1. Home
  2. Conflict of Interest

Conflict of Interest

The Hinman docs: Implications for XRP, SEC credibility and more

The Hinman documents have been available to Ripple for over two years, and their public release has been eagerly awaited by many, but some were disappointed by the lack of any real bombshells.

The Hinman documents were finally unsealed and made publicly available on June 12 after a lengthy back and forth between Ripple and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), but what exactly do they reveal?

The documents are extensive, and while they can be found in public resources like the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) or CourtListener, lawyer James Filan tweeted on June 13, compiling them into two URLs.

Speaking to Cointelegraph soon after the unsealing, pro-XRP lawyer and founder of CryptoLaw John Deaton shared his belief that “the documents themselves don’t impact the judge’s underlying analysis of whether XRP (XRP) was offered/sold by Ripple as an investment contract, or XRP’s status in the secondary markets in the United States.“

This is considered a key defense of Ripple during its legal battle with the SEC. But those keeping a close eye on the case will know that the documents were not expected to do so, despite the then SEC chair Jay Clayton referencing the speech as “the approach we take to evaluate whether a digital asset is a security,” the 2018 speech carried disclaimers that it was the personal views of the then director of corporation finance William Hinman, which “does not necessarily reflect those of the Commission.”

With the Hinman documents being such a hot topic, many other crypto lawyers have also wondered what the documents might mean for XRP and Ether (ETH).

A “nothingburger?”

After the documents were unsealed, many onlookers, such as Gabriel Shapiro, general counsel for crypto firm Delphi Labs, took to Twitter calling them a “nothingburger,” which had no impact on the case between Ripple and the SEC.

Pro-XRP lawyer and Hodl Law founder Fred Rispoli had a different take when appearing on the Thinking Crypto podcast on June 15. He suggests they are “explosive” because although “we all knew there’s a revolving door” between regulators and private firms — and “behind the scenes dealings” — the public rarely gets a chance to see it as clearly as it’s displayed in the emails.

In other words, while the documents might not help Ripple regarding an XRP security determination, it does impact the SEC’s credibility. It sheds further light on why Hinman gave the speech despite protests from other SEC divisions.

The documents also highlight what appears to be an acknowledgment from Laura Jarsulic — an attorney with the SEC’s Office of General Counsel — that tokens on a sufficiently decentralized network might exist in a “regulatory gap” where the tokens are “not a security because there’s no ‘controlling’ group,” but “there may be a need for regulation to protect purchasers” as occurs with credit cards and medication.

Comments from Jarsulic. Source: Hinman documents

This might be significant, as current SEC chair Gary Gensler has repeatedly said that he believes all cryptocurrencies except for Bitcoin (BTC) are securities and that rules for crypto already exist.

A boost to Ripple’s fair notice defense

Ripple’s fair notice defense refers to the argument that the SEC had not provided it with sufficient notice before suing it for committing securities fraud in December 2020.

However, the defense is generally not perceived to be strong, as longstanding court precedent — i.e., the Howey test that determines whether a transaction qualifies as an investment contract or security — is regarded as fair notice.

But in the interview with Cointelegraph, Deaton suggested that the documents support Ripple’s argument that the speech sowed market confusion and hindered the ability of market participants to determine exactly what constitutes a security under the Howey test, saying:

“The documents do assist Ripple (and others) in arguing that the speech caused greater confusion in the markets, causing market participants to lack adequate notice of what was prohibited by existing law.”

The SEC’s credibility

The Hinman documents show the conversations between various SEC members as they sought to get the speech ready for public release.

As pointed out by Ripple’s chief legal officer Stuart Alderoty in a Twitter thread on June 13, the emails also highlight that Hinman had received feedback from other divisions of the SEC, noting that some of the factors he used when determining that Ether was not a security had no legal basis.

Deaton’s CryptoLaw hosted a panel on June 14, joined by fellow crypto lawyer Jeremy Hogan and former SEC securities lawyer Marc Fagel, who worked at the agency for 16 years.

During the panel, Fagel agreed that the email contained no real bombshells relevant to the case, but did highlight some potential conflicts of interest. He said on multiple occasions that he did not want to ascribe motivations to Hinman but added:

“I do try to see both sides of it. So I don’t like to leap to there’s something unethical here, although we can all agree that there’s some conflicted issues here and some really disappointing conduct here.”

Before and after working with the SEC, Hinman worked at a law firm called Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, which was a member of the advocacy organization Enterprise Ethereum Alliance that seeks to drive the use of Ethereum blockchain technology.

According to the watchdog group Empower Oversight Whistleblowers and Research, the group that initially filed the freedom of information request that led to the Hinman documents, Hinman “continued to receive millions of dollars from Simpson Thacher while working at the SEC.”

The implication, as expanded upon by Hogan during the panel, is that Hinman was essentially being paid off to give Ether a free pass and say in his speech that Ether was not a security, which some people have previously referred to as “ETHGate.“

Related: Ripple’s Alderoty calls for probe into Bill Hinman and his infamous speech

Hogan had a similar take, suggesting that the emails did not contain much that Ripple could actively use in the case, but indicated that Hinman should be more concerned about the contents of the emails rather than the SEC, particularly when his earlier drafts of the speech referred to it as the “Ether speech.”

Ether’s bolstered position

Deaton also said that he believes “the speech documents are good for Ethereum” and “could also help ERC-20 tokens like Dragonchain,” which are governed by the Ethereum blockchain:

“If the SEC claimed the network was sufficiently decentralized, then those tokens have even a better fair notice argument than Ripple.”

This was something also referred to in the Office of General Counsel’s comments, with the division sharing that it had “reservations about including a statement directly about Ether in the speech,” as “it would be difficult for the agency to take a different position on Ether in the future.“

NFT Creator: 'Holy shit, I’ve seen that!’ — Coldie’s Snoop Dogg, Vitalik and McAfee NFTs

Bitcoin and pizza: A feast of parallels for the digital age

Ripple’s Alderoty calls for probe into Bill Hinman and his infamous speech

Stuart Alderoty is joined by a number of other high profile individuals calling for an investigation into the former SEC official.

Ripple’s chief legal officer Stuart Alderoty has called for an investigation into the motivations that led to former SEC official William Hinman delivering his now-infamous speech in 2018.

Alderoty’s demand for an investigation came as part of a June 13 Twitter thread following the public release of the Hinman documents. The documents revealed that Hinman’s speech was delivered despite warnings from other SEC divisions.

In the 2018 speech, Hinman asserted that Ether (ETH) is not a security as a result of it becoming “sufficiently decentralized,” before elaborating on what factors must be satisfied when making that determination.

Alderoty argued that according to the newly released documents, Hinman had ignored the warnings of other SEC officials suggesting “his speech contained made-up analysis with no basis in law,” and that the speech ended up sending confusing messages to the cryptocurrency industry regarding what constitutes a security.

Alderoty said that unelected bureaucrats should only apply the law rather than trying to create new ones, and added that “Hinman’s speech should never again be invoked in any serious discussion about whether a token is or is not a security.”

Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse joined Alderoty in his criticism of the regulator in a June 13 Twitter thread arguing that the decision to go ahead with the speech despite “so much pushback” was “unconscionable.”

Speaking with Cointelegraph, pro-XRP lawyer and CryptoLaw founder John Deaton noted that he also believes an investigation is warranted, adding that the fact that Hinman had referred to the speech as the “Ether Speech” raised questions about what motivated the speech.

Related: Ripple CEO: Hinman docs are ‘well worth the wait’

Deaton and Alderoty’s comments on Hinman’s motivations seem to reference Hinman’s alleged ties to the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance, an advocacy organization which seeks to drive the use of Ethereum blockchain technology.

Before and after working with the SEC, Hinman worked at the law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLC, which was a member of the Ethereum Enterprise Alliance.

AI Eye: Is AI a nuke-level threat? Why AI fields all advance at once, dumb pic puns

Bitcoin and pizza: A feast of parallels for the digital age

France on the verge of passing stringent crypto firm licensing laws

The bill was passed with a vote of 109 in favor and 71 against and will now rely on the approval of president Emmanuel Macron to be signed into law.

The French National Assembly has voted in favor of legislating stricter licensing rules for new cryptocurrency firms in order to harmonize local laws with proposed European Union (EU) standards.

The vote was passed with 109 votes (60.5%) in favor to 71 (39.5%) against. The French Senate has already passed the bill, which now goes to President Emmanuel Macron, who has 15 days to either approve it or send it back to the legislature.

If passed, the new law would oblige France-based cryptocurrency service providers to comply with stricter anti-money laundering rules, show that customer funds are segregated, adhere to new guidelines on reporting to regulators and provide more detailed risk and conflict of interest disclosures as a means to strengthen consumer protection.

The contents of the bill would not, however, apply to the 60 crypto firms registered with the Financial Markets Authority (AMF), the nation’s financial regulator. These firms will continue to comply with the AMF’s rules until the likely passing of the EU’s own crypto regulations with the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) bill.

The stricter rules would therefore only apply to crypto firms that register from July onwards.

Among the 60-AMF registered companies include Binance, which recently began piloting in-store payments in France with the cloud-based payment platform Ingenico via Binance Pay.

The legislative push for stricter licensing rules was initiated by Hervé Maurey, a member of the French Senate’s finance commission, who in Decemberproposed an amendment to eliminate a clause enabling crypto companies to operate without a full license until 2026.

Bank of France governor, Francois Villeroy de Galhau, also pushed the agenda in a Jan. 5 speech to members of the finance sector in Paris.

Related: Bitcoin business in France: Regulation, education and cash buy frustration

Like many regulators around the world, Villeroy de Galhau cited the need to respond to the recent turmoil in the cryptocurrency market as the motive behind the bill, which he wants to come into effect “as soon as possible.”

While MiCA will likely serve as the blueprint for cryptocurrency market regulation in the EU, he added that France simply couldn’t wait around for the more comprehensive laws enacting the licensing regime on digital asset service providers..

The EU is set to finally vote on MiCA regulation in April after two postponements. A successful outcome would likely see the highly anticipated crypto laws come into force sometime during 2024.

Bitcoin and pizza: A feast of parallels for the digital age

Objections Raised Over Appointment of Sullivan & Cromwell as Debtors’ Counsel for FTX

<div>Objections Raised Over Appointment of Sullivan & Cromwell as Debtors’ Counsel for FTX</div>On Friday, bankruptcy judge John Dorsey approved the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell (S&C) to be appointed as the debtors’ counsel for FTX, despite an objection from Daniel Friedberg, a former FTX US compliance officer. During a Zoom presentation, Friedberg claimed there was a conflict of interest between former and current FTX executives and FTX […]

Bitcoin and pizza: A feast of parallels for the digital age

FTX CEO fights to keep lawyers as calls for removal intensify

Numerous parties have objected to the retention of Sullivan & Cromwell as lead counsel to FTX, citing conflicts of interest and insufficient disclosures.

The CEO of crypto exchange FTX has rejected calls for its law firm Sullivan & Cromwell to be replaced as lead counsel in its bankruptcy case. 

John J. Ray III, who was appointed as the new FTX CEO on Nov. 11, filed a court motion on Jan. 17, arguing that Sullivan & Cromwell has been integral in taking control over the “dumpster fire” that was handed to him.

Ray suggested that retaining their services is in the best interest of FTX creditors, arguing:

“The advisors are not the villains in these cases. The villains are being pursued by the appropriate criminal authorities largely as a result of the information and support they are receiving at my direction from the Debtors’ advisors.”

The U.S. Trustee, Andrew R. Vara, had filed an objection to the retention of the law firm on Jan. 14, citing two separate issues.

He claimed that Sullivan & Cromwell had failed to sufficiently disclose its connections and prior work for FTX. He also pointed  out that based on publicly-available knowledge, a former partner of the law firm became a counsel to FTX 14 months prior to the bankruptcy filing.

Meanwhile, lawyer James A. Murphy, who goes by the Twitter handle MetaLawMan, suggested on Jan. 14 that the prior work it had done for FTX was not the law firm's only conflict of interest in the case.

He claimed that private equity firm Apollo Global has been buying up creditor claims from FTX customers for a fraction of their worth. Murphy notes that Apollo’s Chairman of the Board, Jay Clayton, is also employed by Sullivan & Cromwell, which has access to sensitive financial information.

The U.S. Trustee also believed that the current application to retain Sullivan & Cromwell was flawed, as they would “usurp” an independent examiner’s work and the parties would be duplicating their services at the expense of the FTX estate.

The Trustee had first called for the appointment of an independent examiner on Dec. 1, pointing to a part of the bankruptcy code which mandates the appointment of an examiner when certain debts exceed $5 million.

Related: SBF says Sullivan & Cromwell contradicted itself with insolvency claims

On Jan. 10, a bipartisan group of four U.S. representatives sent a letter to Delaware bankruptcy judge John Dorsey, requesting he approves the motion to hire an independent examiner and expressed their disbelief that the law firm could be labeled as a “disinterested” party.

Dorsey however labeled the letter as “inappropriate ex parte communication,” and said he would not take it into account when he decides whether to appoint an independent examiner or approve the retention of Sullivan & Cromwell.

Dorsey however is set to consider the objection of an FTX creditor filed on Jan. 10 when deciding whether Sullivan & Cromwell should be retained, with the creditor also suggesting that the law firm's previous work for FTX constitutes a conflict of interest.

Bitcoin and pizza: A feast of parallels for the digital age

Elon Musk Slams Semafor’s ‘Journalistic Integrity’ — Tesla Exec Says ‘Semafor Is Owned’ by FTX Co-Founder Sam Bankman-Fried

Elon Musk Slams Semafor’s ‘Journalistic Integrity’ — Tesla Exec Says ‘Semafor Is Owned’ by FTX Co-Founder Sam Bankman-FriedFollowing the significant amount of criticism directed at mainstream media publications for a lack of journalistic integrity while reporting on FTX executives, Tesla’s executive Elon Musk called out the news website Semafor because the former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) was a lead investor. Musk took to Twitter and let Semafor know that he believes […]

Bitcoin and pizza: A feast of parallels for the digital age