U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT (voyager, judges comments towards cryptocurrencies)

[peanut56]

Source: @iampaulgrewal (twitter)

https://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/312840_1170_opinion.pdf

page: 6

"I am aware that there are some people who question the very concept of cryptocurrencies
and the whole idea of cryptocurrency investment and trading. I note that no party in this case has
taken such a position, and it is not for me to decide whether particular investments are good ideas
or not. But it certainly provides an unusual backdrop to this bankruptcy case.
I also am aware that Voyager operated, and Binance.US currently operates, in a
regulatory environment that at best can be described as highly uncertain. There are firms that
operate as cryptocurrency brokers or exchanges, and have done so for several years, without
being subject to clear and well-defined regulatory requirements. Regulators themselves cannot
seem to agree as to whether cryptocurrencies are commodities that may be subject to regulation
by the CFTC, or whether they are securities that are subject to securities laws, or neither, or even
on what criteria should be applied in making the decision. This uncertainty has persisted despite
the fact that cryptocurrency exchanges have been around for a number of years.
If the current regulatory environment can be characterized as uncertain, the future
regulatory environment can only be characterized, in my mind, as virtually unknowable."

[VanHasen]

16 minutes ago, peanut56 said:

Source: @iampaulgrewal (twitter)

https://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/312840_1170_opinion.pdf

The first 13 pages are pure fire. Worth reading through this monster of a ruling.

This judge literally lays out over multiple pages what xrp holders were screaming since 2 years. There are parts where you would think he is talking about the ripple case. 

Very encouraging to see a judge calling things as they are, bravo

[HAL1000]

 

[HAL1000]

Having read through it, I couldn't stop laughing, this judge has basically said hey SEC, you're full of shit and pointed out just how ridiculous their position is. Jeremy Hogan should so do a video on this, his take on this would I believe make it even funnier.

The SEC protecting investors...  LOL

Who's protecting US from the SEC, JD and judges like this, thank God for them.

I love this...

"This is a Court. In the end I have to make decisions based on actual, admissible evidence and, where legal issues are involved, based on cogent legal arguments. I have no actual evidence or cogent legal argument, from the SEC or from any other regulator or party, that could support a contention that the plan would require Voyager to purchase or sell any token that should be considered to be a security, or that Binance.US is engaged in any activity for which it is required to register as a broker or dealer. I therefore am compelled by the evidence and arguments before me to reject and overrule any contention that the transactions contemplated by the Plan would be illegal, and any suggestion that for regulatory reasons the Debtors would be unable to complete their proposed liquidation. The Debtors have offered evidence that Binance.US has the operational and financial capability to perform its obligations, and I have not been given any evidence to suggest that Binance.US could not legally perform those obligations."

I have a feeling judge Torres burdens, have just been made a lot less burdensome

This maybe a bigger win for the crypto industry than is appreciated at first glance, other SEC targets can now cite this ruling, including Ripple, especially if there is an appeal.

I have a feeling GG will be having a temper tantrum and throwing his toys out of his pram, whilst trying to find even sneakier ways to get what he wants. The SEC apparently have over 300 subpoenas ready to go out to crypto companies and exchanges etc.

Hey GG, you may want to put that EVIL PLAN on hold, the courts and the LAW aren't on your side, after all, it looks like they obviously see through your unlawful, hypocritical BS.

Burn in hell GG.

Edited March 16 by HAL1000

[VanHasen]

"I questioned the SEC about these objections at the outset of this hearing, and to some extent I rebuked the SEC attorneys for the vagueness of their submission, though in fairness to the SEC attorneys I think they were just the messengers and not the architects of the message that they were sent to deliver to me. 

.... 

Near the end of the hearing on Friday the SEC asked to provide clarification of the SEC’s legal position. The SEC initially asked if it could state its position only to me on an in camera basis, but I denied that request and ruled that to the extent the SEC wanted to say something further about its objection, it ought to be stated in the public forum, where all other interested parties could hear and understand the SEC’s position. The SEC representatives then said two things on the record. First, I was told that the SEC staff believes that the VGX token has aspects of a security, but that the Commission itself has not taken any position on that subject. Second, I was told that the SEC staff believes that Binance.US is operating as a securities exchange without registering as such, though once again the Commission itself has not taken any position on that subject. Although the SEC offered these clarifications as to what the SEC staff apparently believes, the SEC emphasized that only the Commission itself could take a formal position on behalf of the SEC, and that these views of the staff did not constitute the official views of the SEC.

Furthermore, although the SEC had obtained clearance to reveal the staff’s beliefs, the SEC confirmed that it was not authorized, and did not intend, to present any evidence on these issues, or even any further explanation as to the bases for whatever beliefs the SEC staff may have. To the extent that the SEC contends that these issues are bars to the confirmation of the Debtors’ plan, I must disagree. In the first place, I reject the contention that the Court, and the Debtors, somehow were supposed to figure out for themselves just what “aspects” of the VGX token might be considered to be aspects of a “security,” or just what particular activities of Binance.US allegedly could raise registration issues, and then somehow to offer evidence and legal argument on those points. This bankruptcy case has been pending since July 2022. Customers and creditors have been denied access to their assets for many months, and they deserve to have a resolution of the case. Bankruptcy cases are very expensive, and each and every delay means that administrative expenses eat away at the recoveries that creditors may receive. I have a proposed plan of reorganization before me, and I have an obligation to make a ruling – now – as to whether it can be confirmed. I cannot simply put the entire case into an indeterminate and expensive deep freeze while regulators figure out whether they do or do not think there is any problem with the transactions that are being proposed.

...

Here, I do not know how any party could possibly be expected to address the SEC’s comments with the limited guidance that the SEC has provided. The SEC did not explain why the VGX token should be regarded as a security, for example, leaving me only to guess as to what the arguments might have been. Similarly, the SEC did not explain why it thought Binance.US might be operating as a securities broker. I do not know, for example, if there is one specific cryptocurrency token that may have been traded by Binance.US and that the SEC thinks was a security (for which the relevant remedy might simply be to stop trading in that token), or whether the SEC has different theories. If we were to try to address the issues, we would have to guess what the issues were, and would have no idea if we were even discussing the right points. I understand and appreciate that the SEC is limited in what it can say about potential enforcement actions. But I cannot conclude from this record that an enforcement action is even likely, let alone whether it would be meritorious or even what arguments would be made. I also cannot determine, even if an enforcement action were brought, whether it would affect the transactions that I am being asked to approve. On this very point, for example, I asked the SEC’s counsel at the outset of this hearing to explain what the consequences would be if Binance.US were to be found to have been acting as an unregistered broker dealer. I asked if that would just mean that Binance.US might have to stop certain activities while it pursued a license, or if it would mean that Binance.US would have to shut down all of its activities. The SEC said it could not answer that question. Notwithstanding that statement, the SEC took the position during argument on March 6 that the Debtors’ Disclosure Statement allegedly was deficient because it did not more specifically describe what the results of a regulatory action

against Binance.US would be. As I said then, I do not know how the Debtors could have been expected to be more specific about that question when the SEC attorneys themselves told me that they could not answer the question."

 

[HAL1000]

 

[VanHasen]

Wiles keeps on giving