Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: April 17, 2019
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comThe Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently “green-lighted” a charter airline seeking to offer and sell tokens without registration under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act and would not pursue enforcement provided that TurnKey Jet, Inc. (“TKJ”) uses the tokens under specified conditions. While the SEC initiated numerous enforcement actions against companies pursuing initial coin offerings (ICOs), the crypto industry has been waiting for the SEC to issue its first no-action letter.
In this no-action letter, the SEC issued long-awaited guidance regarding how to determine if a digital asset constitutes . A detailed discussion of the SEC’s digital asset framework follows.
TKJ’s letter to the SEC proposed to offer and sell blockchain-based digital assets in the form of “tokenized” jet cards. As described by TKJ’s attorney, a typical transaction would involve a consumer redeeming purchased tokens for air charter services. TKJ tokens would be tied to one US dollar. According to TKJ, its proposed token-based program for prepaid on-demand air charter services would allow for settlement via blockchain, which decreases the settlement time and improves the efficiencies of paying for and obtaining air charter services for both consumers and TKJ.
In its letter, counsel for TKJ applied the test set forth in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 301 (1946) to demonstrate that the tokens do not constitute an “investment contract” subject to oversight by the SEC. As detailed in prior articles, under the Howey test, an “investment contract” is present where there is: (i) an investment of money; (ii) in a common enterprise; (iii) with an expectation of profits to be derived solely from the efforts of the promoters or third parties. Focusing on the third factor, the letter states:
Consumers will have no right to share in any income generated by the operation of TKJ (or any other affiliated entity). TKJ will not pay dividends, rebates, rewards, interest or other distributions to Consumers from the operation of TKJ. TKJ will make no distribution of any kind to any Consumers, other than the non-monetary provision of the air charter services using the prepaid Token sales funds held in escrow corresponding to the specific Consumers. Further, Consumers will have no reasonable expectation of profit based on capital appreciation… (emphasis added).
In its response, the SEC confirmed that it will not recommend that the Commission take enforcement action against TKJ provided it offers and sells the tokens in the manner and under the circumstances described in its letter. As described by Jonathan A. Ingram of the SEC’s Division of Corporate Finance, the no-action relief is contingent upon TKJ complying with the following conditions:
This no-action letter confirms the SEC’s willingness to work with entities seeking to conduct ICOs, under the right facts and circumstances establishing there is no “investment contract” present. While businesses seeking to conduct ICO’s might not always like the answer they receive from the SEC, it is best to ask first, rather than face enforcement action later. For detailed guidance in this still unsettled area of law, we recommend discussing your unique situation with an experienced securities attorney who can determine the best course of action based on the facts and circumstances.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Paul Lieberman, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

High-profile founder litigation is more than just a media spectacle. For startup founders, these cases underscore the legal and structural risks that can arise when rapid growth outpaces formal oversight. While launching a new company can be both an exciting and deeply rewarding endeavor, founders must be mindful that it also comes with significant risks. […]
Author: Dan Brecher

Every New Jersey company should periodically evaluate its governance framework. Strong corporate governance protects directors and officers, builds investor confidence, reduces litigation exposure, and positions a company for sustainable growth. The first quarter of the year is a great time to evaluate your corporate governance practices and perform any routine maintenance needed to keep that […]
Author: Ken Hollenbeck

Being served with a lawsuit is one of the most stressful legal events a business or individual can face. Whether the claim involves a contract dispute, an employment matter, an intellectual property issue, or another legal challenge, the actions you take in the first few days can significantly shape the outcome of your case. Acting […]
Author: Robert E. Levy

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) continue to gain momentum as we move through 2026. After enduring a significant contraction following the 2021 boom and the regulatory scrutiny that followed, SPAC activity rebounded sharply in 2025 and now carries forward into 2026 with real momentum. The SPAC resurgence reflects broader improvements in both market conditions and the […]
Author: Dan Brecher

Compliance programs are no longer judged by how they look on paper, but by how they function in the real world. Compliance monitoring is the ongoing process of reviewing, testing, and evaluating whether policies, procedures, and controls are being followed—and whether they are actually working. What Is Compliance Monitoring? In today’s heightened regulatory environment, compliance […]
Author: Dan Brecher

New Jersey personal guaranty liability is a critical issue for business owners who regularly sign contracts on behalf of their companies. A recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision provides valuable guidance on when a business owner can be held personally responsible for a company’s debt. Under the Court’s decision in Extech Building Materials, Inc. v. […]
Author: Charles H. Friedrich
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!