Securities Litigation

In the Matter of Tomahawk Exploration LLC: No Such Thing as a Free Launch

and Posted on

The issuance of digital tokens in exchange for services rather than money still can constitute an offering of securities, according to findings recently made by the Securities and Exchange Commission in a settled enforcement action, In the Matter of Tomahawk Exploration LLC and David Thompson Laurance, Securities Act Rel. No. 33-10530, Exchange Act Rel. No. 34-83839, Admin. Proc. File No. 3-18641 (Aug. 14, 2018). Tomahawk Exploration LLC offered and distributed digital assets in the form of tokens called “Tomahawkcoins,” or “TOM tokens” through an initial coin offering (“ICO”). The company offered a “Bounty Program,” whereby Tomahawk dedicated 200,000 TOM tokens to pay third parties, offering between 10 and 4,000 TOM tokens in exchange for the following activities:

  • marketing efforts;
  • making requests to list TOM tokens on token trading platforms;
  • promoting TOM tokens on blogs and online forums such as Twitter or Facebook;
  • creating professional picture file designs;
  • YouTube videos, other promotional materials; and
  • online promotional efforts that targeted potential investors and directed them to Tomahawk’s offering materials.

According to the SEC’s Cease-and-Desist Order, between July and September 2017, Tomahawk issued more than 80,000 TOM tokens as bounties to approximately forty wallet holders on Tomahawk’s decentralized platform in exchange for the activities listed above. The decentralized platform on which Tomahawk issued the TOM tokens was publicly accessible to U.S. persons and others throughout the offering period.

Based on the specific facts and circumstances outlined above, the SEC reasoned that the TOM tokens were considered securities because they were investment contracts under SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946), and its progeny, including the cases discussed by the SEC in its Report Of Investigation Pursuant To Section 21(a) Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934: The DAO (Exchange Act Rel. No. 81207) (July 25, 2017). The SEC applied the Howey test and stated that “[t]he TOM tokens were offered in exchange for the investment of money or other contributions of value” and that “[t]he representations in the online offering materials created an expectation of profits derived from the efforts of others, namely from the oil exploration and production operations conducted by Tomahawk and Laurance and from the opportunity to trade TOM tokens on a secondary trading platform.” In addition, the Tomahawkcoins also represented a transferable share or option on an equity share of Tomahawk Exploration LLC, which would be considered securities under the federal securities laws under Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) and Sections 3(a)(10) and 3(a)(11) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). The SEC also determined that the TOM tokens were equity securities because they were “penny stocks” under Section 3(a)(51) of the Exchange Act and Rule 3a51-1 thereunder.

Of particular note is the SEC Staff’s argument that the TOM tokens issued under the Bounty Program constituted an offer and sale of securities because the respondents provided TOM tokens to investors in exchange for investors’ services designed to advance the company’s economic interests and foster a trading market for its securities. Paragraphs 33 and 34 of the Order explained that distributing TOM tokens in exchange for the provision of services could still be deemed an offer of securities under Section 2(a)(3) of the Securities Act because it involved “an attempt or offer to dispose of, or solicitation of an offer to buy, a security or interest in a security, for value.” The SEC found that notwithstanding “[t]he lack of monetary consideration for purportedly ‘free’ shares,” the issuance of the TOM tokens as a “gift” of a security through the Bounty Program constituted a “sale” or “offer to sell” within the meaning of the Securities Act as stated in SEC v. Sierra Brokerage Servs., Inc., 608 F. Supp. 2d 923, 940–43 (S.D. Ohio 2009), aff’d, 712 F.3d 321 (6th Cir. 2013).

Consequently, the SEC found that the Respondents violated the securities registration provisions, Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act, prohibiting the selling or offering of a security through any means or instrument of transportation and communication in interstate commerce or the mails without an effective registration statement or qualifying exemption. The SEC also found violations of the antifraud provisions, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(b) promulgated thereunder, arising from materially false and misleading statements found on Tomahawk’s ICO website and in its white paper.

Tomahawk is a new application of the principle that the issuance of “free” securities for some economic benefit would still constitute a sale of, or an offer to sell, securities. The SEC previously applied this principle in 1999, when SEC Staff issued at least three No-Action Letters indicating its view that Internet stock giveaways would constitute unlawful “sales” of securities if not subject to a registration statement or a valid exemption from registration:

  • In the Vanderkam & Sanders No-Action Letter, SEC No-Action Letter 1999 WL 38281 (Jan. 27, 1999), the SEC Staff opined that “the issuance of securities in consideration of a person’s registration on or visit to an issuer’s Internet site would be an event of sale.” According to the Letter, such an issuance would violate Section 5 of the Securities Act unless it was the subject of a registration statement or a valid exemption from registration.
  • In the Simplystocks.com No-Action Letter, SEC No-Action Letter, 1999 WL 51836 (Feb. 4, 1999), Simplystocks proposed to distribute free stocks randomly to members of a pool of entrants who logged in to Simplystocks’ website and provided their name, address, social security number, phone number and email address and chose a login name and password. Visitors would receive one entry into the stock pool for each day they logged in to the Simplystocks website. The SEC Staff were of the opinion that the Simplystocks.com stock giveaway would be an event of sale within the meaning of Section 2(a)(3) of the Securities Act and must be the subject of a registration statement or a valid exemption from registration.
  • In the Andrew Jones and James Rutten No-Action Letter, SEC No-Action Letter, 1999 WL 377873 (Jun. 8, 1999), the SEC Staff opined that the issuance of three free shares of common stock to the first one million people who register with the issuer to receive the shares, whether or not through the issuer’s Internet site, and the issuance of one additional share (up to a specified maximum) to each shareholder who referred others who also become a shareholder, was an event of sale within Section 2(a)(3) of the Securities Act. The Staff opined that such an issuance would be unlawful under Section 5 of the Securities Act unless registered or exempt from registration.

Tomahawk additionally highlights the potential issues for “air drops” and the “free” distribution of tokens to recipients, as well as a further consideration to the “investment of money” prong under the Howey analysis. Moreover, the fraudulent statements found in the ICO website and white paper further drives home the point that any and all documentation intended to be disseminated, whether in the public or private spheres, should be carefully reviewed and vetted by counsel. As with all matters in the blockchain and crypto-space, all facts and circumstances related to the distribution of digital assets must be carefully considered prior to and when conducting any type of distribution or sale to recipients and users.

New Delaware Supreme Court Ruling on Excess Director Compensation: A Return to Formula Plans?

, and Posted on

On December 13, 2017, in Re Investors Bancorp, Inc. Stockholder Litigation (“Bancorp”), the Supreme Court of Delaware held that when stockholders have approved an equity incentive plan that gives the directors discretion to grant themselves awards within a shareholder approved plan limit, and a stockholder properly alleges that the directors improperly exercised that discretion, then the stockholder ratification defense is unavailable to dismiss the suit, and the directors will be required to prove the entire fairness of the awards to the corporation.  The Bancorp case involved a generous shareholder approved plan limit and upholds the adage that bad facts make bad law.

In Bancorp, the company’s stockholders approved an equity plan for employees and directors that gave Bancorp Inc.’s board of directors discretion to allocate up to 30% of all option or restricted stock shares available under the plan as awards to themselves. After stockholders approved the equity plan, the board approved grants to themselves of just under half of the stock options available to the directors and nearly thirty percent of the shares available to the directors as restricted stock awards.

Each director’s grant far surpassed the median pay at similarly sized companies and the median pay at much larger companies. The awards were also over twenty-three times more than the median award granted to other companies’ non-employee directors after mutual-to-stock conversions. The court determined that the plaintiffs alleged facts that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by awarding excessive equity awards to themselves under the equity plan and that a stockholder ratification defense was not available for a motion to dismiss. READ MORE →

The SEC Enforcement Division 2017 Annual Report: Continued Focus on Individual Wrongdoers and Enhanced Protections for the “Main Street” Investor

Posted on

Almost a year into the new administration, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Enforcement released its annual report last week, providing a recap of the SEC’s enforcement results over the past 12 months, as well as some insight into its direction for the coming year. Overall, the report suggests that the SEC will increase its focus on addressing harm to “Main Street” investors and that pursuing individuals will continue to be the rule, not the exception.

During fiscal year 2017, the SEC pursued 754 enforcement actions, 446 of which were “stand-alone” actions (as opposed to “follow-on” actions which seek to bar executives from practicing before the Commission or to deregister public companies). This represents a drop from the prior year in which the SEC pursued 784 enforcement actions, 464 of which were stand-alone actions. The bulk of the Division’s 446 stand-alone actions in FY 2017 focused on issuer advisory issues, issuer reporting, auditing and accounting, securities offerings, and insider trading—all areas that saw a relatively similar number of cases in FY 2016. Actions involving public finance abuse represented the only significant decrease in the number of cases versus the prior year. In FY 2016, the SEC brought nearly 100 public finance abuse actions compared to fewer than 20 in FY 2017. READ MORE →

Supreme Court Likely to Decide Whether to Hear SEC ALJ Issue This Term

Posted on

As the U.S. Supreme Court commenced a new term last week, one issue of substantial interest to many readers of this blog is whether the Court will address the constitutionality of the Securities & Exchange Commission’s use of administrative law judges (“ALJs”) to adjudicate enforcement proceedings. The issue, which we have covered extensively in past posts, essentially comes down to whether SEC ALJs are Officers subject to the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, or whether they are merely employees, who do not require appointment by the President or a Presidential appointee. The SEC currently selects ALJs through an internal administrative process, pursuant to 5 USC 3105.

Advocates on both sides of a clear circuit split have already filed petitions for writ of certiorari. Most recently, on September 29, 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice Solicitor General’s office filed a certiorari petition on behalf of the SEC asking the Court to review the Tenth Circuit’s December 2016 holding in Bandimere v. SEC. That holding, which was denied en banc review by the Tenth Circuit in May, found that SEC ALJs were “inferior Officers” and thus are subject to the Appointments Clause. After the Tenth’s Circuit ruling in Bandimere, the SEC stayed all administrative ALJ proceedings that could be appealed to the Tenth Circuit pending resolution of the issue by the Supreme Court or further order of the Commission.

READ MORE →

Supreme Court to Decide Whether Covered Class Actions May Be Litigated in State Court

and Posted on

As the beginning of the next US Supreme Court term nears, one case in particular has caught our attention, as the question presented asks whether state courts have jurisdiction over certain securities class actions. The case before the Supreme Court that will hopefully decide the matter is Cyan v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund. The ultimate question is—will the Supreme Court issue an opinion that stays the trend of plaintiffs pursuing 1933 Act cases in state court over federal court? READ MORE →