The attorneys requested that the court interpret the term “investment contract” in accordance with the accepted definition.
Six renowned legal experts, prominent in securities law and its related fields, have stepped forward as unexpected allies in support of cryptocurrency exchange juggernaut Coinbase in a legal dispute that has attracted the attention of the crypto community.
They’ve filed an amicus brief, a legal document normally issued by a third party to support the claims of one side in a case, as a calculated move. Their actions are intended to strengthen Coinbase’s case in its ongoing legal battle with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States (SEC).
An Amicus Brief Unveiled
The amicus brief is a potent legal weapon that can be used to provide light on a case’s broader consequences that go well beyond the immediate participants, much like a chess master’s tactical move. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York received this particular brief on August 11th, prepared with the assistance of these six legal titans.
![Legal Scholars File Amicus Brief Supporting Coinbase in SEC Lawsuit image 86](https://i0.wp.com/nosisnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/image-86.png?resize=803%2C867&ssl=1)
![Legal Scholars File Amicus Brief Supporting Coinbase in SEC Lawsuit image 86](https://i0.wp.com/nosisnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/image-86.png?resize=803%2C867&ssl=1)
The legal luminaries from the University of California, Los Angeles, Boston University School of Law, Fordham University School of Law, and Widener University School of Law who are responsible for this strategic filing are none other than Stephen Bainbridge, Tamar Frankel, Sean Griffith, and Lawrence Hamermesh. Matthew Henderson, an intellectual powerhouse from the University of Chicago Law School; and Jonathan Macey, a distinguished figure in the legal arena hailing from Yale Law School.
Related: SEC Delays Decision on ARK 21Shares Spot Bitcoin ETF, Opens Proposal to Comments
Defining the Foundation
This legal dispute’s central issue is how to define a “investment contract.” In their firm stance, the legal scholars contend that both federal precedents and the widely used Howey test support the requirement that investment contracts include the expectation of business revenue, profits, or assets.
They make a strong argument before the court in favor of upholding the concept of “investment contract,” which states that investors must be guaranteed a long-term contractual share in the company’s earnings, assets, or assets as a result of their investment.
The scholars claim that their associations with certain academic institutions have no bearing whatsoever on their involvement in the amicus brief in an articulate manner that skilfully combines legal rigor with intelligibility. This dynamic coalition of scholarly minds collectively endeavors to contribute an enlightening perspective to a case that could potentially shape the future contours of the cryptocurrency landscape.