Securities and Exchange Commission
February 23, 2022
The responses to the Staff’s comments set forth below, as well as the changes in disclosure referenced in the responses, are the responses and changes of the Company, and we are providing them to you on its behalf.
Application for Qualification of Indenture on Form T-3 filed February 14, 2022
General
1. | Please provide us with your legal analysis regarding the applicability of the tender offer rules in connection with the exchange offer. |
Response: The Company respectfully submits that the deemed “exchange” associated with the Company’s resetting of interest rates does not involve a “tender offer”, as that term is used in Section 14 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Rather, it is simply a reset of interest rates, pursuant to the contractual terms of the Accounts. Moreover, the Accounts are demand obligations; in accordance with the terms of the Accounts, a holder can redeem the digital assets underlying an Account (together with accrued interest) at any time, before or after, and whether or not in connection with, a reset in interest rates. Accordingly, there is no purpose served by re-characterizing the rate reset as being or involving a “tender offer.” The exchange deemed to occur at time of reset is fundamentally different from, and should not be viewed to have the characteristics of, a transaction within the scope of the Williams Act. Specifically:
(i) Because holders can request redemption at any time, there is no “pressure to sell”, which the Company submits is a defining factor under Wellman v. Dickinson, 475 F. Supp. 783, 823–24 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). The economic consequences of an Account holder’s decision not to redeem upon an interest rate change are different from those ordinarily associated with a decision to tender. Since the Account holder is free to request redemption at any time, its failure to do so following an interest rate reset has no meaningful economic consequence and so is not the type of pressure on security holders “to make hasty, ill-informed decisions due to the pressure-creating characteristics of traditional tender offers” (Beaumont v. American Can Co., 621 F. Supp. 484, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 92425 (S.D. N.Y. 1985)) that the Williams Act is intended to address.
(ii) Furthermore, the Company submits that there is no “active and widespread solicitation . . . for [securities] of an issuer” under Wellman v. Dickinson, Id. The Company periodically announces new interest rates for the Accounts, which it is obligated to do under the terms of the Accounts, to provide holders with updated
-2-