Torres' 57-page ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony in SEC v. Ripple.

As a trial lawyer who handled a number of securities cases in the Southern District of New York, I have 5 takeaways from the Judge's Order.
1/ The Judge's rulings on admissibility are legally sound and unlikely to be disturbed on appeal--which is no surprise.

The Judge demonstrates a good grasp of XRP and the related technology and excellent command of the legal issues, claims and defenses in the case.
2/ Both sides (appropriately) pushed the envelope on the expert testimony they wanted to submit, so it is no surprise that both sides had some testimony excluded.

The judge drew the line in a consistent manner, with no bias or leanings or tea leaves discernible to me.
Read 8 tweets
Jan 20
And the worm turns. Again.

1/ The creditors who object to Sullivan & Cromwell serving as Debtors’ counsel have filed an emergency request to delay the hearing scheduled for later this morning.

The reason for the requested delay is the last minute filing by Daniel Friedberg.
2/ The objectors say they had no prior knowledge of Mr. Friedberg’s intent to file the declaration.

And they need time to investigate the shocking allegations Mr. Friedberg has made against Sullivan & Cromwell.
3/ The objectors also say they need to make sure Mr. Friedberg will show up for any hearing on the motion to appoint S&C as Debtors’ counsel.

As noted in my prior thread, if Mr. Friedberg doesn’t show up, S&C would likely move to strike the declaration on the grounds of hearsay.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 19
Well, I just finished reading the Declaration of Daniel Friedberg.

It is fair to say that this is one of the more shocking sworn statements I have read in a good long while.

If half of what Mr. Friedberg says is true, he has just blown the top off of this bankruptcy case.
Let's first just stipulate that there may be some serious credibility issues with Mr. Friedberg.

I don't know whether what he is saying is true, false or somewhere in between.

That being said, here is a list of just some of what he has sworn to:
--FTX has claims for malpractice against Sullivan & Cromwell worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

--Former S&C partner Ryne Miller acted unethically in steering business (including the bankruptcy cases) to S&C.

--FTX US was solvent and should not have filed for bankruptcy.
Read 6 tweets
Jan 19
1/ There's something off with the FTX bankruptcy.

And it's happening tomorrow.

Here's what you should know.
2/ Tomorrow at 10 a.m., Sullivan & Cromwell will be heard on its motion to be appointed Debtors' counsel for FTX.

And John J. Ray is all in favor of this appointment.

And that is weird. Here's why...
3/ Mr. Ray's chief qualification for his current role leading FTX was his work at Enron in the same role.

In all his testimony and affidavits its there--Enron.

And, by all accounts, he did an excellent job aggressively pursuing recoveries for the benefit of Enron's creditors.
Read 10 tweets
Jan 12
8 key takeaways from SBF substack statement.

(Important Caveat: Who knows if anything SBF says is accurate?)

1) When the bankruptcy was filed, FTX.US had excess liquidity (above 1:1 coverage of customer deposits) in the amount of $350 million.
2) FTX.US only held $497 million in customer assets.

3) https://t.co/aUcDOvQEAS was solvent with a significant buffer.

My commentary: It is Possible that parts of this are true. https://t.co/aUcDOvQEAS had subsidiaries that were regulated by US authorities.
4) FTX Trading had about $8 billion in assets when Ray took over.

My commentary: The assets number is in the ballpark of what the Ray team has stated.

Ray has said: $5 billion liquid assets + other FTX ventures with interested bidders + assets held by the Bahamian authorities.
Read 5 tweets
Nov 29, 2022
1/ As a securities trial lawyer, I have cross-examined many conmen and financial fraudsters over the last 30 years.

@andrewrsorkin will have his chance to question SBF on Wednesday.

Here are 6 questions I would ask--but doubt he will.
2/ Stealing Customer Funds

The FTX Terms of Service are very clear that customer assets belong to the customer--not to FTX.

You realize it was illegal for you to misappropriate assets from your customers' accounts, right?
3/ Guilty Parties

Who at FTX or Alameda knew you were taking FTX customer assets and transferring them to Alameda?
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(