法院批准 Coinbase 對 SEC 案件提出的上訴動議

美國紐約南區地方法院法官 Katherine Polk Failla 批准了 Coinbase 的中間上訴動議

A US District Court Judge has granted Coinbase’s درخواست for an interlocutory appeal in the ongoing SEC case. The approval will now see Coinbase get the verdict from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on whether digital assets without any post-sale obligations can be classified as investment contracts.

美國地方法院法官已批准 Coinbase 對正在進行的 SEC 案件提出中間上訴。此次批准後，Coinbase 將獲得第二巡迴上訴法院關於沒有任何售後義務的數位資產是否可以歸類為投資合約的裁決。

Coinbase filed the brief on April 12, 2024, at the New York Southern District Court, seeking an interlocutory appeal to get clarity on where the Commission should regulate as investment contracts digital assets with no binding post-sale requirements for buyers.

Coinbase 於 2024 年 4 月 12 日向紐約南區法院提交了簡報，尋求中間上訴，以明確委員會應在哪些方面對數位資產作為投資合約進行監管，而對買家沒有約束性的售後要求。

The crypto exchange’s legal chief highlighted that the SEC’s legal action against Coinbase and other digital asset firms exceeded the measure of Congressional authority granted the agency, putting US digital asset innovation in a chokehold.

該加密貨幣交易所的法律負責人強調，美國證券交易委員會針對 Coinbase 和其他數位資產公司的法律行動超出了國會授予該機構的權力，使美國數位資產創新陷入困境。

Coinbase’s appeal now presents a “controlling question” of law, and the court has also paused all legal proceedings till the resolution of the interlocutory appeal.

Coinbase 的上訴現在提出了法律的“控制性問題”，法院也暫停了所有法律程序，直到中間上訴得到解決。

The Court found that the Order for an interlocutory appeal “presents a clear and controlling question of law: whether transactions involving crypto-assets of the kind Coinbase intermediates are “investment contracts,” and thus securities, for purposes of the Securities Act.” A controlling question is a principal legal matter in a case that can drastically alter its outcome change its entire trajectory, or lead to a faster resolution.

法院認為，中間上訴命令“提出了一個明確且具有控制性的法律問題：涉及 Coinbase 中間體的加密資產的交易是否屬於“投資合約”，因此就《證券法》而言是證券。”控制問題是案件中的主要法律問題，可以大幅改變其結果、改變其整個軌跡，或導致更快的解決。

The court also found that the question of “whether transactions involving crypto-assets qualify as “investment contracts,” and therefore “securities” within the Securities Act is a “pure question of law” because the Appellate Court “could decide it “quickly and cleanly” without any need to study the record.

法院還認為，“涉及加密資產的交易是否符合“投資合約”，因此《證券法》中的“證券”是一個“純粹的法律問題”，因為上訴法院“可以“迅速而迅速地做出裁決” 。

The court filing, however, does not agree with Coinbase’s efforts to “cast aspersions on the SEC’s approach to digital assets.” But the court does agree that prior conflicting decisions on the application of Howey’s Test to crypto assets do necessitate the Second Circuit’s guidance.

然而，法庭文件並不同意 Coinbase “誹謗 SEC 處理數位資產的方式”的做法。但法院確實同意，先前關於豪伊測試應用於加密資產的相互衝突的決定確實需要第二巡迴法院的指導。

Moreover, an interlocutory appeal leans more in Coinbase’s favor as it potentially hastens the “ultimate termination of the litigation,” resulting in the clearance of most of the SEC’s claims against Coinbase.

此外，中間上訴更傾向於 Coinbase，因為它可能會加速“訴訟的最終終止”，從而導致 SEC 對 Coinbase 的大部分索賠得到澄清。

“Accordingly, the Court finds that the third Section 1292(b) factor is satisfied. And in connection with its certification of the Order for interlocutory appeal, the Court will stay this action pending the resolution of the appeal,” the court filing adds.

「因此，法院認為第 1292(b) 條第三項因素已滿足。就中間上訴命令的認證而言，法院將在上訴解決之前中止這項行動，」法院文件補充道。

While Judge Failla stays the proceedings in action pending the interlocutory appeal resolution, the parties are expected to submit a joint letter to the court on or before Jan. 14 about any major changes in the appeal.

雖然法伊拉法官在中間上訴決議達成之前暫停訴訟程序，但預計雙方將在 1 月 14 日或之前向法院提交一封聯名信，說明上訴中的任何重大變化。