Telegram has pointed to a brand new precedent that would reinforce its argument towards allegations that it has violated US federal securities legal guidelines.
In a letter of March 6 to US lawyer P. Kevin Castel from the southern district of New York, Telegram brought attention in a current case that, in its view, undermines the Safety and Change Fee 's order towards the corporate.
Telegram versus the SEC: abstract of the case
As a reminder, Telegram has been embroiled in a authorized battle with the SEC since this one investigation in Telegram & # 39; s enormous success final October 2018 $ 1.7 billion initial coin offer for the Telegram Open Community (TON).
The makers of Telegram had anticipated his ICO archived a & # 39; Notification of exemption from providing securities & # 39; – also called a Type D – with the SEC for the primary spherical of its supply, adopted by a second such notification in March. The precise exemption utilized by Telegram, kind D 506 (c), authorized the supply is barely offered to licensed buyers.
Nonetheless, the SEC selected to analyze Telegram on the bottom that, as soon as Telegram had delivered Grams to its unique patrons, they might resell billions of tokens on the open market to the investing public.
In line with the company, the construction of the personal supply inspired the event of a secondary market previous to the launch of the TON blockchain, on account of which the SEC declared the supply unlawful and issued a short lived restrictive order for issuing tokens.
Telegram's new argument
Telegram refers to a current one in its letter from Friday March 3 ruling on the California Court docket of Enchantment, Second Division – one which has little to do with crypto, however entails a authorized battle over a partnership for renovating and leasing house in a constructing in downtown Los Angeles.
In line with Telegram, the judgment of the California courtroom within the case offered by the claimant – "Siry Funding" – helps Telegram's place towards the SEC.
Telegram states that there are similarities between the language used within the buy settlement for its personal Gram tokens and that used within the Siry partnership settlement. Telegram wrote:
"As in Siry, these (Gram) provisions present that the financial actuality of the personal placement was to not distribute securities to the general public in violation of US securities legal guidelines."
As a substitute, Telegram continues, "these provisions replicate uncertainty about that query and a transparent want to not enter into transactions that might topic them to securities legal guidelines – an odd consequence if the events (Grams) already thought of safety."
Though Telegram and the SEC agree that the personal placements of Telegram ICO had been a certainty, they disagree with the SEC's view that not solely the acquisition agreements, but in addition Gram tokens are securities themselves.
Right here too, Telegram refers back to the Siry case to assist its arguments that Gram tokens shouldn’t be thought of as such:
"The acquisition agreements comprise specific provisions that (i) the efficiency of the acquisition settlement doesn’t" violate any judgment, statute, rule or regulation that applies to it "or" violates any legislation, regulation, or regulatory coverage that will applies to the acquisition, and (ii) every purchaser assured that he can solely promote Grams "in accordance with relevant securities legal guidelines and the phrases of this buy settlement."
The SEC, for its half, disputed Telegram's arguments and submitted a letter to the courtroom on 9 March. The fee said that Telegram's argument "proceed the false and in the end deadly dependence on defendants" corporations "persistent makes an attempt to obscure the true financial actuality and situations of the transactions concerned on this case by pointing to authorized statements."