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 SUI or any other particular digital asset. If the Sponsor determines that SUI or transactions in SUI 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 SUI is a security, the Sponsor does not intend to permit the Trust to continue holding SUI 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 SUI is not a security, the Sponsor does not intend to dissolve the Trust on the basis that SUI 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 SUI or transactions in SUI 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 SUI, 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 capitalization fell to less than $10 billion, which was less than half of its market capitalization in the days prior to the complaint. Subsequently, in July 2023, the District Court for the Southern District of New York held that while XRP is not a “security”, certain sales of XRP to certain buyers (but not other types of sales to other buyers) amounted to “investment contracts” under the Howey test. The District Court entered a final judgment in the case on August 7, 2024. Likewise, in the days following the announcement of SEC enforcement actions against certain digital asset issuers and trading platforms, the prices of various digital assets declined significantly and may continue to decline if or as such cases advance through the federal court system. Furthermore, the decisions in cases involving digital assets have resulted in seemingly inconsistent views of different district court judges, including one that explicitly disagreed with the analysis underlying the decision regarding XRP, which underscore the continuing uncertainty around which digital assets or transactions in digital assets are securities and what the correct analysis is to determine each digital asset’s status. For example, the conflicting district court opinions and analyses demonstrate that factors such as how long a digital asset has been in existence, how widely held it is, how large its market capitalization is, the manner in which it is offered, sold or promoted and whether it has actual use in commercial transactions, ultimately may have limited to no bearing on whether the SEC, a state securities regulator or any particular court will find it to be a security. In addition, if SUI is determined to be a security by a federal court or transactions in SUI are determined to be securities transactions by a federal court, the Trust could be considered an unregistered “investment company” under the Investment Company Act, which could necessitate the Trust’s liquidation. In this case, the Trust and the Sponsor may be deemed to have participated in an illegal offering of investment company securities and there is no guarantee that the Sponsor will be able to register the Trust under the
48
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online