Telegram Holds ‘GRAM Isn’t A Security’ Stance; As Courts Postpone Hearing To Feb 2020

New York District Court to Postpone TON’s Hearing to Next Year

A court hearing at the Southern District Court of New York was booked for October 24, as SEC obtains an emergency restraining order on the issuance of Gram token which SEC itself proclaimed illicit. The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) complaint against Telegram Open Network (TON) and its Gram token was deferred by the U.S District Court to Feb. 18–19, 2020.

Cointelegraph revealed that Telegram’s counterclaim where the firm contended that its local cryptocurrency is not a security and the preliminary hearing ought to be denied. In the New York Court on October 17th, SEC reacted by filing a new lawsuit against Telegram Open Network.

Telegram’s contention has to a great extent, been that it’s Gram token does not fall under the domain of SEC as its tokens don’t qualify as securities. The Telegram group foresaw the February hearings settling this issue more agreeably than the initially planned Oct. 24th hearing.

It writes as –

“The February hearing is different from the one previously scheduled for October 24, because in the February hearing Telegram anticipates asking the court to rule on the core argument that Grams are not securities. The October 24 hearing, in contrast, was only to consider whether a delay should have been mandated, without conclusively resolving the core argument.”

SEC’s Intervention just Before the Launch of TON

Telegram had chosen to defer the launch of its TON blockchain because it needed time to deal with the complaint filed by the SEC. On October 11th, which is only weeks before the launch of TON, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) declared an emergency action against the messaging app – Telegram. Telegram requested the U.S court to deny the act and also provoking a reaction from the SEC. Telegram is looking for a preliminary prospectus.

Since Telegram has proposed to defer the launch of TON, it has raised concerns amongst its investors. According to the purchase agreement, a clause “force majeure” for TON’s local Gram tokens has made its speculators worried that in case of a postponement, Telegram could forsake its commitments to return assets from Gram token deals.

According to the SEC, not only is the firm looking for a fundamental order to keep Telegram from further infringement but also the fact that Telegram violated the U.S. protections laws during its underlying initial coin offering (ICO). The SEC expressed that Telegram’s proposition to deny the directive would enable them to keep on abusing guidelines following five months, and put the weight on the SEC to look for another transitory restraining request.

This article is Originally posted on CoinCentral.com
Author: Sritanshu Sinha

Related Articles

Author: ltcadmin