SEC Brings, and Settles, First-of-its-kind NFT Enforcement Action
On August 28, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought, and settled, an enforcement action against a media and entertainment company for “conducting an unregistered offering of crypto asset securities in the form of purported non-fungible tokens (NFTs).” This marks the “first NFT enforcement action,” brought by the SEC.
For sake of clarity, NFTs are a type of digital asset. As noted in the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS’) recently published Proposed Rulemaking on Gross Proceeds and Basis Reporting by Brokers and Determination of Amount Realized and Basis for Digital Asset Transactions, digital assets are “digital representations of value that use cryptography to secure transactions that are digitally recorded using distributed ledger technology on a distributed ledger, such as a blockchain or similar technology.” The Proposed Rulemaking states, in relevant part, that “NFTs differ from some other digital assets, including cryptocurrency, due to their non-fungible nature—that is, they are unique and, thus, not directly interchangeable with other NFTs.”
In the enforcement action, the SEC alleged that Impact Theory, LLC (Impact Theory), “offered and sold crypto asset securities known as Founder’s Keys (KeyNFTs) in the form of purported [NFTs …].” Impact Theory ultimately “sold 13,921 KeyNFTs to at least hundreds of investors, including investors in multiple states.” These sales raised “$29,896,237.16 worth of [ether (ETH)][…,]” and the proceeds were stored in a single wallet. Some of the proceeds were ultimately used “to pay certain vendors providing services related to Impact Theory’s business.” Additionally, Impact Theory allowed the KeyNFTS to be “purchased and sold on two […] secondary market platforms.” The company, “programmed the smart contract for the KeyNFTs so that the company received a 10% ‘royalty’ on each secondary market sale,” and these secondary market sales “generated approximately $978,000 worth of ETH in royalties for Impact Theory between October 13, 2021, and July 20, 2023.”
Based on the above, and additional facts alleged, the SEC determined that,
KeyNFTs were offered and sold as investment contracts, and therefore securities, pursuant to the test laid out in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946) and its progeny, including the cases referenced by the Commission 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). Purchasers in the KeyNFT offering had a reasonable expectation of obtaining a future profit based on Impact Theory’s managerial and entrepreneurial efforts. Impact Theory violated Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act by offering and selling these securities without having a registration statement filed or in effect with the Commission or qualifying for an exemption from registration.
Impact Theory settled with the SEC without admitting or denying the findings alleged. Of note, Impact Theory’s listed remedial efforts included the company repurchasing KeyNFTs on the secondary market in “December 2021 and August 2022.” These efforts resulted in the repurchase of “2,936 KeyNFTs, returning approximately $7.7 million worth of ETH to investors.”
Through its settlement, Impact Theory agreed to, among other actions:
- destroy all KeyNFTs in its possession,
- revise the smart contract(s) or any other programming code(s) or computer protocol(s) underlying the KeyNFTs to eliminate any royalty that Impact Theory might otherwise receive from any future secondary market transactions in KeyNFTs, and
- pay disgorgement of $5,120,718.27, prejudgment interest of $483,195.90, and a civil money penalty of $500,000 to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Notably, SEC Commissioner Hester M. Peirce and Commissioner Mark Uyeda released a Statement on the Impact Theory enforcement action. In the Statement, the Commissioners “disagreed with the application of the Howey analysis [,]” and argued that the “matter raises larger questions with which the Commission should grapple before bringing additional NFT cases.” The Commissioners also opined that the “NFTs were not shares of a company and did not generate any type of dividend for the purchasers[, and instead t]he Commission charged Impact Theory with engaging in an unregistered securities offering on the theory that the NFTs were offered and sold as investment contracts.”
In their Statement, the Commissioner’s asserted that “[NFTs] are not an easy-to-characterize asset class, particularly because they can give the owner a wide array of rights to digital or physical assets [, and that, p]eople are experimenting with a lot of different uses of NFTs.” As companies, and regulatory entities, explore and grapple with the growing use of NFTs, it is critical that those utilizing, or affected by, these nascent digital assets consider the development of pertinent regulation and meet necessary compliance standards.
For more information, please contact:
Stephen Anstey: firstname.lastname@example.org
Mike Breslin: email@example.com
Gary Bronstein: firstname.lastname@example.org
Adria Perez: email@example.com
Ross Speier: firstname.lastname@example.org
Rob Potter: email@example.com
Kilpatrick Townsend – Digital Assets and Distributed Ledger Technology
Kilpatrick Townsend’s Digital Assets and Distributed Ledger Technology Practice delivers strategic compliance, regulatory, transactional, governmental, and litigation counsel to businesses, suppliers, and customers utilizing or affected by these transformative assets and technologies. We help our clients capitalize on the vast, diverse, and expanding uses of digital assets (including cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, tokenized assets (tokenization), and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs)) and distributed ledger technology (including blockchain) while also identifying risks and avoiding pitfalls. For more information, please visit our website – Digital Assets and Distributed Ledger Technology (kilpatricktownsend.com).
Kilpatrick Townsend’s Digital Assets Regulation Blog
Kilpatrick Townsend’s Digital Assets Regulation Blog (DARB), which is led by attorney Stephen Anstey, covers various aspects of digital assets (cryptocurrency, stablecoin, tokenization, and central bank digital currency (CBDC)), regulation, development, and administration, as well as related topics, including distributed ledger technology and blockchain. For more information, please visit our website at Digital Assets Regulation (kilpatricktownsend.com).
Kilpatrick Townsend – Government and Regulatory
Kilpatrick Townsend’s Government and Regulatory practice offers policy, legislative, compliance, and regulatory advocacy services and legal guidance on both broad and industry-specific matters, including energy, sustainability, Tribal, finance, distributed ledger technology (including blockchain), and digital assets (cryptocurrency, stablecoin, tokenization, and central bank digital currency (CBDC)). For more information, please visit our website – Government & Regulatory (kilpatricktownsend.com).
Kilpatrick Townsend – Fintech
Kilpatrick Townsend’s Fintech practice provides advice and counseling as well as advocacy in disputes on a wide range of issues, including chartering of financial institutions and associated state licensing, commercial disputes, patents and trademarks, consumer protection laws, insurance recovery, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, data and cybersecurity compliance and remediation, trade secrets, and maintaining compliance with a wide variety of regulatory frameworks. We also represent companies facing investigations and other enforcement actions. For more information, please visit our website – Fintech (kilpatricktownsend.com).
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.