Curriculum·G801 Securities Law for Tokenized Assets·about 33 min

Exemptions, and the conditions that come with them

By the end of this lesson you can

  • →Explain that an exemption from registration is a conditional path, not a free pass
  • →Describe how Longfin used a Reg A+ exemption while violating its conditions
  • →Reason that breaching an exemption's conditions voids it, leaving an unregistered offering
  • →Treat an exemption as a set of obligations to satisfy continuously, not a label to claim

Graduate · enrolled learners

This lesson opens with Longfin, 2017 to 2018.

What happened
Longfin used a lighter-weight registration exemption, a Regulation A+ offering, sometimes called a mini-IPO, to list its shares on Nasdaq in December 2017 with far less than the full registration process. Shortly after, it announced acquiring a purported cryptocurrency business, its stock price rose dramatically, and its market capitalization exceeded 3 billion dollars. The Securities and Exchange Commission alleged that Longfin had not actually satisfied the conditions the exemption required: it had obtained qualification for the offering by falsely representing that the company was principally managed and operated in the United States, when Regulation A is open only to issuers whose principal place of business is in the United States or Canada; it had distributed over 400,000 free shares to insiders and affiliates and misrepresented the number of qualifying shareholders and shares sold in the offering to meet Nasdaq's listing requirements; restricted shares issued to affiliates had been sold to the public without registration; and the company had recorded more than 66 million dollars of fictitious revenue from sham commodities transactions. Because the conditions of the exemption were not met, the exemption did not hold, and Longfin was in effect trading on an offering that was not lawfully exempt. In April 2018 the SEC obtained an order freezing more than 27 million dollars in trading proceeds; in May 2018 Longfin delisted from Nasdaq after Nasdaq said it intended to issue a delisting determination; in 2019 a court entered a default judgment of about 6.8 million dollars against the company; and by January 2020 the SEC had secured over 26 million dollars of ill-gotten gains across the case. Longfin had claimed an exemption while failing the conditions that make it available, which is not an exemption at all.
The decision point
An exemption from registration is not a way out of securities law; it is a conditional path through it, available only while its specific conditions are met, on who may invest, how the offering is conducted, what is disclosed, how the securities may be resold. Claiming an exemption is therefore claiming to satisfy its conditions, and if those conditions are not met, the exemption is not available, and what remains is an unregistered securities offering with all the consequences of one. Longfin is the case: it claimed a Regulation A+ exemption but, the SEC alleged, failed its conditions, misrepresenting where it was managed to qualify, issuing free stock to insiders and misstating its offering to Nasdaq, so the exemption did not hold and it was trading on an offering that was not lawfully exempt, ending in frozen proceeds, a judgment and delisting. For a tokenized security, exemptions such as private-placement and small-offering regimes are the practical route to market for many issuers, but each comes with conditions that must be satisfied continuously, not claimed once. So the decision an issuer makes is to treat an exemption as a set of obligations it must actually meet, eligibility, disclosure, resale restrictions, and to keep meeting them, because an exemption whose conditions are breached collapses into an unregistered offering, and the label of the exemption protects nothing once its terms are not honored.
Recorded loss
$27,000,000

What you will be able to answer

  • →Why did Longfin's exemption fail (2017 to 2018)?
  • →What is an exemption from registration?
  • →What happens when an exemption's conditions are breached?
  • →How should an issuer treat an exemption?

Orientation and Year One are open: anyone can read them without an account. From Year Two onward the lessons are for enrolled learners, because progress through the later years only means anything if it is tracked against a record.

It is free. We do not sell the list and there is nothing to buy at the end of it.

Sources and review

Confidence high·Volatility medium·Reviewed 2026-09-16·Owner unassigned

Contested

The recorded 27 million dollar figure is the more than 27 million dollars of trading proceeds the SEC obtained an order to freeze in April 2018. The judgment against the company was smaller, a September 2019 default judgment of 6,755,848 dollars in disgorgement, interest and penalty, and the SEC reported over 26 million dollars of ill-gotten gains secured across the case by January 2020, when the CEO agreed to pay 400,000 dollars. The lesson uses the exemption-conditions point, not a single loss total.

Longfin's conduct combined an exemption's condition failures with alleged fraud; the lesson isolates the exemption-is-conditional principle, which the case illustrates, from the separate fraud allegations. These are the SEC's allegations: the company defaulted rather than contesting them, and the CEO settled without a trial. The SEC charged violations of the registration and antifraud provisions; that the exemption 'did not hold' is this lesson's reading of those allegations, not a phrase from the SEC's releases.

Nasdaq did not formally delist Longfin. Its May 2018 Form 8-K says Nasdaq had advised it intended to issue a delisting determination, and Longfin chose to delist voluntarily, with 14 May 2018 expected as its last trading day.