In a significant move, Coinbase, a prominent cryptocurrency exchange, has submitted a brief to the court, urging the dismissal of the ongoing case brought against them by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
The Chief Legal Officer at Coinbase, Paul Grewal,stated thattheir core argument revolves around the fact that they do not offer “investment contracts” as defined by decades of established legal precedent, including Supreme Court decisions.
Today, @coinbase filed our brief asking the Court to dismiss the SEC’s case against us. Our core argument is simple — we do not offer “investment contracts” as that term has been construed by decades of Supreme Court and other binding precedent. 1/3 https://t.co/r2EkDgkEuc
— paulgrewal.eth (@iampaulgrewal) August 4, 2023
Coinbase Asserts Commodity Sales, Not Contracts
According to thefiled court document, Coinbase’s legal team argues that the SEC’s allegations lack grounds due to their disregard for established legal interpretations. They maintain that the SEC’s stance violates due process, exceeds its discretion, and contradicts its own past interpretations of securities laws. Coinbase asserts that the court’s impartial consideration is essential to the resolution of this matter.
The heart of Coinbase’s argument lies in its contention that the transactions facilitated over its platform do not involve investment contracts. They emphasize that the tokens traded on their platform are not “investment contracts” within the meaning of the law, as these transactions do not meet the established criteria of contractual undertakings for future value delivery.
Coinbase contends that the transactions are, in fact, commodity sales, where both parties obligations are fully met once the digital tokens are exchanged for payment.
The legal filing delves into historical precedent, referencing the famous Howey Test, which defines an “investment contract” as an arrangement where an individual invests in an enterprise with the expectation of profits derived solely from the efforts of others.
Coinbase argues that the tokens traded on their platform cannot be classified as “investment contracts” since they lack the necessary contractual elements. This is because purchasers do not possess contractual rights to receive future value.
Furthermore, Coinbase disputes the Securities and Exchange Commission’s stance that a mere “scheme” lacking a contractual commitment could be considered an investment contract. The company emphasizes that this current position contradicts previous interpretations by the SEC and fails to align with established legal precedent.
Coinbase’s legal team makes a case for dismissing the SEC’s claims by highlighting the absence of investment contracts, a crucial aspect in relation to the Exchange Act. They assert that transactions conducted on their platform pertaining to commodity sales lack the necessary contractual obligations for future value delivery.
However, the potential consequences of this outcome extend beyond immediate effects by shaping the regulatory framework for cryptocurrency trading platforms and influencing how investment contracts are defined in the digital asset domain.
Related Reading | TRON and Optimism Face Tough Competition – VC Spectra’s Reign Begins
