Legal Experts from Top U.S. Law Schools Critique SEC’s Approach in Coinbase Lawsuit

Last updated:
Freelance Journalist
Freelance Journalist
Andrew Throuvalas
Author Categories
About Author

Andrew is a journalist and content writer with a passion for Bitcoin. His work has been featured with Cryptonews, Decrypt, CryptoPotato, and Bitcoin Magazine, among others.

Last updated:
Why Trust Cryptonews
Cryptonews has covered the cryptocurrency industry topics since 2017, aiming to provide informative insights to our readers. Our journalists and analysts have extensive experience in market analysis and blockchain technologies. We strive to maintain high editorial standards, focusing on factual accuracy and balanced reporting across all areas - from cryptocurrencies and blockchain projects to industry events, products, and technological developments. Our ongoing presence in the industry reflects our commitment to delivering relevant information in the evolving world of digital assets. Read more about Cryptonews
Source: Adobe / prima91

A consortium of legal experts from top U.S. law schools are backing Coinbase in its lawsuit with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), arguing that the latter has the wrong interpretation of what constitutes an “investment contract.”

In an amicus brief filed on Friday, six professors – from Fordham Law School, Yale Law School, the University of Chicago Law, and others – offered their analysis on how the term was originally interpreted in S.E.C. v. W.J. Howey Co, a 1946 case that set legal precedent for how securities are identified today.

As is frequently cited by SEC chairman Gary Gensler, the “Howey Test” states that a financial asset is a security if it entails  (1) an investment of money (2) in a common enterprise (3) with an expectation of profits (4) based on the expectations of others.

The law professors, however, observed the development of the term “investment contract” under the “blue sky laws” that states had used to interpret the term in the original Howey case.

“That analysis makes clear that an arrangement is an “investment contract” only if the investor receives, in exchange for an investment, a contractual undertaking or right to an enterprise’s income, profits, or assets,” wrote the experts. “That core notion has carried through in the federal cases since Howey.”

What Is An Investment Contract?

According to the scholars, Minnesota’s blue sky law in 1919 was one of the first to include the term “investment contract.” It was meant to capture securities that were neither stocks nor bonds, but depended upon and gave a contract right training on future profits.

In several early Minnesota cases that followed, the state Supreme Court ruled that various financial schemes were investment contracts based on the explicit presence of “a contractual share of a seller’s later income, profits, or assets.” Many of these cases were later cited by Howey.

“An investment contract requires contractual undertakings to deliver future value reflecting the income, profits, or assets of a business,”  the scholars concluded. “The Court should adhere to the settled meaning of the term.”

In early June, the SEC sued Coinbase for listing over a dozen crypto assets on its platform that the agency alleges are securities, despite Coinbase having failed to register as a securities exchange. Coinbase disputes that any of its listed assets qualify as such.

More Articles

Blockchain News
Fed Chair Powell Vows No US CBDC During His Tenure
Shalini Nagarajan
Shalini Nagarajan
2025-02-12 05:14:05
Altcoin News
Trump’s Crypto Project Unveils Strategic Token Reserve ‘Macro Strategy’
Sujha Sundararajan
Sujha Sundararajan
2025-02-12 05:09:56
Crypto News in numbers
editors
Authors List + 66 More
2M+
Active Monthly Users Around the World
250+
Guides and Reviews Articles
8
Years on the Market
70
International Team Authors