Telegram Asks Court to Deny SEC’s Gram-Related Injunction





On Wednesday, Telegram responded to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s October 11 emergency action seeking a preliminary injunction against the company and its Gram digital token. In an October 16 court filing, the company asked the federal court to reject the SEC’s preliminary injunction request, arguing that the action could be “misconstrued” by the public, Telegram’s customers, and investors:

"Telegram submits that there is no need for the Court to enter a preliminary injunction, which has the potential to be misconstrued by Telegram’s private placement subscribers and the public in this highly-publicized matter, where Telegram has already voluntarily agreed not to engage in the very conduct that the SEC is seeking to enjoin."

In its filing, the company argued that the SEC has improperly defined Gram tokens as securities. Telegram said that the Grams will be more akin to a currency or a commodity like gold or sugar once the TON Blockchain has been launched.

In addition, Telegram suggested that the injunction is unnecessary, since the company has been voluntarily working with the SEC during the project’s development and launch planning, and has provided the regulators with documents and maintained regular email and phone contact:

“For the past 18 months, Telegram voluntarily engaged with, and solicited feedback from, the SEC regarding the development and planned launch of its decentralized blockchain platform (called the “TON Blockchain”) and Grams, consistent with the SEC’s publicly stated desire to engage with developers of digital asset technologies.”

Telegram has asked that the court deny the SEC request for a preliminary injunction and “enter an order that maintains the status quo regarding the offer, sale or distribution of Grams; relieves Telegram of any obligation to produce documents or witnesses in response to the SEC’s emergency requests prior to October 24; and directs the parties to submit an expedited case schedule to resolve the legal issues underpinning the SEC’s claims.”

Author: Ken Chase

Freelance writer whose interests include topics ranging from technology and finance to politics, fitness, and all things canine. Aspiring polymath, semi-professional skeptic, and passionate advocate for the judicious use of the Oxford comma.

Share This Post On
  Subscribe To Newsletter
Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Keep up to date with the latest from DCEBrief

* we hate spam and never share your details.