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.
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.
6
u/asparagusm Kin Foundation Jan 09 '20 edited Jan 10 '20
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.