Monday, November 16, 2020
The Wyoming Division of Banking issued a No-Motion Letter (NAL) in October 2020 in response to a request from a Wyoming-chartered public belief firm searching for the Division of Banking’s place on the flexibility of the corporate to custody digital belongings in addition to maintain itself out as a “certified custodian.” The NAL prompted the Workers of the Securities and Trade Fee to situation a public assertion searching for public touch upon issues regarding the definition of “certified custodian” underneath the Funding Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”) and Rule 206(4)-2 thereunder (the “Custody Rule”).
As a frontrunner in making a complete digital asset regulatory surroundings, Wyoming has prolonged the longstanding authority of chartered belief firms to offer custodial providers for buyer belongings to incorporate digital belongings. The next assertion is important coming from a state banking regulator: “As a authorized matter, the [Wyoming Division of Banking] views digital belongings in the identical mild as conventional asset lessons, and subsequently Wyoming belief firms could correctly present custodial providers for digital forex, digital securities and digital client belongings.” The Division emphasizes that its place is predicated on the state having adopted complete digital asset laws which act “as a key prerequisite for banks and belief firms to function safely within the digital asset house.”
Whereas the Wyoming Division of Banking concluded that the corporate requesting the NAL could present digital asset custody providers, it clarified that the evaluation requires consideration of each state and federal legal guidelines. Digital belongings exist in a extremely advanced surroundings, the place sure options can lead such belongings to be thought-about commodities topic to regulation by the CFTC or securities topic to regulation by the SEC, amongst a number of different authorized issues.
Along with acknowledging the permissibility of the Wyoming-chartered public belief to custody digital belongings, and what prompted rise to the SEC’s public assertion, the Wyoming Division of Banking additionally issued an opinion on whether or not the corporate requesting the NAL could maintain itself out to the general public and function a “certified custodian.” The NAL comprises an in depth evaluation of the state and federal regulatory surroundings for custodial providers, particularly noting that “[t]he legislation governing custodial providers of each banks and belief firms, within the context of each conventional and digital belongings, isn’t absolutely developed.”
The Wyoming Division of Banking fastidiously considers a wide range of components to help its conclusion that the corporate requesting the NAL falls throughout the expanded definition of “financial institution” within the Advisers Act. There are 5 separate components which are analyzed to come back to this conclusion, considered one of which incorporates the requirement that the belief firm should not be working for the needs of evading securities legal guidelines. As arguably one of many state banking regulators most ready to oversee digital asset actions, the Wyoming Division of Banking succinctly states that “Wyoming’s authorized and supervisory framework for each digital belongings and belief firms would make it a poor alternative [for attempting to evade federal securities laws].”
The Wyoming Division of Banking confirmed that it’s going to not suggest an investigation or enforcement motion to the SEC on the problems addressed within the NAL. In fact, as particularly said within the NAL, the SEC retains its personal authority to find out whether or not an organization meets the definition of “certified custodian.”
In response to the NAL, the Workers of the SEC’s Division of Funding Administration (IM), in session with the SEC’s FinHub employees, issued a broad public assertion that reads extra like a request for remark than an affirmative pronouncement on the precise reality sample. IM has been very deliberative in its strategy to digital belongings, as has the SEC employees typically, and IM beforehand sought touch upon digital asset custody points in 2018 and 2019.
The SEC’s public assertion requests feedback on 4 broad subjects:
Do state chartered belief firms possess traits much like these of the varieties of monetary establishments the SEC recognized as certified custodians? If sure, to what extent?
In what methods are custodial providers which are supplied by state chartered belief firms equal to these supplied by banks, broker-dealers, and future fee retailers? In what methods do they differ? Would there be any gaps in–or enhancements to–safety of advisory shopper belongings because of a state chartered belief firm serving as certified custodian of digital belongings or different varieties of shopper belongings?
How do advisers assess whether or not an entity providing custodial providers satisfies the definition of certified custodian within the Custody Rule? What qualities does an adviser search when entrusting a shopper’s belongings to a specific custodian? Do the qualities differ by asset class? That’s, are there qualities that may be vital for safeguarding digital belongings which may not be vital for safeguarding different varieties of belongings? If that’s the case, what qualities and why? Ought to the rule prescribe completely different qualities based mostly on asset class, or ought to the rule take a extra principles-based strategy and permit advisers to train care in choosing a custodian?
Are there entities that at the moment fulfill the definition of certified custodian underneath the Custody Rule that shouldn’t be included inside that definition as a result of they don’t meet the coverage objectives of the rule? If that’s the case, which of them and why? Conversely, are there entities that at the moment don’t fulfill the definition of certified custodian however ought to? If that’s the case, which of them and why?
Firms which are impacted in any method ought to strongly think about submitting a response to the SEC, and will accomplish that anonymously through counsel or a commerce affiliation if they like to not establish themselves. We anticipate the company will take any submissions into consideration because it continues to work on creating a complete, probably principles-based, strategy to digital asset regulation.
Copyright © 2020, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.Nationwide Regulation Evaluate, Quantity X, Quantity 321