6 Law Professors File amicus briefs refuting SEC's 'investment contract' theory in Coinbase case

Odaily Planet Daily News cryptocurrency lawyer James Murphy (aka MetaLawMan) said on Twitter that law professors from Yale University, University of Chicago, UCLA, Fordham University, Boston University, and Widener University have recently submitted A friend-of-the-court brief in favor of Coinbase completely smashes the US SEC's "investment contract" theory. This amicus brief traces the history of the meaning of an "investment contract" before, during, and after the passage of the federal securities laws of 1933. Here are the scholars' conclusions: 1. "By 1933, state courts had developed a standard interpreting the term 'investment contract' to mean a contractual arrangement entitle the investor to a contractual share of the seller's future revenues, profits, or assets." 2. After the Howey decision in 1946, "the common thread [of investment contracts] remained that ... the investor must be promised a continuing contractual interest in the revenues, profits, or assets of the business by virtue of his investment." 3. "Every 'investment contract' identified by the Supreme Court involves a contractual promise to award remaining shares in a business." Murphy concluded: “In my view, this amicus brief provides the coup de grace to the SEC’s argument that transactions in cryptographic tokens on the secondary market are investment contracts.” News from yesterday, including Blockchain Association, Crypto Council for Innovation, Chamber of Digital Commerce, DeFi Education Fund, Chamber of Progress, A total of six briefings were submitted by lobbying groups including the Consumer Technology Association, venture capital firms such as a16z crypto and Paradigm, and six academics (not including US Senator Cynthia Lummis).