This case is another warning to firms that state regulators are likely to be examining their sales practices much more closely.

The topic of this enforcement action should not be a surprise either. At this point, firms should be alert to suitability questions on sales of illiquid, hard-to-value products to retail customers, particularly to elderly customers. In this case, the firm failed to follow its own supervisory procedures. In short, this was an enforcement action waiting to…

Check out the cover of the . It looks like Twizzlers meets The Matrix.

In this case, the issuer was trying to benefit from the argument that the tokens it was selling were effectively "utility tokens" that would give purchasers the right to use the issuer's technology going forward and were not capital investments in the issuer itself. The SEC rejected this position, observing, among other things, that the issuer's technology was not yet in usable condition and thus the proceeds of the sale of the token were being used to build the issuer's product. (Put…

The Advocate's report provides a good amount of data as to the various provisions under the securities laws by which issuers raise capital; i.e., Rule 506 private placements vs. registered offerings. The report both emphasizes the importance to the economy of facilitating the ability of small businesses to raise capital and the increasing difficulties of doing so; e.g., the diminution in the number of community banks and the reduced amount of research that broker-dealers produce in regard to…