Structure decides character
A token's legal status follows from how the project is built and described. We make those decisions deliberately, before launch fixes them in place.
A token is a legal instrument before it is a line of code. We counsel builders and businesses operating with tokens and blockchain projects on how the structure reads under existing law — whether an arrangement looks like a security under the Howey analysis, how a token is structured and documented, and how control and perfection of digital assets work under New York's 2022 UCC Amendments. The goal is a posture you can stand behind, set down in writing before the project ships.
How a token is marketed, what holders are promised, and how value is meant to accrue all feed the Howey analysis of whether an instrument is a security; getting that wrong is expensive to undo after launch. New York's 2022 UCC Amendments add a second layer — Article 12, effective June 3, 2026, sets out how control and perfection of digital assets work as a matter of commercial law. These are structuring decisions, made cleanly at the start or paid for later.
Every engagement is composed against these commitments. They shape the protections we add, the questions we ask, and the document that leaves the file.
A token's legal status follows from how the project is built and described. We make those decisions deliberately, before launch fixes them in place.
Securities exposure turns on the real arrangement, not the label. We work the Howey analysis against what the project actually does and promises.
Under UCC Article 12, control — not possession of a key — defines rights in a digital asset. We document arrangements to those statutory terms.
These are the terms, structures, and practical risks that usually decide whether the work holds when the file is tested.
Working the Howey framework against how a token is marketed, what holders are promised, and how value accrues — and documenting the reasoning behind the posture.
Structuring the token, holder rights, and disclosures so the legal character is deliberate and recorded, rather than inferred after launch from the marketing.
Structuring how control of a controllable electronic record is established and how a security interest is perfected under New York's commercial code amendments.
Each step is concrete; each step has a deliverable. The scope is defined, the matter moves, and the file closes.
We examine what the project actually does, how the token is marketed, and what holders are promised — the facts that drive the legal analysis.
We work the Howey framework against those facts and document where the arrangement sits, along with the assumptions the conclusion rests on.
We structure the token, holder rights, and disclosures, and address UCC Article 12 control and perfection where the project holds or pledges digital assets.
We set down a documented regulatory posture the project can stand behind, and flag where outside counsel or further review are warranted.
What stands behind the work — credentials and representative engagements, stated plainly.
Token and blockchain structuring matters are handled by Christopher Moyé, Esq., who authors the firm's published writing on digital-asset law and the UCC Article 12 amendments.
Securities-law analysis under Howey, token structuring and documentation, UCC Article 12 control and perfection, and regulatory posture for blockchain projects.
We start from what the project actually does and promises — not the whitepaper's framing — and document the analysis so the posture is recorded, not assumed.
Plain answers to the questions that come up most. If yours is not here, send the facts — we answer in writing.
Bring the token, the cap table, and what the project actually does. We map the securities-law analysis, the token structure, and the UCC Article 12 questions into a documented posture.
Begin a conversation