in order to inform a judgment as to whether or not a federal court would conclude that the digital asset, or transactions in the digital asset, in question is or is not a security, or are or are not securities transactions, respectively, for purposes of the federal securities laws. Often, certain factors appear to support a conclusion that the digital asset in question, or transactions in the digital asset, is a security, or are or are not securities transactions, respectively, while other factors appear to support the opposite conclusion, and in such a case counsel endeavors to weigh the importance and relevance of the competing factors. This analytical process is further complicated by the fact that, at present, federal judicial case law applying the relevant tests to digital assets is limited and in some situations inconsistent, with no federal appellate court having considered the question on the merits, as well as the fact that because each digital asset presents its own unique set of relevant facts, it is not always possible to directly analogize the analysis of one digital asset to another. Because of this factual complexity and the current lack of a well-developed body of federal case law applying the relevant tests to a variety of different fact patterns, the Sponsor has not in the past received, and currently does not expect that it would be able to receive, “opinions” of counsel stating that a particular digital asset, or transactions in the digital asset, is or is not a security, or are or are not securities transactions, respectively, for federal securities law purposes. The Sponsor understands that as a matter of practice, counsel is generally able to render a legal “opinion” only when the relevant facts are substantially ascertainable and the applicable law is both well-developed and settled. As a result, given the relative novelty of digital assets, the challenges inherent in fact-gathering for particular digital assets, and the fact that federal courts have only recently been tasked with adjudicating the applicability of federal securities law to digital assets, the Sponsor understands that at present counsel is generally not in a position to render a legal “opinion” on the securities law status of AVAX or any other particular digital asset. As such, notwithstanding the Sponsor’s receipt of a memorandum regarding the status of AVAX under the federal securities laws from external counsel and the Sponsor’s view that AVAX is not a security and the Sponsor’s transactions in AVAX are not securities transactions, the SEC or a federal court may in the future take a different view as to the security status of AVAX. Further, any memorandum from counsel can only analyze a digital asset as of the date that memorandum was prepared, and may no longer be accurate or applicable at a particular point in time following that date, as the facts or law continue to develop. If the Sponsor determines that AVAX, or transactions in AVAX are a security or securities transactions, respectively, under the federal securities laws, whether that determination is initially made by the Sponsor itself, or because a federal court upholds an allegation that AVAX is a security, the Sponsor does not intend to permit the Trust to continue holding AVAX in a way that would violate the federal securities laws (and therefore would either dissolve the Trust or potentially seek to operate the Trust in a manner that complies with the federal securities laws, including the Investment Company Act). Because the legal tests for determining whether a digital asset or transactions in the digital asset, are or are not a security or securities transactions, respectively, often leave room for interpretation, for so long as the Sponsor believes there to be good faith grounds to conclude that the Trust’s AVAX is not a security, the Sponsor does not intend to dissolve the Trust on the basis that AVAX could at some future point be finally determined to be a security. Any enforcement action by the SEC or a state securities regulator asserting that AVAX, or transactions in AVAX, are a security, or securities transactions, respectively, or a court decision to that effect, would be expected to have an immediate material adverse impact on the trading value of AVAX, as well as the Shares. This is because the business models behind most digital assets are incompatible with regulations applying to transactions in securities. If a digital asset or transactions in that digital asset are determined to be a security or securities transactions, respectively, it is likely to become difficult or impossible for the digital asset to be traded, cleared or custodied in the United States through the same channels used by non-security digital assets, which in addition to materially and adversely affecting the trading value of the digital asset is likely to significantly impact its liquidity and market participants’ ability to convert the digital asset into U.S. dollars. Any assertion that a digital asset or transactions in that digital asset are a security or securities transactions, respectively, by the SEC or another regulatory authority may have similar effects. For example, in 2020, the SEC filed a complaint against the issuer of XRP, Ripple Labs, Inc., and two of its executives, alleging that they raised more than $1.3 billion through XRP sales that should have been registered under the federal securities laws, but were not. In the years prior to the SEC’s action, XRP’s market capitalization at times reached over $140 billion. However, in the weeks following the SEC’s complaint, XRP’s market
56
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online