(800) 341-2684

Call Toll Free

Contact us

Online Inquiries 24/7

Regulation By Enforcement

Anthony L.G., PLLC Securities Law Firm

The SEC is well known for, and often criticized for, its practice of regulation by enforcement.  In recent years the SEC has been more willing to regulate by enforcement, propounding novel and new interpretations to longstanding rules and regulations.  Market participants have taken notice, and offense.  Advocacy groups have been very vocal against the practice including the Financial Services Institute and Small Public Company Coalition (SPCC).

Although not limited to matters involving cryptocurrencies, blockchain and all things Web3, is the area that garners the most attention for the SEC’s enforcement-based guidance, probably because it is undeniably the topic that is in the most need of actual rule-based regulation.  Starting with the SEC’s 2017 Section 21(a) Report stemming from the enforcement action against the DAO, Slock.it (see HERE), almost all substantive regulatory prescription related to the world of crypto has come from enforcement actions.

Rather than heed the calls for rules and regulations over the years, the SEC has stepped up its enforcement proceedings such that industry participants have adapted in an interesting way.  First, there is the large scale “ignore it” mantra as the global crypto market has reached $3 trillion USD with every major financial player participating.  In February 2022 alone, over $1 billion in new crypto/Web3 funds were formed backed by heavyweights such as Fidelity, Hiro Capital, Sequoia Capital, Adreessen Horowitz and more.  All the major banks are participating, as well, including JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs.

Famously, Facebook is all in, changing its name to Meta and already committing over $10 billion to the metaverse, which is all powered by tokens/cryptocurrencies.  There are hundreds if not thousands of crypto exchanges.  The relatively new NFT marketplace has already reached $35 billion (see here for more on NFTs – HERE).   Clearly, the industry is neither slowing down nor bowing to the looming regulatory presence of the SEC, CFTC, FinCen, Treasury Department, etc.

Second, there is the “fight it” mantra.  The SEC sued Ripple in late 2020, claiming that its issuance of 14.6 billion XRP tokens for $1.38 billion USD involved the unregistered sale of securities.  Ripple, in turn, is claiming that XRP is a currency and not a security subject to regulation by the SEC.  Importantly, Ripple is tackling the SEC’s lack of rules and regulations in the crypto space, basing its defense on a lack of fair notice that its conduct was in violation of the law.  That is, Ripple is claiming that the lack of regulatory clarity is so prominent that it had no way of knowing that its conduct could violate the federal securities laws.  The SEC moved to strike the defense and in a big win, in March 2022 the court denied the SEC’s motion stating that Ripple is entitled to a full opportunity to assert its fair notice defense and have it adjudicated before a plaintiff (here, the SEC) may impose liability.

In effect, Ripple has flipped the enforcement proceeding, putting the SEC on trial after years of conflicting and confusing guidance on the rules for cryptocurrencies.  The blowback on the SEC has extended throughout the industry with a huge wave of support for Ripple/XRP from cryptocurrency investors – the very investors the SEC is claiming to protect.  In its war chest, the crypto community has built a media ecosystem that connects millions of investors, consumers, developers, and entrepreneurs across the globe.   The SEC is facing backlash against regulation by enforcement and deliberate market confusion that has exasperated investors and driven developers overseas.  The crypto community, with its culture of decentralization, is not afraid to fight the regulators, both directly and indirectly, and has been doing so in earnest.

Fighting it has been working at times as well.  In November 2021, a defendant prevailed over the SEC, arguing that hashlets were not securities and thereby beating an unregistered sale of securities claim.  Hashlets are contracts that entitle purchasers to share in profits from hashing power in the cryptocurrency mining business.  The case went all the way through a jury trial. The case is significant as it is the first time that a case has gone the distance and resulted in a judgment that a digital asset was not a security.

Third, there is the “make it work for you” mantra.   In February 2022, BlockFi settled an SEC enforcement proceeding for $50 million plus an additional $50 million to 32 separate states.  The SEC lawsuit claimed that BlockFi engaged in the unregistered sale of securities of its lending product, BlockFi Interest Accounts (BIA), and that BlockFi violated provisions of the Investment Company Act of 1940.  In an interesting twist, BlockFi was able to negotiate a settlement that didn’t just include a monetary component but also set out a course of action that would allow BlockFi to proceed to register the BIA product under the Securities Act and to reorganize its business to comply with the Investment Company Act.

That is, the settlement provided BlockFi, and therefore the industry, with a clear path forward instead of just the usual, “You violated the law, and we won’t tell you how to fix it” issue with enforcement proceedings. In its settlement press release Gary Gensler, Chair of the SEC, stated the settlement “demonstrates the Commission’s willingness to work with crypto platforms to determine how they can come into compliance with those laws. I’d like to thank and commend our remarkable SEC staff and state regulators for their efforts and collaboration on this settlement.”

This was a huge win for BlockFi and the crypto industry as a whole and demonstrates a way to use regulation by enforcement to an advantage.  As one Bloomberg article pointed out, “[I]f a crypto startup went to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and said ‘we want regulatory clarity about what we need to do to run crypto lending programs, so you should write some rules about it,’ the SEC would say ‘sure, we’ll give that some thought in like 2036.’ If it went to 50 different U.S. states and asked them for clarity it would get even more confused. If it went to the SEC and said ‘look, to speed this process along, why don’t we pay you $50 million to prioritize writing these rules,’ that would be a very bad crime and it would go to prison. But BlockFi will give the SEC $50 million, and it will give some states another $50 million, and now it has clarity about crypto lending programs.”

The order was most remarkable because the SEC generally does not provide a path forward in a settled enforcement proceeding; rather, it generally refuses to do so citing that the SEC does not give legal advice.  For example, since 2017 the SEC has launched an enforcement driven attack against small and micro-cap lenders claiming they are acting as unlicensed dealers.  Nothing in the prior SEC rule making, interpretive guidance, or enforcement actions foresaw the current dealer litigation issue.

The SEC litigation put a chill on convertible note investing and has left the entire world of hedge funds, family offices, day traders, and serial PIPE investors wondering if they can rely on previously issued SEC guidance and practice on the dealer question.  To add to the confusion, the SEC has only filed actions for unlicensed dealer activity against investors that invest specifically using convertible notes in penny stock issuers.  There is nothing in the broker-dealer regulatory regime or guidance that limits broker-dealer registration requirements based on the form of the security being bought, sold or traded or the size of the issuer.  The SEC has had a series of wins in the pending litigations, but at the end of the day, it only leaves market participants with the uncomfortable, purely enforcement-driven conclusion that it is within the legal boundaries to be a convertible debt lender without registering as a broker-dealer, if you limit that lending activity to exchange traded companies.

To make matters worse, there is no real methodology for a company to register as a dealer when it only engages in investment activities for its own account, is not a market maker, does not carry customer accounts, etc.  These targets are not being given the opportunity for a path forward that BlockFi has.  BlockFi is unique in that it has $100 million to invest in regulatory certainty.  More often that not, the targets of SEC regulation by enforcement lawsuits do not have the financial wherewithal to negotiate with the SEC so fruitfully.

It isn’t just crypto and unlicensed broker-dealer matters that are being regulated by enforcement.  For years the law surrounding insider trading has been a moving target, largely judicially based – i.e., enforcement based.  Recently short sellers have been under attack for the same practices they have been engaged in for decades.  Likewise, I expect enforcement to outpace regulations involving SPACs as subpoenas and investigations turn into proceedings.

As SEC officials and agendas change every four to eight years with whichever party is in control of the executive and legislative branches, and rules are passed, then undone and redone, it may be that the SEC is finding that the path of least resistance is via regulation by enforcement.  However, the constitutional rights to due process and fair notice are by far worth protecting.

The Author

Laura Anthony, Esq.
Founding Partner
Anthony L.G., PLLC
A Corporate Law Firm

Securities attorney Laura Anthony and her experienced legal team provide ongoing corporate counsel to small and mid-size private companies, OTC and exchange traded public companies as well as private companies going public on the Nasdaq, NYSE American or over-the-counter market, such as the OTCQB and OTCQX. For more than two decades Anthony L.G., PLLC has served clients providing fast, personalized, cutting-edge legal service.  The firm’s reputation and relationships provide invaluable resources to clients including introductions to investment bankers, broker-dealers, institutional investors and other strategic alliances. The firm’s focus includes, but is not limited to, compliance with the Securities Act of 1933 offer sale and registration requirements, including private placement transactions under Regulation D and Regulation S and PIPE Transactions, securities token offerings and initial coin offerings, Regulation A/A+ offerings, as well as registration statements on Forms S-1, S-3, S-8 and merger registrations on Form S-4; compliance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including registration on Form 10, reporting on Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K, and 14C Information and 14A Proxy Statements; all forms of going public transactions; mergers and acquisitions including both reverse mergers and forward mergers; applications to and compliance with the corporate governance requirements of securities exchanges including Nasdaq and NYSE American; general corporate; and general contract and business transactions. Ms. Anthony and her firm represent both target and acquiring companies in merger and acquisition transactions, including the preparation of transaction documents such as merger agreements, share exchange agreements, stock purchase agreements, asset purchase agreements and reorganization agreements. The ALG legal team assists Pubcos in complying with the requirements of federal and state securities laws and SROs such as FINRA for 15c2-11 applications, corporate name changes, reverse and forward splits and changes of domicile. Ms. Anthony is also the author of SecuritiesLawBlog.com, the small-cap and middle market’s top source for industry news, and the producer and host of LawCast.com, Corporate Finance in Focus. In addition to many other major metropolitan areas, the firm currently represents clients in New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Boca Raton, West Palm Beach, Atlanta, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Washington, D.C., Denver, Tampa, Detroit and Dallas.

Ms. Anthony is a member of various professional organizations including the Crowdfunding Professional Association (CfPA), Palm Beach County Bar Association, the Florida Bar Association, the American Bar Association and the ABA committees on Federal Securities Regulations and Private Equity and Venture Capital. She is a supporter of several community charities including siting on the board of directors of the American Red Cross for Palm Beach and Martin Counties, and providing financial support to the Susan Komen Foundation, Opportunity, Inc., New Hope Charities, the Society of the Four Arts, the Norton Museum of Art, Palm Beach County Zoo Society, the Kravis Center for the Performing Arts and several others. She is also a financial and hands-on supporter of Palm Beach Day Academy, one of Palm Beach’s oldest and most respected educational institutions. She currently resides in Palm Beach with her husband and daughter.

Ms. Anthony is an honors graduate from Florida State University College of Law and has been practicing law since 1993.

Contact Anthony L.G., PLLC. Inquiries of a technical nature are always encouraged.

Follow Anthony L.G., PLLC on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Pinterest and Twitter.

Listen to our podcast on iTunes Podcast channel.



Lawcast is derived from the term podcast and specifically refers to a series of news segments that explain the technical aspects of corporate finance and securities law. The accepted interpretation of lawcast is most commonly used when referring to LawCast.com, the securities law network. Example: “LawCast expounds on NASDAQ listing requirements.”

Anthony L.G., PLLC makes this general information available for educational purposes only. The information is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Furthermore, the use of this information, and the sending or receipt of this information, does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between us. Therefore, your communication with us via this information in any form will not be considered as privileged or confidential.

This information is not intended to be advertising, and Anthony L.G., PLLC does not desire to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this information in a jurisdiction where this information fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that jurisdiction. This information may only be reproduced in its entirety (without modification) for the individual reader’s personal and/or educational use and must include this notice.

© Anthony L.G., PLLC

Copy of Logo

Share this article:


For more information on terms in this article click for more blogs on the topic.

Never miss any important news. Subscribe to our newsletter.

Leave a Reply


Contact Author

Laura Anthony Esq

Have a Question for Laura Anthony?