Coinbase Seeks Interlocutory Appeal in SEC Case

Coinbase, a leading cryptocurrency exchange, has taken a significant legal step by filing a motion in federal court to pursue an interlocutory appeal regarding a recent ruling on investment contracts. The appeal focuses on the question of whether a digital asset transaction, without obligations to the original issuer, should be considered an investment contract regulated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Judge Katherine Failla’s denial of Coinbase’s motion to dismiss the SEC’s case in March referenced an opinion involving the defunct crypto company Terra. This opinion suggested that certain digital assets could be deemed investment contracts under the Howey Test, especially if they are part of a broader ecosystem.

The Howey Test is a legal standard used to determine if transactions qualify as investment contracts. Coinbase believes the application of this test to digital assets is a crucial legal question, particularly due to conflicting opinions from different judges. This disagreement, according to Coinbase, meets the criteria for a controlling question of law, making an interlocutory appeal essential.

Interlocutory appeals are challenging to obtain before a final judgment, as noted by Fox journalist Eleanor Terrett. The SEC previously faced difficulties with a similar appeal in the Ripple case. However, if approved, the appeals process could lead to potential clarifications from higher courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

Coinbase’s chief legal officer, Paul Grewal, emphasized the central question of whether an investment contract requires something contractual. Coinbase argues that such contracts must involve post-sale obligations, in contrast to the SEC’s perspective.

The outcome of this legal dispute is crucial for the U.S. crypto sector, as the SEC’s classification of crypto transactions as investment contracts subjects them to regulatory oversight. However, industry players like Coinbase contend that once digital assets are traded on secondary markets and disconnected from their initial issuers, they should not be under the SEC’s jurisdiction.