Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

But that is not how it generally works. If Unilever gets told by a UK court they can't sell peanut butter because that court doesn't like peanut butter, it doesn't mean Unilever is suddenly forbidden from selling peanut butter in the USA.

Edit: to clear up the analogy - UK courts don't have a say over what Unilever can and can't sell in USA jurisdiction. Likewise, the SEC can (should?) only regulate trade within USA jurisdiction or by USA entities. If Telegram wants to sell Grams on the UK market, Telegram should be able to tell the SEC to go pound sand, as any USA court orders don't mean jack outside that jurisdiction



> Edit: to clear up the analogy - UK courts don't have a say over what Unilever can and can't sell in USA jurisdiction.

And the SEC is dealing with what is being sold in the US.

> committed to flood the U.S. capital markets with billions of Grams by October 31, 2019

> sold more than 1 billion Grams to 39 U.S. Purchasers, raising $424.5 million from the U.S. market


And the article says

> This is worldwide — not just for the US

I even quoted that in my parent comment.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: