The SEC’S Spring 2022 Flex Regulatory Agenda
On June 22, 2022, the SEC published its semiannual regulatory agenda and plans for rulemaking. The Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions contains the Regulatory Plans of 28 federal agencies and 68 federal agency regulatory agendas. As expected, the Spring 2022 Agenda (“Agenda”) met with criticism from Commissioner Hester M. Peirce. Commissioner Peirce rips the newest Agenda as being disconnected with the SEC’s core mission and as being focused on special interest groups instead of a broad range of market participants. I’ll include her comments throughout this blog. The Agenda is published twice a year, and for several years I have blogged about each publication.
The Agenda is broken down by (i) “Pre-rule Stage”; (ii) Proposed Rule Stage; (iii) Final Rule Stage; and (iv) Long-term Actions. The Proposed and Final Rule Stages are intended to be completed within the next 12 months and Long-term Actions are anything beyond that. The number of items to be completed in a
Hester Peirce Proposal For Treatment Of Cryptocurrency
SEC Commissioner Hester M. Peirce, nicknamed “Crypto Mom,” has made a proposal for the temporary deregulation of digital assets to advance innovation and allow for unimpeded decentralization of blockchain networks. Ms. Peirce made the proposal in a speech on February 6, 2020.
The world of digital assets and cryptocurrency literally became an overnight business sector for corporate and securities lawyers, shifting from the pure technology sector with the SEC’s announcement that a cryptocurrency is a security in its Section 21(a) Report on the DAO investigation. Since then, there has been a multitude of enforcement proceedings, repeated disseminations of new guidance and many speeches by some of the top brass at the SEC, each evolving the regulatory landscape. Although I wasn’t focused on digital assets before that, upon reading the DAO report, I wasn’t surprised. It seemed clear to me that the capital raising efforts through cryptocurrencies were investment contracts within the meaning of SEC v.
