Prescriptive Jurisdiction in Securities Regulations: Transformation from the ICO (Initial Coin Offering) to the STO (Security Token Offering) and the IEO (Initial Exchange Offering)
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This article examines how the ICO (Initial Coin Offering) has been impacted by the States’ assertion of prescriptive jurisdiction in securities regulations and analyze the STO (Security Token Offering) and the IEO (Initial Exchange Offering) as alternatives to the ICO. The analysis begins with examining the principles underpinning prescriptive jurisdiction such as, in particular, the territoriality principle. It then proceeds to examine the three tests – the conduct test, the effects test and the transactional test - which support the operation of the territoriality principle. Attention is then turned to the impact of the Internet which has facilitated cross-border fundraising. An analysis is given to the way the effects test is interpreted where the Internet is used for the solicitation of investment. More recently, the blockchain technology has given birth to the ICO. It has enabled borderless fundraising, a feature which contributed to the initial popularity of the ICO. While the ICO is technologically borderless, it is legally not so. To illustrate the point, the article examines the way the aforementioned three tests are to be applied in the ICO. With its borderless feature undermined by the fragmented regulatory regimes, the ICO has lately lost popularity. The article concludes by examining the STO and the IEO to see how they differ from the ICO and fit better with the fragmented regulatory regimes.
Abstract
This article examines how the ICO (Initial Coin Offering) has been impacted by the States’ assertion of prescriptive jurisdiction in securities regulations and analyze the STO (Security Token Offering) and the IEO (Initial Exchange Offering) as alternatives to the ICO. The analysis begins with examining the principles underpinning prescriptive jurisdiction such as, in particular, the territoriality principle. It then proceeds to examine the three tests – the conduct test, the effects test and the transactional test - which support the operation of the territoriality principle. Attention is then turned to the impact of the Internet which has facilitated cross-border fundraising. An analysis is given to the way the effects test is interpreted where the Internet is used for the solicitation of investment. More recently, the blockchain technology has given birth to the ICO. It has enabled borderless fundraising, a feature which contributed to the initial popularity of the ICO. While the ICO is technologically borderless, it is legally not so. To illustrate the point, the article examines the way the aforementioned three tests are to be applied in the ICO. With its borderless feature undermined by the fragmented regulatory regimes, the ICO has lately lost popularity. The article concludes by examining the STO and the IEO to see how they differ from the ICO and fit better with the fragmented regulatory regimes.
참고문헌 (20)
- 大崎貞和, "ネット証券取引" (2000), 日本経済新聞社
- 青木浩子, "証券取引の国際化にともなう各国証券開示規制の展開（二）", 法学協会雑誌, 115(8), pp.1084~1115 (1998), 有斐閣
- 大崎貞和, "インターネットの利用に関する米国SEC の解釈通達", 資本市場クォータリー, (春), pp.100~109 (1998), 野村総合研究所資本市場研究室
- 高橋宏司, "証券関係法規の規律管轄権とICO (Initial Coin Offering)", 国際法外交雑誌, 117(4), pp.693~717 (2019), 国際法学会
- 龍田節, "証券取引法の域外適用", 日本国際経済法学会, (2), pp.335~346 (1993), 日本国際経済法学会
- 藤澤尚江, "証券取引における民事責任と法の適用関係", 筑波ロー・ジャーナル, (20), pp.173~204 (2016), 筑波ロー・ジャーナル編集委員会
- 不破茂, "証券取引規制における民事責任規定の国際的適用", 国際商取引学会年報, (13), pp.187~204 (2011), 国際商取引学会
- 松尾直彦, "金融商品取引法の国際的適用範囲", 東京大学法科大学院ローレビュー, (6), pp.276~286 (2011), 東京大学法科大学院ローレビュー編集委員会
- 森下国彦, "金融関連法令の国際的適用範囲", ジュリスト, (1232), pp.119~125 (2002), 有斐閣
- 八木俊則, "金融規制法のクロスボーダー適用に関する試論", 資本市場, (303), pp.16~35 (2010), 資本市場研究会
- John Birkenheier, "The Application of Morrison in an Era of Electronic Trading and Increasingly Global Markets", Journal of Business & Securities Law, 15, pp.53~107 (2015), Michigan State University College of Law
- Stephen Choi, "Transnational Litigation and Global Securities Class-Action Lawsuits", Wisconsin Law Review, pp.465~490 (2009), University of Wisconsin Law School
- Sôichirô Kozuka, "Trading Securities over the Internet: Recent Developments in Japanese Securities Regulation", Die Zeitschrift fûr Japanisches Recht, 7(14), pp.79~87 (2002), Deutsch-Japanische uristenvereinigung
- Matthias Lehmann, "Prospectus liability and private international law", Journal of Private International Law, 12(2), pp.318~335 (2016), Inderscience Publishers
- Wolf-Georg Ringe, "The International Dimension of Issuer Liability—Liability and Choice of Law from a Transatlantic Perspective", Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 31(1), pp.23~38 (2011), Oxford University Press
- Samuel Wolff, "Offshore Distributions under the Securities Act of 1933: An Analysis of Regulation S", Law and Policy in International Business, 23, pp.101~113 (1992), Georgetown University Law Center
- "米国SECの仮想通貨規制への実務家の対応" (2018)[URL]
- "金融関連法令のクロスボーダー適用に関する中間論点整理" (2002)[URL]
- 龍田節, "商法・経済法の諸問題" (1994), 商事法務研究会
- Linda Quinn, "Redefining ‘Public Offering or Distribution’ for Today”, Address to Federal Regulation of Securities Committee Annual Fall Meeting (November 22, 1986)", SEC News Release, U. S. securities and Exchange Commission, 1~11 (1986)