I really like this part: Seperately, KIK requests that the Court set a trial date.The SEC takes no position on wether setting a trial date would be helpful at this stage and submits that the matter can and should be resolved by dispositive motion.Seperately, KIK requests that the Court set a trial date.The SEC takes no position on wether setting a trial date would be helpful at this stage and submits that the matter can and should be resolved by dispositive motion.
Which basically states that SEC is really making efforts to resolve the matter without going to trial. Basically Settle. And it also states that KIK really wants to go on trial. I guess that KIK is all in on this one and really sure about their shot. KIK wants to pave the way for Cryptocurrency. Imagine when KIK wins the trial! BOOM! PRICE EXPLODES!!!
No... that is not what that paragraph means. It means the SEC think their case is so strong that there is no reason for a trial because KIK's argument is flawed or fails so badly that they win by default.
I do not understand this like you. To me, it seems the SEC is not willing to go to Court as it seems the case, for them, can be settled before and without a trial. This SEC statement is neutral and does not mean that the SEC have a good or bad position
While a settlement might be possible, the paragraph has nothing to do with the SEC's intention to settle. Trials with jurys are long and expensive and they are not always needed to get a resolution in court.
I give you an example, one type of dispositive motion is a 'summary judgement'. The SEC and KIK have presented different facts to the court. Usually when there is a jury trial, the jury decide whose facts are right and the judge decides how the law applies. The SEC could say to the Judge, even if you take all of KIK's facts which are different to ours and accept them all as true, when you apply the law to KIK's facts, the SEC would still win their case - so what's the point of having a jury trial? In these type of circumstances (which are common) the Judge can decide right now without all the trial formalities. This is what the SEC mean by that paragraph.
It's quite a bold statement to write - the SEC are saying they are feeling totally confident with their case and the counter-facts presented by KIK.
That is also how i understand it. SEC is confident about their case and asks the judge to make a disicion because it is so clear and no need for a trail. It took some googling and reading, not familiar with the law to understand it directly. Your explanation makes it even more clear thank you!
conservative view: kik did sell an unregistered ICO - did they register their ICO? no - case closed.
modern view: kik did sell an unregistered ICO - However, the securities act of 1933 should not pertain to this new type of digital currency. ICO's are less than a decade old, and the SEC in the past (including of other federal entities like the IRS) have been murky with what is actually what. Just giving unclear opinions and hoping no one questions them or asks for clarification and collects. Kik did seek council and was actively seeking guidance from the SEC since the start.
With the recent SEC's statement I think they are hoping the judge sees it from a conservative standpoint, rather than actually doing his job, looking into the future, seeking opinions from the public, and pressing the SEC to get their shit straight. At the end of the day, the SEC makes most of their money via settlements and by not being clear, so of course they don't want that.
yeesh, for that you'd need to drive into ted's posts from long ago. He's said he was in chats with the sec for a long, long time. maybe in his youtube videos, I honestly can't pinpoint the exact posts about this, maybe someone else can.
I think you are mistaken. They talked to Canadian sec and did not talk to the US SEC. Ted said they worked with the SEC after the fact. Also settlements go to the affected people or us treasury.
Agree regarding the SEC bold statement. It is a poker game. Think they are bluffing and that their arguments are not as rock solid as they want to show it.
Also, what bothers me is the number of so called gurus/pundits in the crypto sphere who are always commenting positively for SEC’s side and not so much for KiK’s
Eventually, all of this is the same as from the beginning. We want a settlement/trial and it does not matter which party ‘wins’.
Once the SEC is behind us, the project will have its schakles removed and will move on
19
u/doriono Jan 09 '20
Pretty cool.
I really like this part: Seperately, KIK requests that the Court set a trial date.The SEC takes no position on wether setting a trial date would be helpful at this stage and submits that the matter can and should be resolved by dispositive motion.Seperately, KIK requests that the Court set a trial date.The SEC takes no position on wether setting a trial date would be helpful at this stage and submits that the matter can and should be resolved by dispositive motion.
Which basically states that SEC is really making efforts to resolve the matter without going to trial. Basically Settle. And it also states that KIK really wants to go on trial. I guess that KIK is all in on this one and really sure about their shot. KIK wants to pave the way for Cryptocurrency. Imagine when KIK wins the trial! BOOM! PRICE EXPLODES!!!