entity · derived
Jurisdiction
Derived node: assembled mechanically from the claims carrying jurisdiction. A roster, not an adjudicated definition.
Every claim under this term
- 1664809-001 : In securities regulation the SEC has continuously expanded its extraterritorial reach, and it has done so with strong support from the judiciary, most notably the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
- 1664809-003 : The Second Circuit's conduct and effect test was too unpredictable, and a clear rule keyed to the location of the securities transaction would be more predictable for issuers and investors.
- 1664809-004 : Allowing foreign plaintiffs to sue foreign defendants in US courts over securities purchased and sold in foreign countries would turn the United States into the global arbiter of securities fraud alle
- 2029983-015 : Geographic tests create the risk of a no man's land transaction: defendants may persuade the courts of every jurisdiction that the transaction took place outside their borders, leaving the transaction
- 2029983-022 : In Converium the Amsterdam Court of Appeal declared an international collective settlement binding on the parties even though the class members had only tenuous connections to the Netherlands.
- 2029983-037 : A contract selecting non-U.S. securities law can fail entirely: if the chosen jurisdiction's courts decline jurisdiction because the transaction did not clear there or the parties lack a local presenc
- 2939127-028 : Although blockchain technology itself offers unprecedented data and privacy protection, storing blockchain data across a global network of nodes often will not comply with the consumer protection rule
- 2992962-001 : The existing legal infrastructure cannot address the legal challenges presented by crypto transaction disputes, because it is impossible to consistently identify the parties to a dispute arising from
- 2992962-003 : If the jurisdictional means necessary for conflict resolution mechanisms covering Ethereum blockchain based smart contracting are absent, consumers will mistrust the new technology, and that mistrust
- 2992962-005 : Even if every user and supporter of the blockchain and their locations were known, it would still not be possible to exercise jurisdiction in the traditional meaning of the word, because the system op
- 2992962-009 : A government cannot control a blockchain by pressuring individuals within its territory; it would need complete control of 51 percent of the anonymous global users before it could change any part of t
- 2992962-011 : Uniform Law Commission style registration of virtual currency businesses may give courts more information about registered businesses, but jurisdiction over the parties to a smart contract remains lar
- 2992962-015 : Not all smart contracts are fully anonymous and untouchable by traditional jurisdictional means, because contracts with a physical performance element, such as peer to peer transportation, do not auto
- 2992962-022 : Hybrid approaches and meta structures that connect the existing legal and regulatory infrastructure with blockchain based smart contracting will accelerate rather than slow the bifurcation of the juri
- 2992962-024 : Governing the creation and use of a blockchain may be the only practical way of exercising any form of traditional jurisdiction over blockchain technology.
- 2998033-005 : Blockchain creates a data protection paradox: the technology itself offers strong privacy protection, yet storing blockchain data across a global network of nodes will often violate specific consumer
- 2998033-011 : Managers of funds that exist only as smart contracts in cyberspace, with no foreign or domestic domicile, cannot assume they are judgment proof; the more likely outcome is that they must comply with m
- 3002908-002 : Regulatory uncertainty around blockchain has three specific sources: insufficient or non existent regulatory guidance, the absence of court decisions, and uncertainty over which jurisdiction applies.
- 3002908-005 : Jurisdiction over the public blockchain does not exist within the present doctrinal infrastructure for jurisdiction, and in practice the blockchain cannot be regulated or governed because it is decent
- 3002908-006 : Traditional jurisdictional tests fail for blockchain because the concepts of location and presence do not apply: the blockchain has no location, physical or electronic, and no single node holds the en
- 3071378-010 : Although blockchain technology itself offers genuine data and privacy protection, storing blockchain data across a global network of nodes often will not comply with specific consumer protection rules
- 3125827-011 : If block producers' identities are revealed, the supranational independence and security of the blockchain are threatened, because local jurisdictions can then exert legal power over block production.
- 3373393-029 : The first DAO had no physical address, no jurisdiction able to claim control over it, no directors, managers, or employees, so all the core control mechanisms typically employed by principals in agenc
- 3405660-020 : Indirect regulation is often the only feasible tool available, because in many jurisdictions regulators lack full direct regulatory authority over hedge funds and can act only through the regulated en
- 3409548-021 : A fund constituted purely through smart contracts on the Ethereum blockchain may have no domicile, foreign or domestic, which makes jurisdiction over blockchain transactions a genuine problem for the
- 3409548-022 : Managers of funds that exist entirely in cyberspace cannot assume they are judgment proof; the practical consequence of operating across a global node network is exposure to more regulation, not less.
- 3441904-032 : Traditional jurisdictional principles cannot directly apply to blockchain technology because the blockchain is merely a collection of agreed upon calculations by decentralized computer systems, and no
- 3652481-001 : Tying a DAO's legal existence to an existing legal and jurisdictional framework typically forces the DAO to appoint a representative in that jurisdiction, and that representative centralizes the DAO,
- 3652481-002 : A jurisdiction is only truly favorable to DAOs if it grants the DAO limited liability as an entity and accepts its independent status without requiring any representative in that jurisdiction.
- 3652481-016 : Applying a common legal anchor and traditional jurisdictional principles to cybernetic systems is near impossible, because the status of a cybernetic system is constantly changing.
- 3652481-023 : Existing legal solutions for DAOs typically require some form of legal representation in the relevant jurisdiction, and jurisdictional requirements pertaining to legal representation are always a poin
- 3652481-024 : Because consumer protection is a core mandate of any legislature, legislatures are unlikely to surrender control and jurisdiction over a DAO, which would mean no legal recourse and no ability to sue i
- 3652481-032 : Because a Swiss Association is a legal entity, a DAA must have a seed in Switzerland and be run in Switzerland even though its members can be located anywhere in the world.
- 3782216-026 : It is not possible to create a centralized regulator like the SEC for the decentralized economy, because doing so would place a supranational market under competing jurisdictions with naturally contra
- 3799320-003 : Tying a DAO's legal existence to existing legal and jurisdictional frameworks typically requires a representative in the chosen jurisdiction, which centralizes the DAO and results in the failure of th
- 3799320-004 : Only a jurisdiction that grants a DAO limited liability as an entity and accepts its independent status without requiring representation can be truly favorable to DAO concepts.
- 3799320-011 : Cybernetic systems change constantly and are less amenable to jurisdictional reach, which makes it nearly impossible to apply a common legal anchor and traditional jurisdictional principles to them.
- 3799320-017 : Existing legal solutions for DAOs typically require some form of legal representation in the relevant jurisdiction, and such representation is always a point of centralization.
- 3808873-021 : Governments will try to tax increasing distributed value creation wherever they can assert national jurisdiction, and exercising that assumed authority inhibits distributed value creation.
- 5254152-034 : Adopting a conventional corporate form in a jurisdiction that does not recognize DAOs yields only partial legal protection; Silo Finance is registered as an LLC in Texas, but Texas does not recognize
- 5254152-035 : A DAO registered in a jurisdiction without DAO legislation risks default treatment as a partnership under existing law, as recorded for Klima DAO in California.
- 5554218-004 : National courts and national law cannot be excluded from smart contract disputes, because almost all legal systems grant contracting parties an emergency or exorbitant jurisdiction whenever a party ca