Category: Corporate law

Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act of 2024

On January 17, 2024, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) released a bill, the “Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act of 2024” (“TRAFA” or the “bill”). All of the provisions in the bill are taxpayer favorable, except those that apply to the “employee retention tax credit”.

In short, the bill, if enacted as introduced, would:
• Allow taxpayers to deduct rather than amortize domestic research or experimental costs until 2026. Under current law, domestic research and experimental expenditures incurred after December 31, 2021 must be amortized over a 5-year period. Starting in 2026, taxpayers would once again be required to amortize those costs (as under current law) over five years (rather than deducting them immediately).
• Allow taxpayers to calculate their section 163(j) limitation on interest deductions without regard to any deduction allowable for depreciation, amortization, or depletion (i.e., as a percentage of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) rather than earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT)) for tax years 2024-2026. This provision would generally increase the limitation and allow greater interest deductions for taxpayers subject to section 163(j).
• Retroactively extend the 100% bonus depreciation for qualified property placed in service after December 31, 2022 until January 1, 2026 (January 1, 2027, for longer production period property and certain aircraft). 100% bonus depreciation, enacted as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “TCJA”), expired for most property placed into service after December 31, 2022. Under existing law, bonus depreciation is generally limited to 80% for property placed into service during 2023, 60% for 2024, and 40% for 2025.
• Increase the maximum amount a taxpayer may expense of the cost of depreciable business assets under section 179 from $1.16 million in 2023 for qualifying property placed in service for the taxable year, to $1.29 million. The $1.16 million amount is reduced by the amount by which the cost of the property placed in service during the taxable year exceeds $2.89 million. Under the bill, the $2.89 amount is increased to $3.22 million. The provision applies to property placed in service in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023.
• Effectively grant certain tax treaty benefits to residents of Taiwan, including (i) reducing the 30% withholding tax on U.S.-source interest and royalties from 30% to 10%, (ii) reducing the 30% withholding tax on U.S.-source dividends from to 15% or 10% (if the recipient owns at least 10% of the shares of stock in the payor corporation), and (iii) applying the “permanent establishment” threshold (rather than the lower “trade or business” threshold) for U.S. federal income taxation.
• Extend the qualified disaster area rules enacted in 2020 for 60 days after the date of enactment of the bill; exempt from tax certain “qualified wildfire relief payments” for tax years beginning in 2020 through 2025; exempt certain “East Palestine train derailment payments” from tax.
• Enhance the low income housing tax credit and tax-exempt bond financing rules.
• Increase the threshold for information reporting on IRS forms 1099-NEC and 1099-MISC from $600 to $1,000 for payments made on or after January 1, 2024 and increase the threshold for future years based on inflation.
• End the period for filing employee retention tax credit claims for tax years 2020 and 2021 as of January 31, 2024, and increase the penalties for aiding and abetting the understatement of a tax liability by a “COVID–ERTC promoter”.
• Increase the maximum refundable portion of the child tax credit from $1,600 in 2023 (out of the $2,000 maximum per child tax credit under current law) to $1,800 in 2023, $1,900 in 2024, and $2,000 in 2025; modify the calculation of the maximum refundable credit amount by providing that taxpayers first multiply their earned income (in excess of $2,500) by 15 percent, and then multiply that amount by the number of qualifying children (so that a taxpayer with two children would be entitled to double the amount of refundable credit); adjust the $2,000 maximum per child tax credit for inflation in 2024 and 2025; and allow taxpayers in 2024 and 2025 to use earned income from the prior taxable year to calculate their credit. These provisions would be effective for tax years 2023-2025, after which the maximum per child credit would revert to $1,000.

The bill does not increase the $10,000 limit on state and local tax deductions, or increase the $600 reporting threshold for IRS Form 1099-K (gift cards, payment apps, and online marketplaces).
The bill cleared the House Ways and Means Committee by a vote of 40 to 3 and awaits a vote by the full House (which is not expected to occur before January 29). Although the bill appears to have broad partisan support so far, the timing of final passage and enactment is uncertain.
The remainder of this blog post provides a summary of the key business provisions included in TRAFA.

Summary of Key Business Provisions
1. Retroactive extension for current deduction of domestic research or experimental costs that are paid or incurred in tax years beginning after December 31, 2021, and before January 1, 2026 under Section 174.
Under current Section 174, specified research or experimental expenditures incurred in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021 may not be currently deducted. Instead, the expenditures must be capitalized and amortized ratably over a 5-year period (or, in the case of expenditures that are attributable to research that is conducted outside of the United States, over a 15-year period). Before the TCJA, enacted in 2021, research or experimental expenditures were generally deductible in the year in which they were incurred.
The bill proposes to allow taxpayers to deduct domestic research or experimental costs until 2026. However, foreign research or experimental expenditures would continue to be amortizable over 15 years (as under current law).
Generally, a taxpayer who had already amortized the appropriate portion of its domestic research or experimental costs incurred in the 2022 tax year but wanted to switch to deducting these costs would be able to do so by electing to treat the application of the TRAFA provision as a Section 481(a) adjustment for the 2023 tax year and the adjustment would be taken into account ratably in the 2023 and 2024 federal income tax returns.
2. Retroactive extension to allow depreciation, amortization, or depletion in determining the limitation on business interest expense deduction under Section 163(j) for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2026.
Under current section 163(j), a deduction for business interest expense is disallowed to the extent it exceeds the sum of (i) business interest income, (ii) 30% of adjusted taxable income (“ATI”), and (iii) floor plan financing interest expense in the current taxable year. Any disallowed business interest expense may be carried forward indefinitely to subsequent tax years. The interest limitation generally applies at the taxpayer level (although special rules apply in the case of partnerships and S-corporations). Furthermore, in the case of a group of affiliated corporations that file a consolidated return, the limitation applies at the consolidated tax return filing level.
For tax years beginning before January 1, 2022, the ATI of a taxpayer was computed without regard to (i) any item of income, gain, deduction, or loss that is not properly allocable to a trade or business, (ii) business interest expense and income, (iii) net operating loss deductions under section 172, (iv) deductions for qualified business income under section 199A, and (v) deductions for depreciation, amortization, or depletion (“EBITDA computation”). However, for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2022, ATI is computed taking into account deductions for depreciation, amortization, or depletion (“EBIT computation”). The EBIT computation generally allows less interest deductions than the EBITDA computation.
The bill proposes to apply the EBITDA computation (instead of the EBIT computation) for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2026. the bill provides that this proposal generally is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023, but includes an elective transition rule, details to be provided by the Secretary of the Treasury, to allow a taxpayer to elect to apply the EBITDA computation for tax years beginning after December 31, 2021.
3. Extension of 100% bonus depreciation deduction for certain business property placed in service during the years 2023 through 2025 under Section 168(k).
A taxpayer generally must capitalize the cost of property used in a trade or business or held for the production of income and recover the cost over time through annual deductions for depreciation or amortization. Changes to section 168(k), under the TCJA, allowed an additional first-year depreciation deduction, known as bonus depreciation, of 100% of the cost of MACRS property with a depreciable life of 20 years or less, water utility property, qualified improvement property and computer software placed into service after September 27, 2017 and before January 1, 2023. Under current law, property placed in service from January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2026 qualifies for partial bonus depreciation – 80% bonus depreciation for 2023, 60% bonus depreciation for 2024, 40% bonus depreciation for 2025 and 20% bonus depreciation for 2026.
The bill proposes to extend the 100% bonus depreciation for property placed in service during the years 2023 through 2025 and to retain the 20% bonus depreciation for property placed in service in 2026.
4. Increase in limitations on expensing of depreciable business assets under Section 179 to $1.29 million and increase the phaseout threshold amount to $3.22 million.
Generally, under Section 179, a taxpayer may elect to immediately deduct the cost of qualifying property, rather than to claim depreciation deductions over time, subject to limitations discussed below. Qualifying property is generally defined as depreciable tangible personal property, off-the-shelf computer software, and qualified real property (including certain improvements (e.g., roofs, heating, and alarms systems) made to nonresidential real property after the property is first placed in service) that is purchased for use in the active conduct of a trade or business. Under current law, the maximum amount a taxpayer may expense is $1 million of the cost of qualifying property placed in service for the taxable year and the $1 million is reduced (but not below zero) by the amount by which the cost of qualifying property placed in service during the taxable year exceeds $2.5 million. The $1 million and $2.5 million amounts are indexed for inflation for taxable years beginning after 2018. For taxable years beginning in 2023, the total amount that may be expensed under current law is $1.16 million, and the phaseout threshold amount is $2.89 million.
The bill proposes to increase the maximum amount a taxpayer may expense to $1.29 million, reduced by the amount by which the cost of qualifying property exceeds $3.22 million, each in connection with property placed in service in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023. The $1.29 million and $3.22 million amounts would be adjusted for inflation for taxable years beginning after 2024.
5. Adoption of the United States-Taiwan Expedited Double-Tax Relief Act, “treaty-like” relief for Taiwan residents and the United States-Taiwan Tax Agreement Authorization Act, a framework for the negotiation of a tax agreement between the President of the United States and Taiwan.
The United States does not have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, and therefore negotiating a tax treaty with Taiwan raises significant difficulties.
Under the bill, new section 894A would grant certain tax treaty-like benefits to qualified residents of Taiwan. A reduced rate of withholding tax would apply to interest, dividends, royalties, and certain other comparable payments from U.S. sources received by qualified residents of Taiwan. Instead of the 30% withholding tax rate generally imposed on U.S.-source income received by nonresident aliens and foreign corporations, interest and royalties would be subject to a 10% withholding tax rate and dividends would be subject to a 15% withholding tax rate (or a 10% withholding tax rate if paid to a recipient that owns at least ten percent of the shares of stock in the corporation and certain other conditions are met).
Additionally, under new section 894A, income of a qualified resident of Taiwan that is effectively connected to a U.S. trade or business would be subject to U.S. income tax only if such resident has a permanent establishment in the U.S., which is a higher threshold than the U.S. trade or business standard generally applied to non-U.S. persons under the Internal Revenue Code. Furthermore, only the taxable income effectively connected to the United States permanent establishment of a qualified resident of Taiwan would be subject to U.S. income tax.
No U.S. Tax would be imposed under section 894A on wages of qualified residents of Taiwan in connection with personal services performed in the United States and paid by a non-U.S. person.
Also, the proposal would impose general anti-abuse standards similar to those in section 894(c) to deny benefits when payments are made through hybrid entities. The proposed rules are applicable only if, and when, the Secretary of Treasury determines that reciprocal provisions apply to U.S. persons with respect to income sourced in Taiwan.
The bill also provides a framework for the negotiation of a tax agreement between the President of the United States and Taiwan. Specifically, the bill would authorize the President to negotiate and enter into one or more non-self-executing tax agreements to provide for bilateral tax relief with Taiwan beyond that provided for in proposed section 894A. Any such negotiation would only be permitted after a determination by the Secretary of the Treasury that Taiwan has provided benefits to U.S. persons that are reciprocal to the benefits provided to qualified residents of Taiwan under proposed section 894A. Furthermore, the bill would require that any provisions in such a tax agreement must conform with provisions customarily contained in U.S. bilateral income tax conventions, as exemplified by the 2016 U.S. Model Income Tax Convention, and any such tax agreement may not include elements outside the scope of the 2016 U.S. Model Income Tax Convention.
6. Changes in threshold for reporting on Forms 1099-NEC and 1099-MISC for payments by a business for services performed by an independent contractor or subcontractor and for payments of remuneration for services from $600 to $1,000 and for payments of direct sales from $5,000 to $1,000.
Under current law, a person engaged in a trade or business who makes certain payments aggregating $600 or more in any taxable year to a single recipient in the course of the trade or business is required to report those payments to the IRS. This requirement applies to fixed or determinable payments of income as well as nonemployee compensation, generally reported on Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Information, or Form 1099-NEC, Nonemployee Compensation. In addition, any service recipient engaged in a trade or business and paying for services is required to file a return with the IRS when aggregate payments to a service provider equal $600 or more in a calendar year. Additionally, a seller who sells at least $5,000 in the aggregate of consumer products to a buyer for resale anywhere other than a permanent retail establishment is required to report the sale to the IRS.
The bill proposes to set the reporting threshold for the payments described in the preceding paragraph at $1,000 for a calendar year (indexed for inflation for calendar years after 2024), effective for payments made after December 31, 2023.
7. New Enforcement Provisions with Respect to COVID-Related Employee Retention Tax Credit
Under current law, an eligible employer can claim a refundable Employee-Retention Tax Credit (ERTC) against applicable employment taxes for calendar quarters in 2020 and 2021 in an amount equal to a percentage of the qualified wages with respect to each employee of such employer for such calendar quarter. The percentage is 50% of qualified wages paid after March 12, 2020, and before January 1, 2021, and 70% of qualified wages for calendar quarters beginning after December 31, 2020, and before January 1, 2022, subject to a maximum amount of wages per employee. An eligible employer may claim the ERTC on an amended employment tax return (Form 941-X) if the employer did not claim (or seeks to correct) the credit on its original employment tax return. For tax year 2020, an amended employment tax return must be filed by April 15, 2024, and for tax year 2021, by April 15, 2025.
The bill proposes to end the period for filing ERTC claims for both 2020 and 2021 as of January 31, 2024. Additionally, the bill would impose large penalties on any “COVID–ERTC promoter” who aids or abets the understatement of a tax liability or who fails to comply with certain due diligence requirements relating to the filing status and amount of certain credits. A COVID–ERTC promoter is defined as any person that provides aid, assistance or advice with respect to an affidavit, refund, claim or other document relating to an ERTC or to eligibility or to the calculation of the amount of the credit, if the person (x) charges or receives a fee based on the amount of the ERTC refund or credit, or (y) meets a gross receipts test. The proposed penalties for an ERTC promoter that aids and abets understatement of a tax liability is the greater of $200,000 ($10,000 in the case of an ERTC promoter that is a natural person) or 75% of the gross income of the ERTC promoter from providing aid, assistance, or advice with respect to a return or claim for ERTC refund or a document relating to the return or claim.
Furthermore, the bill would extend the statute of limitations period on assessment for all quarters of the ERTC to six years from the later of (1) the date on which the original return for the relevant calendar quarter is filed, (2) the date on which the return is treated as filed under present-law statute of limitations rules, or (3) the date on which the credit or refund with respect to the ERTC is made.

© 2024 Proskauer Rose LLP.
For more on Taxes, visit the NLR Tax section.

FTC Announces 2024 Thresholds for Merger Control Filings under HSR Act and Interlocking Directorates under the Clayton Act

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has increased the dollar jurisdictional thresholds necessary to trigger the reporting requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended (“HSR Act”), and the dollar value of each of the six filing fee thresholds; the revised thresholds will become effective 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. The daily maximum civil penalty for being in violation of the HSR Act has increased, and is, as of January 10, 2024, $51,744.

The FTC also increased the thresholds for interlocking directorates under Section 8 of the Clayton Act; these revised thresholds are in effect as of January 22, 2024.

Revised HSR Thresholds

Under the HSR Act, parties involved in proposed mergers, acquisitions of voting securities, unincorporated interests or assets, or other business combinations (e.g., joint ventures, exclusive license deals) that meet certain thresholds must report the proposed transaction to the FTC and the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) unless an exemption applies. The parties to a proposed transaction that requires notification under the HSR Act must observe a statutorily prescribed waiting period (generally 30 days) before closing. Under the revised thresholds, transactions valued at $119.5 million or less are not reportable under the HSR Act.

A transaction closing on or after the date the revised thresholds become effective may be reportable if it meets the following revised criteria:

Size-of-Transaction Test The acquiring person will hold, as a result of the transaction, an aggregate total amount of voting securities, unincorporated interests, or assets of the acquired person valued in excess of $478 million;

or

The acquiring person will hold, as a result of the transaction, an aggregate total amount of voting securities, unincorporated interests, or assets of the acquired person valued in excess of $119.5 million but not more than $478 million, and the Size-of-Person thresholds below are met.
Size-of-Person
Test		 One party (including the party’s ultimate parent entity and its controlled subsidiaries) has at least $239 million in total assets or annual sales, and the other has at least $23.9 million in total assets or annual sales.

The full list of the revised thresholds is as follows:

Original Threshold 2023 Threshold 2024 Revised Threshold
$10 million $22.3 million $23.9 million
$50 million $111.4 million $119.5 million
$100 million $222.7 million $239 million
$110 million $245 million $262.9 million
$200 million $445.5 million $478 million
$500 million $1,113.7 million $1,195 million
$1 billion $2,227.4 million $2,390 million

The filing fees for reportable transactions and the six filing fee tiers also have been updated, as follows:

Filing Fee Size of Transaction under the Act
$30,000 For transactions valued in excess of $119.5 million but less than $173.3 million
$105,000 For transactions valued at $173.3 million or greater but less than $536.5 million
$260,000 For transactions valued at $536.5 million or greater but less than $1,073 million
$415,000 For transactions valued at $1,073 million or greater but less than $2,146 million
$830,000 For transactions valued at $2,146 million or greater but less than $5,365 million
$2.335 million For transactions valued at $5,365 million or more

The filing fee tiers, introduced in 2023, are adjusted annually to reflect changes in the GNP for the previous year.

The HSR Act’s dollar thresholds are only part of the analysis to determine whether a particular transaction must be reported to the FTC and DOJ; a full analysis requires consideration of exemptions to the filing requirements that may be available to an acquiror. Failure to notify the FTC and DOJ under the HSR Act remains subject to a statutory penalty of up to $51,744 per day of noncompliance.

Revised Thresholds for Interlocking Directorates

Section 8 of the Clayton Act prohibits one person from simultaneously serving as an officer or director of two corporations if: (1) each of the “interlocked” corporations has combined capital, surplus, and undivided profits of more than $48,559,000 (up from $45,257,000); (2) each corporation is engaged in whole or in part in commerce; and (3) the corporations are “by virtue of their business and location of operation, competitors, so that the elimination of competition by agreement between them would constitute a violation of any of the antitrust laws.”1

Section 8 provides several exemptions from the prohibition on interlocks for arrangements where the competitive overlaps “are too small to have competitive significance in the vast majority of situations.”2 A corporate interlock does not violate the statute if (1) the competitive sales of either corporation are less than $4,855,900 (up from $4,525,700); (2) the competitive sales of either corporation are less than 2 percent of that corporation’s total sales; or (3) the competitive sales of each corporation are less than 4 percent of that corporation’s total sales. The DOJ has been active recently in identifying and achieving remediation of interlocks that may violate Section 8.3

1 15 U.S.C. § 19(a)(1)(B).

2 S. Rep. No. 101-286, at 5-6 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4100, 4103-04.

3 Department of Justice, Two Pinterest Directors Resign from Nextdoor Board of Directors in Response to Justice Department’s Ongoing Enforcement Efforts Against Interlocking Directorates (Aug. 16, 2023); Department of Justice, Justice Department’s Ongoing Section 8 Enforcement Prevents More Potentially Illegal Interlocking Directorates (Mar. 9, 2023); Department of Justice, Directors Resign from the Boards of Five Companies in Response to Justice Department Concerns about Potentially Illegal Interlocking Directorates (Oct. 19, 2022).

© Copyright 2024 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
For more on Merger Control Filings, visit the NLR Antitrust & Trade Regulation section.

New Diligence Opportunity for Financial Institutions

On Jan. 1, 2024, the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) took effect. As a result, all business entities, unless expressly exempt by the CTA, must file Reports of Beneficial Ownership Information (“BOI”) with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), a unit of the U.S. Treasury. Under the CTA, “financial institutions,” i.e., banks and other entities that provide financings and are subject to the “Know Your Customer” and “Customer Due Diligence” regulations of FinCEN pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act, the USA Patriot Act, and the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, may access the BOI on reports filed with FinCEN.

To gain access to the BOI, the financial institution MUST:

  1. Obtain the written consent of the customer, i.e., the borrower, guarantor, or other loan party, in connection with the diligence process required before entering a business relationship with the customer, or as part of the continuing diligence required in an existing relationship. Accordingly, forms used by the financial institution to open or to continue an existing business relationship must include a clear and conspicuous provision in which the customer gives consent. This will probably require a complete review and revision of those forms;
  2. Determine that obtaining access to the BOI is reasonably necessary for the financial institution to meet its diligence obligations. That determination should be spelled out in the written request to FinCEN for access; and
  3. Acknowledge the scope of confidentiality obligations with respect to the BOI obtained, including the limited use permitted of the information, as well as safeguarding that accessed BOI from misuse.

Financial institutions should be prepared to request access to BOI as a matter of course. In any case where a customer engages in violative activity, and the BOI would have alerted the financial institution to possible risks, that institution could be exposed to sanctions by its principal prudential regulator and/or by other law enforcement agencies.

©2024 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved
For more news on Financial Institutions Gaining Access to BOIs, visit the NLR Financial Institutions & Banking section.

Becoming Antitrust Aware in 2024: Top Five Recommendations for the New Year

A new year means resolutions which are often centered around self-improvement measures like weight loss, exercise plans, and other health improvement measures. Companies can also benefit from resolutions. Increasing antitrust awareness is not usually on the resolution list but here we offer some ideas for companies as they embark on a new year.

Treat antitrust as a priority in 2024.

As antitrust lawyers, our viewpoint may be biased, and we certainly appreciate that most companies already have a lengthy list of priorities for their in-house and outside legal teams. Given that all companies, regardless of their size, are subject to the antitrust laws, and given the high stakes involved (including criminal penalties and treble damages awards), antitrust certainly deserves to be on the priority list. One relatively easy way to get the ball rolling is to put fresh eyes on your company’s antitrust policy. When was the last time it was updated? What type of trainings does your company use to teach the concepts contained in the policy? The training doesn’t need to be – and shouldn’t be – boring or esoteric. Instead, trainings should be engaging and tailored to the specific antitrust risks that workgroups may face. For example, the sales team will need different antitrust training than those working on supply chain or environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives. Ask your antitrust lawyer to create easy-to-follow, lively online trainings that can be viewed on demand. And if your company doesn’t have an antitrust policy, we suggest that creating one be moved to the top (or near top) of the legal department’s to-do list in 2024.

Understand the current antitrust enforcement priorities.

2024 will be a significant year for antitrust. It’s an election year, which means 2024 may be the Biden Administration’s last year to execute on plans that have been in the works since President Biden issued Executive Order 14036, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” in July 2021. Some of the Administration’s more dramatic plans include significant revisions to the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) premerger notification process. While we don’t expect all the FTC and DOJ’s sweeping proposals to make it into the HSR final rule, we do expect some changes to be made, and they will likely mean significant additional burdens for filing parties. We also expect to see the FTC’s new rule on non-compete agreements. The FTC’s proposal would ban most non-compete agreements, and some states have already enacted their own prohibitions on non-compete agreements.

If your company engages in M&A, be aware of the new Merger Guidelines.

The newest Merger Guidelines, addressing both horizontal and vertical mergers, were unveiled in December 2023 . One of the most significant changes announced in the 2023 Merger Guidelines are the decreased levels of concentration that will trigger a rebuttable presumption of illegality. Under the new Guidelines, a market share of greater than 30% and a concentration increase of 100 points will be enough to trigger that rebuttable presumption. That is not to say the presumption is the death knell for a transaction, but it does mean that the government enforcement will be aggressive. Also be aware that the 2023 Guidelines introduce new topics, such as labor markets. Early analysis and planning will be critical, requiring involvement of skilled antitrust counsel.

Understand that application of the antitrust laws is constantly evolving.

The language of the core U.S. antitrust laws – the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the FTC Act, hasn’t changed, but the application of these laws is always evolving. For example, the antitrust enforcers and private plaintiffs are increasingly focused on labor issues, such as “no poach” agreements and wage fixing. Antitrust enforcers are also focused on private equity, as evidenced by the FTC’s recent lawsuit against Welsh, Carson, Anderson, and Stowe and some of the changes contained in the proposed revisions to the HSR Rules. Technology is also a significant factor that provokes interesting questions that don’t have answers, at least not currently. For example, do pricing algorithms lead to price fixing? How will antitrust enforcers deal with artificial intelligence?

Pay attention to state antitrust enforcers.

The federal regulators at the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission may get most of the attention, but we must never forget that states have their own antitrust laws and their own antitrust enforcers, who have the power to investigate and bring legal action. Often, the state regulators work collaboratively with their federal counterparts, but the state regulators are free to go their own way, such as those targeting various ESG initiatives. Also bear in mind that states are increasingly blazing new trails, such as bans on non-competes. Thirteen states have also enacted “mini” HSR premerger notification statutes for health care deals. It’s always prudent to check the laws of the state or states where business is conducted to determine if there are any state-specific antitrust considerations.

Copyright ©2024 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
For more Antitrust Awareness News, visit the NLR Antitrust & Trade Regulation section.

Corporate Transparency Act Requires Disclosure of Information Regarding Beneficial Owners to FinCEN

The new year brings the most expansive disclosure requirements for U.S. business entities since the Depression. Starting January 1, 2024, U.S. companies and foreign companies operating in the United States will be required to report their beneficial owners and principal officers to the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) pursuant to the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) adopted as part of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, unless subject to specific exemptions.

Who Is Required to Report?
The CTA’s filing requirements (31 CFR 1010.380(c)(1)) apply to both domestic reporting companies and foreign reporting companies.

  • Domestic reporting companies are corporations, limited liability companies and any other entity registered to do business in any state or tribal jurisdiction by the filing of a document with the secretary of state or similar official.
  • Foreign reporting companies are business entities formed under the law of a foreign country that are registered to do business in any state or tribal jurisdiction by the filing of a document with the secretary of state or similar official

The CTA provides 23 categories of exemption. The following types of entities are not required to file reports with FinCEN:

  • Large Operating Companies
    This exemption applies to entities that (1) have 20 people or more full time employees in the United States, (2) have gross revenue (or sales) in excess of $5 million on their prior year’s tax return and (3) have a physical office in the United States.
  • Securities Reporting Issuers
  • Governmental Authorities
  • Banks
  • Credit Unions
  • Depository Institution Holding Companies
  • Money Services Businesses
  • Brokers and Dealers in Securities
  • Securities Exchanges and Clearing Agencies
  • Other Exchange Act Registered Entities
  • Investment Companies and Investment Advisers
  • Venture Capital Fund Advisers
  • Insurance Companies
  • State-Licensed Insurance Producers
  • Commodity Exchange Act Registered Entities
  • Accounting Firms
  • Public Utilities
  • Financial Market Utilities
  • Pooled Investment Vehicles
  • Tax-Exempt Entities
  • Entities Assisting a Tax-Exempt Entity
  • Subsidiaries of Certain Exempt Entities
  • Inactive Entities

It is worth noting that the definition of reporting companies is not limited to corporations and limited liability companies. Limited partnerships, professional service entities and other entities may qualify as reporting companies and, if so, are required to comply with the CTA’s reporting requirements.

How Does a Company Comply?
FinCEN requires affected companies to file beneficial ownership information reports (BOI Reports) using an electronic filing system. See the BOI E-Filing System.

What Information Should Be Reported?
Reporting companies must identify beneficial owners in their BOI Reports.

Beneficial owners are defined as individuals who directly or indirectly (1) exercise substantial control over a reporting company or (2) own or control at least 25 percent of ownership interests of a reporting company. Ownership interests covered by the CTA may include profits interests, convertible instruments, options and contractual arrangements as well as equity securities. In addition, owners who hold their ownership interests jointly or through a trust, agent or other intermediary are also required to be identified – although minors are generally exempted from reporting obligations.

Senior officers (typically, the president, CEO, CFO, COO and officers who perform similar functions); individuals with the ability to appoint senior officers or a majority of the board of directors or a similar body; and anyone else who directs, determines or has substantial input to other important decisions of a reporting company also need to be identified in BOI Reports as individuals exercising substantial control over reporting companies.

Reporting companies created on or after January 1, 2024, also must identify “company applicants” in their BOI Reports. Company applicants are the individuals who filed the documents creating the reporting company and individuals primarily responsible for directing or controlling the filing of documents creating a reporting company.

BOI Reports must contain the following information regarding the reporting company:

  • Legal name
  • Any trade name or d/b/a name
  • Address of the company’s principal place of business in the United States
  • Jurisdiction of formation
  • Taxpayer Identification Number.

BOI Reports must contain the following information regarding each beneficial owner and company applicant:

  • Full legal name
  • Date of birth
  • Current address
  • Copy of a passport, driver’s license or other identification document.

Every person who files a BOI Report must certify the information contained is true, correct and complete.

Information contained in BOI Reports will not be available to the public. However, FinCEN is authorized to disclose such information to:

  • U.S. federal agencies engaged in national security, intelligence or law enforcement activity
  • With court approval, to certain other state or local law enforcement agencies
  • Non-U.S. law enforcement agencies at the request of a U.S. federal law enforcement agency, prosecutor or judge
  • With the consent of the reporting company, financial institutions and their regulators
  • Federal regulators in assessing financial institutions compliance with customer due diligence requirements
  • The U.S. Department of the Treasury for purposes including tax administration.

Is There a Fee?
No fee is required in connection with filing of BOI Reports.

When Do Companies Need to File?
U.S. and foreign reporting companies that were formed or registered to do business in the United States prior to January 1, 2024, must file their initial BOI Reports no later than January 1, 2025. U.S. and foreign reporting companies formed on or after January 1, 2024, must file their initial BOI Reports within 90 days of receipt of notice of formation.

Reporting companies are required to file updated reports with FinCEN within 30 days of occurrence of a change in any of the information contained in their BOI Reports.

What If There Are Changes or Inaccuracies in the Reported Information?
Inaccuracies in BOI Reports must be corrected within 30 days of the date a reporting company becomes aware of or had reason to know of such inaccuracy. FinCEN has indicated that there will be no penalties for filing inaccurate BOI Reports if such reports are corrected within 90 days of their filing.

What If a Company Fails to File?
The willful failure to report the information required by the CTA or filing fraudulent information under the CTA may result in civil or criminal penalties, including penalties of up to $500 per day as long as a violation continues, imprisonment for up to two years and a fine of up to $10,000. Senior officers of an entity that fails to file a required report may be held accountable for such failure.

If you have questions regarding the provisions of the CTA or its applicability to your company, you may go to the FinCEN website.

© 2024 Wilson Elser
For more on the Corporate Transparency Act, visit the NLR Corporate & Business Organizations section.

Updated Merger Guidelines Finalized

On December 18, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) jointly issued a significantly revised version of the Merger Guidelines that describes the frameworks the enforcement agencies use when evaluating potential mergers.

The newly finalized Merger Guidelines are the result of a nearly two-year effort that involved both agencies soliciting public input via listening sessions, written comments, and workshops.

The agencies describe the new Merger Guidelines as necessary to address the modern economy and how firms now do business. The Merger Guidelines are broken into multiple sections: Guidelines 1–6 describe the frameworks the agencies use when attempting to identify a merger that the agencies believe raises a prima facie concern, while Guidelines 7–11 explain how to apply those frameworks in specific settings. The guidelines also identify evidence the agencies will consider to potentially rebut an inference of competitive harm. Finally, these guidelines include a discussion of the tools the agencies use when evaluating the relevant facts, the potential harm to competition, and how to define the relevant markets.

The Merger Guidelines are notable for signaling the FTC’s and DOJ’s desire to pursue a more aggressive enforcement agenda, specifically, by lowering the threshold at which proposed mergers will be deemed presumptively anticompetitive by those enforcement agencies. The new guidelines also seek to address relatively new concerns the agencies have identified, such as cross-market transactions and sequences of smaller transactions.

©2024 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.
For more on Merger Guidelines, visit the NLR Antitrust & Trade Regulation section.

International Trade, Enforcement & Compliance Recent Developments Update (January 17, 2024)

One of the most consistent messages coming from the U.S. government is that multinational companies need to take control of their supply chains. Forced labor, human trafficking, supply chain transparency, OFAC sanctions, even conflict minerals — all are areas in which the best defense against potential violations is strong compliance and due diligence to ensure that companies properly manage their supply chains, rights down to the last supplier. Today’s mix of enforcement actions and guidance from the U.S. government underscores the importance of doing so.

EXPORT CONTROLS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

The Department of Commerce has stated that it has the authority to put companies on the Entity List (requiring special licensing and restrictions) solely for human rights violations. Does your company conduct full due diligence on its suppliers and sub-suppliers to ensure that they are operating in accordance with U.S. forced labor and human trafficking laws?

FORCED LABOR/UFLPA

The Department of Homeland Security continues to add Chinese and other companies to the Uyghur Forced Labor and Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List. Does your organization specifically screen against the UFLPA Entity List, as well as have in place UFLPA compliance and due diligence measures?

FORCED LABOR/UFLPA

The U.S. government has issued a pointed six-agency set of compliance guidelines regarding “the Risks and Considerations for Businesses and Individuals with Exposure to Entities Engaged in Forced Labor and other Human Rights Abuses linked to Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.” Does your organization maintain a compliance policy, vendor code of conduct, supply chain transparency and due diligence procedures, and other measures designed to ensure your supply chain is free of forced labor, human trafficking, or goods sourced from forced labor in the Xingjian Autonomous Region?

CUSTOMS PENALTY FOR ERRONEOUS USE OF FIRST SALE RULE

Due to the imposition of special Section 301 tariffs on most goods from Customs, many companies have begun to use the first sale rule, which allows the reporting of a lower value where there is a bona fide sale to a middleman. Improper application of the rule, however, can be the basis for substantial penalties, as an apparel company that paid a $1.3 million settlement with the DOJ found out. If your company uses the first sale rule, do you regularly review pricing and relevant circumstances to ensure you are meeting all the requirements for all entries?

EXPORT CONTROLS

Pledging “a new era of trilateral partnership,” the U.S., Japan, and South Korea governments have announced expanded collaboration to fight illegal exports of dual-use products, including high-tech products that might be shipped to China in violation of U.S. export controls. Has your organization performed a recent classification review to confirm it is aware of any restrictions that might adhere to the export of any of its products to sensitive countries, governments, or users?

© 2024 Foley & Lardner LLP
For more on Trade and Enforcement, visit the NLR Antitrust & Trade Regulation section.

Recent FinCEN FAQs Provide Additional Guidance on Compliance

The US Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) released several new FAQs this month to provide further clarity on the Corporate Transparency Act’s (CTA) provisions.
Notably, FinCEN provided guidance on who is considered “primary responsible” for directing a filing, as well as what is necessary to qualify under the subsidiary exemption, among other matters.

The CTA’s requirements went into effect on January 1, 2024. As we’ve previously detailed, reporting companies formed prior to that date will be required to file their initial reports with FinCEN no later than January 1, 2025. A reporting company created during 2024 is required to file its initial report within 90 days of its creation or registration, and one created on or after January 1, 2025, will have 30 days to file its initial report. A previously registered company will need to update its registration within 30 days of a change in its beneficial ownership or other information reported to FinCEN. For detailed overviews of the CTA, please visit our earlier posts located here, here, and here.

Company Applicants: Who is “Primarily Responsible” for Directing a Filing?
The CTA requires that reporting companies formed on or after January 1, 2024, disclose their “company applicant.” An individual is a “company applicant” if (1) they directly file the company’s formation or registration documents with a secretary of state or similar office or (2) if more than one person is involved in the filing, they are primary responsible for directing or controlling the filing. A maximum of two individuals can be reported as company applicants.

The FAQs clarify that the person who signs the formation document, such as an incorporator, is not necessarily a company applicant. Instead, the rule focuses on the person responsible for making decisions about the filing, including how the filing is managed, what contents to include, and when and where filing will occur.

FinCEN provides three scenarios to illustrate the rule. In two of the scenarios, an attorney or a paralegal instructed by that attorney completes a company creation document using information provided by a client and sends the document to a corporate service provider to be filed with a secretary of state. In this scenario, the attorney will one of the company applicants, and the employee at the corporate service provider who directly filed the document with the secretary of state will be the other company applicant. In the third scenario, the attorney’s client initiated the company creation directly with the corporate service provider — in this case, the client will be a company applicant (as will the employee at the corporate service provider who directly filed the document).

Subsidiary Exemption: Is Partial Control of a Subsidiary’s Ownership Interests By an Exempt Entity Sufficient to Qualify for the Subsidiary Exemption?
The short answer is — no.

The CTA lists 23 categories of entities that are exempt from the beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirements. A subsidiary of certain categories of exempt entities will also be exempt if the subsidiary is controlled or wholly owned, whether directly or indirectly, by one or more of such exempt entities.

The FAQs clarify what happens when the exempt entity partially controls the subsidiary. Partial control is insufficient for an entity to fall within the subsidiary exemption — a subsidiary’s ownership interests must be fully, 100% owned or controlled by the exempt entity to qualify for this exemption. Thus, control of ownership interests means that one or more exempt entities entirely control all of the ownership interests in the reporting company, in the same way that an exempt entity must wholly own all of a subsidiary’s ownership interests for the exemption to apply.

Selected Additional Matters Covered by the New FAQs
Reporting Company Ownership Subject to Dispute: If ownership of a reporting company is the subject of active litigation, all individuals who own or control (or claim to own or control) at least 25% of the company’s interests are considered beneficial owners, and BOI must be submitted for each individual (in addition to BOI for all individuals who exercise substantial control over the company). If, after the legal dispute is solved, the reporting company has different beneficial owners from those initially reported, an updated BOI report must be filed within 30 calendar days after the litigation is resolved.
Third-Party Couriers or Delivery Service Employees: Third-party courier or delivery service employees who solely deliver documents to a secretary of state are not company applicants, as long as the third-party courier, the delivery service employee, and the delivery service that employs them play no other roles in the creation or registration of the reporting company.
Automated Incorporation Service: An automated incorporation service’s employees are not company applicants if the service solely provides software, online tools, or generally applicable written guidance for the creation of a reporting company and its employees are not directly involved in filing creation documents.
No Photo on Identification Document for Religious Reasons: If a beneficial owner’s or company applicant’s identification document does not include a photograph for religious reasons, the reporting company may submit an image of that identification document when submitting its report, provided that the document is otherwise an acceptable type of identification. If the individual in question obtains a FinCEN identifier, then the burden of providing the identification document to FinCEN would fall on the individual and not on the company (which would only need to report the FinCEN identifier).
No Permanent Residential Address: When a reporting company must report an individual’s residential address, but no such permanent address is available, the reporting company should report the residential address that is current at the time of filing the report. If the address later changes, the reporting company must submit an updated report within 30 days from such change. The use of a FinCEN identifier by the individual will eliminate the company’s need to submit an updated report, although the individual would be required to update his or her address with FinCEN directly.

© 2024 ArentFox Schiff LLP

by: Evgeny Magidenko of ArentFox Schiff LLP

For more news on Corporate Transparency Act Compliance, visit the NLR Corporate & Business Organizations section.

DOL Announces New Independent Contractor Rule

On January 9, 2024, the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) announced a new rule, effective March 11, 2024, that could impact countless businesses that use independent contractors. The new rule establishes a six-factor analysis to determine whether independent contractors are deemed to be “employees” of those businesses, and thus imposes obligations on those businesses relating to those workers including:  maintaining detailed records of their compensation and hours worked; paying them regular and overtime wages; and addressing payroll withholdings and payments, such as those mandated by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (“FICA” for Social Security and Medicare), the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (“FUTA”), and federal income tax laws. Further, workers claiming employee status under this rule may claim entitlement to coverage under the businesses’ group health insurance, 401(k), and other benefits programs.

The DOL’s new rule applies to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) which sets forth federally established standards for the protection of workers with respect to minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and child labor. In its prefatory statement that accompanied the new rule’s publication in the Federal Register, the DOL noted that because the FLSA applies only to “employees” and not to “independent contractors,” employees misclassified as independent contractors are denied the FLSA’s “basic protections.”

Accordingly, when the new rule goes into effect on March 11, 2024, the DOL will use its new, multi-factor test to determine whether, as a matter of “economic reality,” a worker is truly in business for themself (and is, therefore, an independent contractor), or whether the worker is economically dependent on the employer for work (and is, therefore, an employee).

While the DOL advises that additional factors may be considered under appropriate circumstances, it states that the rule’s six, primary factors are: (1) whether the work performed provides the worker with an opportunity to earn profits or suffer losses depending on the worker’s managerial skill; (2) the relative investments made by the worker and the potential employer and whether those made by the worker are to grow and expand their own business; (3) the degree of permanence of the work relationship between the worker and the potential employer; (4) the nature and degree of control by the potential employer; (5) the extent to which the work performed is an integral part of the potential employer’s business; and (6) whether the worker uses specialized skills and initiative to perform the work.

In its announcement, the DOL emphasized that, unlike its earlier independent contractor test which accorded extra weight to certain factors, the new rule’s six primary factors are to be assessed equally. Nevertheless, the breadth and impreciseness of the factors’ wording, along with the fact that each factor is itself assessed through numerous sub-factors, make the rule’s application very fact-specific. For example, through a Fact Sheet the DOL recently issued for the new rule, it explains that the first factor – opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill – primarily looks at whether a worker can earn profits or suffer losses through their own independent effort and decision making, which will be influenced by the presence of such factors as whether the worker: (i) determines or meaningfully negotiates their compensation; (ii) decides whether to accept or decline work or has power over work scheduling; (iii) advertises their business, or engages in other efforts to expand business or secure more work; and (iv) makes decisions as to hiring their own workers, purchasing materials, or renting space. Similar sub-factors exist with respect to the rule’s other primary factors and are explained in the DOL’s Fact Sheet.

The rule will likely face legal challenges by business groups. Further, according to the online newsletter of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, its ranking member, Senator Bill Cassidy, has indicated that he will seek to repeal the rule. Also, in the coming months, the United States Supreme Court is expected to decide two cases that could significantly weaken the regulations issued by federal agencies like the DOL’s new independent contractor rule, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce. We will continue to monitor these developments.1

In the meantime, we recommend that businesses engaging or about to engage independent contractors take heed. Incorrect worker classification exposes employers to the FLSA’s significant statutory liabilities, including back pay, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees to prevailing plaintiffs, and in some case, fines and criminal penalties. Moreover, a finding that an independent contractor has “employee” status under the FLSA may be considered persuasive evidence of employee status under other laws, such as discrimination laws. Additionally, existing state law tests for determining employee versus independent contractor status must also be considered.

1 The DOL’s independent contractor rule is not the only new federal agency rule being challenged. On January 12, 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to repeal the NLRB’s recently announced joint-employer rule, which we discussed in our Client Alert of November 10, 2023.

Eric Moreno contributed to this article.

© Copyright 2024 Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.
For more on the Independent Contractor Rule, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Regulatory Update and Recent SEC Actions 2024

REGULATORY UPDATES

RECENT SEC LEADERSHIP CHANGES

Stephanie Allen Named as SEC’s Director of Media Relations and Speechwriting

The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) announced the appointment of Stephanie Allen as director of media relations and speechwriting, effective Oct. 1, 2023. Allen served as director of speechwriting and senior adviser to the chair since March 2023, and replaces Aisha Johnson, who recently departed the agency.

Allen will serve as the primary spokesperson for the SEC and for Chair Gensler and will lead media relations for the Office of Public Affairs. Allen was previously the executive director of the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity. Before that, she was the director of strategic communications and marketing at Promontory Financial Group, an IBM company. After working for two senators earlier in her career, she served as Chair Gensler’s speechwriter at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

SEC Names Kate E. Zoladz as Regional Director of Los Angeles Office

The SEC named, on November 29, 2023, Kate Zoladz as regional director of the SEC’s Los Angeles Office. Zoladz joined the SEC in 2010 as a staff attorney in the Los Angeles office and later joined the Division of Enforcement’s Asset Management Unit in 2017. Zoladz recently served as acting co-director since June 2023 and the associate regional director for enforcement since October 2019.

Daniel Gregus, Director of the Chicago Regional Office, to Depart the SEC

The SEC announced on December 7, 2023, that Daniel R. Gregus, director of the Chicago Regional Office, would leave the agency at the end of December after more than 30 years of service. Vanessa Horton and Kathryn Pyszka are now the acting co-directors. Horton has been an associate regional director of the Investment Adviser/Investment Company (IA/IC) examination program in the Chicago Regional Office since 2020. She joined the SEC’s Chicago office in 2004 as an accountant and was later an exam manager and an assistant regional director in the Chicago IA/IC examination program. Pyszka has served as an associate regional director for enforcement in the Chicago office since 2017. She began her SEC service in 1997 as a staff attorney and later served in the positions of branch chief, senior trial counsel, and as an assistant director in the Chicago office and the Enforcement Division’s Market Abuse Unit.

SEC Risk Alerts

SEC Announces 2024 Exam Priorities

The SEC’s Division of Examinations (the “Division”) issued its report (the “Report”) on October 16, 2023, regarding exam priorities for the upcoming year concerning investment advisers, broker-dealers, self-regulatory organization, and other market participants.

According to the Report, examination priorities continue to focus on whether investment advisers are adhering to their duty of care and duty of loyalty obligations. Areas of continued focus include:

  • Investment advice provided to clients (with an emphasis on advice to older clients and those saving for retirement) with regard to products, investment strategies, and account types:
    • Complex products, such as derivatives and leveraged exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”);
    • High-cost and illiquid products, such as variable annuities and non-traded real estate investment trusts (“REITs”); and
    • Unconventional strategies, including those that purport to address rising interest rates.
  • Processes for determining that investment advice is provided in clients’ best interest, including:
    • Making initial and ongoing suitability determinations;
    • Seeking best execution;
    • Evaluating costs and risks; and
    • Identifying and addressing conflicts of interest.

Per the Report, assessments will look at the factors that advisers consider in light of the clients’ investment profiles, including investment goals and account characteristics. Examinations will review how advisers address conflicts of interest, including: (i) mitigating or eliminating the conflicts of interest, when appropriate, and (ii) allocating investments to accounts where investors have more than one account (e.g., allocating between accounts that are adviser fee-based, brokerage commission-based, and wrap fee, as well as between taxable and non-taxable accounts).

Additionally, examinations will focus on the economic incentives and conflicts of interest associated with advisers that are dually registered as broker-dealers, use affiliated firms to perform client services, and have financial professionals servicing both brokerage customers and advisory clients to identify, among other things: (i) investment advice to purchase or hold onto certain types of investments (e.g., mutual fund share classes) or invest through certain types of accounts when lower cost options are available; and (ii) investment advice regarding proprietary products and affiliated service providers that result in additional or higher fees to investors. Exams will include review of disclosures made to investors and whether they include all material facts relating to conflicts of interest associated with the investment advice sufficient to allow a client to provide informed consent to the conflict.

Specific areas of focus will include:

  • Marketing Rule and whether advisers, including advisers to private funds, have:
    • Adopted and implemented reasonably designed written policies and procedures to prevent violations of the Advisers Act and the rules thereunder including reforms to the Marketing Rule;
    • Appropriately disclosed their marketing-related information on Form ADV;
    • Maintained substantiation of their processes and other required books and records; and
    • Disseminated advertisements that include any untrue statements of a material fact, are materially misleading, or are otherwise deceptive and, as applicable, comply with the requirements for performance (including hypothetical and predecessor performance), third-party ratings, and testimonials and endorsements.
  • Compensation arrangements:
    • Fiduciary obligations of advisers to their clients, including registered investment companies, particularly with respect to the advisers’ receipt of compensation for services or other material payments made by clients and others;
    • Alternative ways that advisers try to maximize revenue, such as revenue earned on clients’ bank deposit sweep programs; and
    • Fee breakpoint calculation processes, particularly when fee billing systems are not automated.
  • Valuation assessments regarding advisers’ recommendations to clients to invest in illiquid or difficult to value assets, such as commercial real-estate or private placements.
  • Disclosure review for the accuracy and completeness of regulatory filings, including Form CRS, with a particular focus on inadequate or misleading disclosures and registration eligibility.
  • Policies and procedures with respect to:
    • Selecting and using third-party and affiliated service providers;
    • Overseeing branch offices when advisers operate from numerous or geographically dispersed offices; and
    • Obtaining informed consent from clients when advisers implement material changes to their advisory agreements.
Investment Advisers to Private Funds

According to the Report, examinations will prioritize specific topics, such as:

  • Portfolio management risks in connection with exposure to recent market volatility and higher interest rates and effects on funds experiencing poor performance, significant withdrawals, and valuation issues for private funds with more leverage and illiquid assets.
  • Adherence to contractual requirements regarding limited partnership advisory committees or similar structures (e.g., advisory boards), including adhering to any contractual notification and consent processes.
  • Accurate calculation and allocation of private fund fees and expenses (both fund-level and investment-level), including valuation of illiquid assets, calculation of post commitment period management fees, adequacy of disclosures, and potential offsetting of such fees and expenses.
  • Due diligence practices for consistency with policies, procedures, and disclosures, particularly with respect to private equity and venture capital fund assessments of prospective portfolio companies.
  • Conflicts, controls, and disclosures regarding private funds managed side-by-side with registered investment companies and use of affiliated service providers.
  • Compliance with Advisers Act requirements regarding custody, including accurate Form ADV reporting, timely completion of private fund audits by a qualified auditor, and the distribution of private fund audited financial statements.
  • Policies and procedures for reporting on Form PF, including upon the occurrence of certain reporting events.
Registered Investment Companies (including Mutual Funds and ETFs)

Per the Report, exam focus may include the following assessments:

  • Compliance programs and fund governance practices—review boards’ processes for assessing and approving advisory and other fund fees, particularly for funds with weaker performance relative to their peers;
  • Disclosures to investors and accuracy of reporting to the SEC;
  • Valuation practices, particularly for those addressing fair valuation practices (e.g., implementing board oversight duties, setting recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and overseeing valuation designees), and, as applicable, the effectiveness of registered investment companies’ derivatives risk management and liquidity risk management programs;
  • Fees and expenses and whether registered investment companies have adopted effective written compliance policies and procedures concerning the oversight of advisory fees and implemented any associated fee waivers and reimbursements. Areas of particular focus include:
    • Charging different advisory fees to different share classes of the same fund;
    • Identical strategies offered by the same sponsor through different distribution channels but that charge differing fee structures;
    • High advisory fees relative to peers; and
    • High registered investment company fees and expenses, particularly those of registered investment companies with weaker performance relative to their peers.
    • Examinations will also review the boards’ approval of the advisory contract and registered investment company fees.
  • Derivatives risk management and whether registered investment companies and business development companies have adopted and implemented written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of the SEC’s fund derivatives rule (Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Investment Company Act”) Rule 18f-4). Review of compliance with the derivatives rule may include:
    • Review of the adoption and implementation of a derivatives risk management program;
    • Board oversight, and whether disclosures concerning the registered investment companies’ or business development companies’ use of derivatives are incomplete, inaccurate, or potentially misleading; and
    • Procedures for, and oversight of, derivative valuations.

Division staff will also focus on the following areas:

  • Cybersecurity
  • Cryptocurrency assets (focus on a range of activities surrounding crypto assets and related products, including offering, selling, recommending, trading, and providing advice on such assets); and
  • Anti-Money Laundering (“AML”) programs.

Cybersecurity: With respect to cybersecurity, the Division noted that “operational disruption risks remain elevated due to the proliferation of cybersecurity attacks, firms’ dispersed operations, intense weather-related events, and geopolitical concerns.” According to the release, the examination staff will focus on firms’ policies and procedures, internal controls, governance practices, oversight of third-party vendors, and responses to “cyber-related incidents” such as ransomware attacks. Reviews will consider how firms train staff on issues including identity theft prevention and customer records and information protection. Staff will also place a particular focus on “the concentration risk associated with the use of third-party providers, including how registrants are managing this risk and the potential impact to the U.S. securities markets.”

Crypto Assets and Emerging Financial Technology: The release highlights concerns based on the continued growth and popularity of crypto assets (and their associated products and services) and the increase in automated investment tools, artificial intelligence, and trading algorithms or platforms. The Division’s goal is twofold: (1) to ensure that registrants meet their fiduciary duties when recommending or advising about crypto assets; and (2) that compliances, risk disclosures, and operational resiliency practices are routinely reviewed and updated to account for the unique challenges crypto assets provide.

For crypto assets that are funds or securities, this includes ensuring that crypto assets are complying with the custody requirements under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”) and whether policies and procedures are reasonably designed, and accurate disclosures are made, relating to technological risks associated with blockchain and distributed ledger technology.

Anti-Money Laundering: The Division will continue to focus on whether broker-dealers and certain registered investment companies have proper AML programs as required by the Bank Secrecy Act. Specifically, the Division will examine whether broker-dealers and investment companies are appropriately tailoring AML programs, conducting independent testing, establishing an adequate customer identification program, and meeting their filing obligations.

SEC Rulemaking

SEC Adopts Amendments to Rules Governing Beneficial Ownership Reporting

The SEC adopted rule amendments governing beneficial ownership reporting under Sections 13(d) and 13(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) on October 10, 2023, requiring market participants to provide more timely information on their positions.

Exchange Act Sections 13(d) and 13(g), along with Regulation 13D-G, require an investor who beneficially owns more than five percent of a covered class of equity securities to publicly file either a Schedule 13D or a Schedule 13G, as applicable. An investor with control intent files Schedule 13D, while “Exempt Investors” and investors without a control intent, such as “Qualified Institutional Investors” and “Passive Investors,” file Schedule 13G.

The adopted amendments (among other things): i) shorten the deadline for initial Schedule 13D filings from 10 days to five business days and require that Schedule 13D amendments be filed within two business days; ii) generally accelerate the filing deadlines for Schedule 13G beneficial ownership reports (the filing deadlines differ based on the type of filer); iii) clarify the Schedule 13D disclosure requirements with respect to derivative securities; and iv) require that Schedule 13D and 13G filings be made using a structured, machine-readable data language.

In addition, the adopting release provides guidance regarding the current legal standard governing when two or more persons may be considered a group for the purposes of determining whether the beneficial ownership threshold has been met, as well as how, under the current beneficial ownership reporting rules, an investor’s use of certain cash-settled derivative securities may result in the person being treated as a beneficial owner of the class of the reference equity securities.

The amendments were published in the Federal Register on November 7, 2023, effective on February 5, 2024. Compliance with the revised Schedule 13G filing deadlines will be required beginning on September 30, 2024. Compliance with the structured data requirement for Schedules 13D and 13G will be required on December 18, 2024. Compliance with the other rule amendments will be required upon their effectiveness.

“Today’s adoption updates rules that first went into effect more than 50 years ago. Frankly, these deadlines from half a century ago feel antiquated,” said SEC Chair Gary Gensler. “In our fast-paced markets, it shouldn’t take 10 days for the public to learn about an attempt to change or influence control of a public company. I am pleased to support this adoption because it updates Schedules 13D and 13G reporting requirements for modern markets, ensures investors receive material information in a timely way, and reduces information asymmetries.”

SEC Adopts Rule to Increase Transparency in the Securities Lending Market

The SEC adopted on October 13, 2023, new Rule 10c-1a, which will require certain persons to report information about securities loans to a registered national securities association (“RNSA”) and require RNSAs to make publicly available certain information that they receive regarding those lending transactions. According to the SEC, the rule is intended to increase transparency and efficiency of the securities lending market.

Rule 10c-1a will require certain confidential information to be reported to an RNSA to enhance the RNSA’s oversight and enforcement functions. The new rule requires that an RNSA make certain information it receives, along with daily information pertaining to the aggregate transaction activity and distribution of loan rates for each reportable security, available to the public. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) is currently the only RNSA.

The adopting release was published in the Federal Register on November 3, 2023. The compliance dates for the new rule are as follows: (1) an RNSA is required to propose rules within four months of the effective date; (2) the proposed RNSA rules are required to be effective no later than 12 months after the effective date; (3) covered persons are required to report information required by the rule to an RNSA starting on the first business day 24 months after the effective date; and (4) RNSAs are required to publicly report information within 90 calendar days of the reporting date.

SEC Adopts Rule to Increase Transparency Into Short Selling and Amendment to CAT NMS Plan for Purposes of Short Sale Data Collection

The SEC adopted, on October 13, 2023, new Rule 13f-2 to provide greater transparency to investors and other market participants by increasing the public availability of short sale related data. Specifically, Rule 13f-2 will require institutional investment managers that meet or exceed certain thresholds to report on Form SHO specified short position data and short activity data for equity securities. The Commission will aggregate the resulting data by security, thereby maintaining the confidentiality of the reporting managers, and publicly disseminate the aggregated data via EDGAR on a delayed basis. This new data will supplement the short sale data that is currently publicly available.

Relatedly, the Commission also adopted an amendment to the National Market System Plan (“NMS Plan”) governing the consolidated audit trail (“CAT”). The amendment to the NMS Plan governing the CAT (“CAT NMS Plan”) will require each CAT reporting firm that is reporting short sales to indicate when it is asserting use of the bona fide market making exception in Rule 203(b)(2)(iii) of Regulation SHO.

The adopting release for Rule 13f-2 and related Form SHO, as well as the notice of the amendment to the CAT NMS Plan, was published in the Federal Register on November 1, 2023. The final rule, Form SHO, and the amendment to the CAT NMS Plan will become effective 60 days after publication of the adopting release in the Federal Register. The compliance date for Rule 13f-2 and Form SHO will be 12 months after the effective date of the adopting release, with public aggregated reporting to follow three months later, and the compliance date for the amendment to the CAT NMS Plan will be 18 months after the effective date of the adopting release.

Clearing Agency Governance and Conflicts of Interest

On November 16, 2023, the SEC adopted Rule 17Ad-25 and related rules under the Exchange Act to improve clearing agency governance to mitigate conflicts of interest that may influence the board of directors or equivalent governing body of a registered clearing agency. The rules identify certain responsibilities of the board of a clearing agency, increase transparency into board governance, and, more generally, improve the alignment of incentives among owners and participants of a registered clearing agency. The rules establish new requirements for board and committee composition, independent directors, management of conflicts of interest, and board oversight.

The adopted rules:

  1. Define independence in the context of a director serving on the board of a registered clearing agency and require that a majority of the board—or 34 percent—be independent directors;
  2. Establish independent director requirements for the compensation of certain other board committees and identify circumstances that would preclude a director from being an independent director;
  3. Require a clearing agency to establish a nominating committee and a written evaluation process for evaluating board nominees and the independence of nominees and directors and specify requirements with respect to its composition, director fitness standards, and documentation of the outcome of the written eval practice;
  4. Require a clearing agency to establish a risk management committee, specify requirements with respect to the committees’ purpose and composition, and include an annual re-evaluation of such composition;
  5. Require policies and procedures for the management of risks from relationships with service providers for core services that directly support the delivery of clearance or settlement functionality or any other purpose material to the business of the registered clearing agency, with delineated roles for senior management and the board; and
  6. Require policies and procedures for the board to solicit, consider, and document its consideration of the views of participants and other relevant stakeholders regarding material developments in the registered clearing agency’s risk management and operations.

The final rule was published in the Federal Register on December 5, 2023, with an expected compliance 12 months after such publication for all requirements except for the independence requirement for the board and board committees, for which the compliance date is 24 months after publication.

SEC Defends Voting Disclosure Changes Before Fifth Circuit

In July of 2022, the SEC adopted amendments to its rules governing proxy voting advice. Specifically, the rule requires mutual funds, ETFs and certain other registered funds to disclose more information about how they cast votes on behalf of investors. (See Blank Rome’s Investment Management Regulatory Update dated October 2022, “SEC Adopts Amendments to Proxy Rules Governing Proxy Voting Advice,” for further discussion). The rule is set to become effective July 1, 2024.

Since passing the rule, four states (Texas, Louisiana, Utah, and West Virginia) have challenged the SEC’s authority to require fund managers to disclose additional information about votes they cast. Their argument to the Fifth Circuit is that the real purpose of the voting disclosure change is to empower corporate activities rather than the investing public. The SEC maintains, however, that the amendments fall within its authority under the Investment Company Act and that the SEC reasonably concluded that the changes would facilitate investors’ ability to access information important to investment decisions and mitigate conflicts of interest.

SEC Adopts Rule to Prohibit Conflicts of Interest in Certain Securitizations

On November 27, 2023, the SEC adopted Dodd-Frank rules against trader conflicts. Securities Act Rule 192 implements Section 27B of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), a provision added by the Dodd-Frank Act. The Rule seeks to prevent the sale of asset-backed securities (“ABS”) that pose a material conflict of interest. Specifically, it prohibits a securitization participant, for a period of time, from engaging, directly or indirectly, in any transaction that would involve or result in any material conflict of interest between the participant and an investor in the relevant ABS. Rule 192 provides exceptions for risk-mitigating hedging activities, liquidity commitments, and bona fide market-making activities of a securitization participant.

Under new Rule 192, conflicted transactions include a short sale of the relevant ABS, the purchase of a credit default swap or other credit derivative that entitles the securitization participant to receive payments upon the occurrence of specified credit events in respect of the ABS, or a transaction that is substantially the economic equivalent of the aforementioned transactions, other than any transaction that only hedges general interest rate or currency exchange risk.

SEC Adopts Rules to Improve Risk Management in Clearance and Settlement and Facilitate Additional Central Clearing for the U.S. Treasury Market

The SEC adopted rules on December 13, 2023, to enhance risk management practices for central counterparties in the U.S. Treasury market and facilitate additional clearing of U.S. Treasury securities transactions. The rule changes update the membership standards required of covered clearing agencies for the U.S. Treasury market with respect to a member’s clearance and settlement of specified secondary market transactions. Additional rule changes are designed to reduce the risks faced by a clearing agency and incentivize and facilitate additional central clearing in the U.S. Treasury market.

According to the release, the amendments require that covered clearing agencies in the U.S. Treasury market adopt policies and procedures designed to require their members to submit for clearing certain specified secondary market transactions. These transactions include: (i) all repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements collateralized by U.S. Treasury securities entered into by a member of the covered clearing agency, unless the counterparty is a state or local government or another clearing organization or the repurchase agreement is an inter-affiliate transaction; (ii) all purchase and sale transactions entered into by a member of the clearing agency that is an interdealer broker; and (iii) all purchase and sale transactions entered into between a clearing agency member and either a registered broker-dealer, a government securities broker, or a government securities dealer.

Further, the amendments permit broker-dealers to include customer margin required and on deposit at a clearing agency in the U.S. Treasury market as a debit in the customer reserve formula, subject to certain conditions. In addition, the amendments require covered clearing agencies in this market to collect and calculate margin for house and customer transactions separately. Finally, the amendments require policies and procedures designed to ensure that the covered clearing agency has appropriate means to facilitate access to clearing, including for indirect participants. The amendments also include an exemption for transactions in which the counterparty is a central bank, sovereign entity, international financial institution, or natural person.

ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AND CASES

SEC Charges Investment Adviser with Failing to Properly Disclose Investments by Publicly Traded Fund

The SEC charged an investment adviser, on October 24, 2023, for failing to accurately describe investments in the entertainment industry that comprised a significant portion of a publicly traded fund it advised. The investment adviser settled the charges and agreed to pay a $2.5 million penalty.

According to the SEC’s order, from 2015 to 2019, one of the investment adviser’s trusts made significant investments, through a lending facility, in Aviron Group, LLC, a company that developed print and advertising plans for one to two films per year. According to the SEC’s order, the investment advisor inaccurately described Aviron as a “Diversified Financial Services” company in many of the trust’s annual and semi-annual reports. In addition, according to the order, the investment adviser stated that Aviron paid a higher interest rate than was actually the case, and in 2019, the investment adviser identified these inaccuracies and the trust accurately reported the Aviron investment in reports going forward.

Per the SEC’s order, the investment adviser willfully violated fraud-based disclosure prohibitions under Section 34(b) of the Investment Company Act and Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and related Rule 206(4)-8. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, the investment adviser agreed to a cease-and-desist order and a censure in addition to a monetary penalty.

Previously, in 2022, the SEC charged and then resolved its action against William Sadleir, the founder of Aviron, for misappropriating the trust’s funds invested in Aviron.

“Retail and institutional investors rely on accurate disclosures of the companies that make up a closed-end or mutual fund’s portfolio to evaluate a current or prospective investment in the fund,” said Andrew Dean, co-chief of the Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit. “Investment advisers have a responsibility to provide this vital information, and [the adviser here] failed to do so with the Aviron investment.”

SEC Charges President/CCO of Asset Management Advisory Firm with Fraud

The SEC charged a president and chief compliance officer of registered investment adviser, Prophecy Asset Management LP (“Prophecy”), on November 2, 2023, for his involvement in a multi-year fraud that concealed losses of hundreds of millions of dollars from investors.

Prophecy advised multiple hedge funds and reported more than $500 million in assets under management. The SEC’s complaint alleged that the president and Prophecy misled the funds’ investors, auditors, and administrator about the funds’ trading practices, risk, and performance—all while collecting more than $15 million in fees.

According to the SEC’s complaint, the president led investors to believe that their investments were protected from loss, telling them the funds’ capital was shared among dozens of sub-advisers who traded in liquid securities and posted cash collateral to offset any trading losses they incurred. However, the SEC alleged that in reality, most of the funds’ capital went to one sub-adviser, who incurred massive trading losses that far exceeded the cash collateral he had contributed. In addition, the complaint alleged that the president caused the funds to invest in highly illiquid investments, which also resulted in substantial losses to the funds, concealed these losses by fabricating documents and engaging in a series of sham transactions, and deceived investors about the diversification and trading strategies in two other funds. The complaint pleads by 2020, after losses in funds that Prophecy managed amounted to more than $350 million, the president and Prophecy indefinitely suspended redemptions by investors.

The SEC’s complaint charged the president with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Rule 10b-5, Section 206(1) and (2) of the Advisers Act, and Rule 206(4)-8 of the Advisers Act.

SEC Announces Enforcement Results for FY23

The SEC announced on November 14, 2023, its enforcement results for fiscal year 2023. The SEC filed 784 total enforcement actions in fiscal year 2023, a three percent increase over fiscal year 2022. These included 501 original, or “stand-alone,” enforcement actions, an eight percent increase over the prior fiscal year; 162 “follow-on” administrative proceedings seeking to bar or suspend individuals from certain functions in the securities markets based on criminal convictions, civil injunctions, or other orders; and 121 actions against issuers who were allegedly delinquent in making required filings with the SEC.

The stand-alone enforcement actions ranged from billion-dollar frauds to emerging market investments involving crypto asset securities and cybersecurity. The pool of charged individuals or entities included a diverse array of market participants from public companies and investment firms to gatekeepers (such as auditors and lawyers) to social media influencers. Notably, fiscal year 2023 was record-breaking for the SEC’s Whistleblower Program with awards totaling nearly $600 million and more than 18,000 whistleblower tips, which is nearly 50 percent more tips than in the previous fiscal year.

In total, the SEC obtained orders for $4.949 billion in financial remedies, second only to the record-setting $6.439 billion in fiscal year 2022. Of this $4.949 billion, $3.369 billion was obtained in disgorgement and prejudgment interests and $1.580 billion in civil penalties. The SEC also obtained orders barring 133 individuals from serving as officers and directors of public companies, the highest number of bars obtained in a decade.

Crypto Currency Exchange Agrees to pay $4.3 Billion in Fines for Violations of the Bank Secrecy Act

On November 21, 2023, the largest Crypto Currency Exchange (the “Exchange”) in the world agreed to pay a historic $4.3 billion fine for failing to register as a money-transmitting business and allowing users to evade U.S. sanctions against Iran. The Exchange’s founder pled guilty to failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program in violation of the Bank Secrecy Act. This agreement marks the end of the Department of Justice’s yearlong investigation over alleged money laundering, bank fraud, and sanctions violations.

The Exchange also agreed to pay several other penalties to resolve enforcement actions by the CFTC and Treasury Department. Under the CFTC’s proposed orders, the Exchange will pay $2.7 billion, the founder will pay $150 million, and former CCO will pay $1.5 million for ignoring potential money launder and terrorists financing on its platform and for failing to register with the CFTC.

Additionally, the FinCEN settlement will require the Exchange to pay $3.4 billion in civil money penalty and will be subject to a five-year monitorship. Office of Foreign Assets Control will require the Exchange to pay a $968 million penalty. The Treasury will also retain access to the company’s books, records, and systems for the five-year monitorship.

SEC Charges Real Estate Fund Adviser with $35 Million Fraud

The SEC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for District of Arizona, on November 28, 2023, charging an adviser, his investment company, and related entities controlled by the adviser with violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.

The SEC alleged that the adviser misappropriated more than $35 million from private real estate funds and other investment vehicles by using a substantial portion of the funds to pay for his family members’ personal expenses and to fund private jets, yachts, and expensive residences. Further, the adviser issued a press release from another wholly owned LLC that stated the company’s intention to purchase 51 percent of all minority shares in an unrelated public company, at $9 a share, more than nine times the company’s then-current trading price. The shares jumped over 150 percent in after-hours trading shortly after the press release was issued. The adviser had purchased more than 72,000 call options in the company at a price far below the stock price in the days leading up to the press release, hoping to exercise the options at a profit after manipulating the stock price.

Global Bank and Affiliated Entities to Pay $10 Million for Providing Prohibited Mutual Fund Services

The SEC announced, on December 13, 2023, that a global bank and two affiliated entities (“Entities”) agreed to pay $10 million to settle the SEC’s charges that they provided prohibited underwriting and advising services to mutual funds.

In October 2022, the Superior Court of New Jersey entered a consent order that resolved a case alleging that the Entities violated the antifraud provisions of the New Jersey securities laws in connection with its role as underwriter to residential mortgage-backed securities. According to the SEC’s order, the global bank and its affiliates were prohibited from serving as a principal underwriter or investment adviser to mutual funds or employees’ securities companies pursuant to the Investment Company Act unless an exemptive order was received. The SEC order found, however, that the Entities continued serving in these prohibited roles until the SEC granted them time-limited exemptions on June 7, 2023. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, the Entities agreed to pay more than $6.7 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and civil penalties totaling $3.3 million.

“Today’s action holds the [Entities] accountable for not complying with eligibility requirements,” said Corey Schuster, Asset Management Unit co-chief. “This action reinforces the need for entities to properly monitor for events that may cause disqualification and proactively seek and obtain waivers from the Commission before becoming disqualified, or refrain from performing prohibited services.”

BarnBridge DAO Agrees to Stop Unregistered Offer and Sale of Structured Finance Crypto Product

The SEC announced on December 22, 2023, that BarnBridge DAO (“BarnBridge”), a purportedly decentralized autonomous organization, and its two founders will pay more than $1.7 million to settle charges that they failed to register BarnBridge’s offer and sale of structured crypto asset securities known as SMART Yield bonds. The SEC also charged the respondents with violations stemming from operating BarnBridge’s SMART Yield pools as unregistered investment companies.

According to the SEC’s orders, the respondents compared the SMART Yield bonds to asset-backed securities and marketed them broadly to the public. Investors could purchase “Senior” or “Junior” SMART Yield bonds through BarnBridge’s website application. SMART Yield pooled crypto assets deposited by the investors and used those assets to generate fixed or variable returns to pay investors. A BarnBridge white paper, published by one of the founders, claimed that SMART Yield bonds would “mirror the safety and security of highly rated debt instruments offered by traditional finance…while still providing the outsized return” through its smart contract protocols. According to the orders, SMART Yield attracted more than $509 million in investments from investors, and BarnBridge was paid fees by the investors based on the size of their investment and their choice of yield.

To settle the SEC’s charges, BarnBridge agreed to disgorge nearly $1.5 million of proceeds from the sales, and its two founders each agreed to pay $125,000 in civil penalties.

Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, BarnBridge and its two founders agreed to cease-and-desist orders prohibiting them from violating and causing violations of the registration provisions of the Securities Act and the Investment Company Act. The SEC orders referenced remedial actions initiated by the founders.

SEC BuyBack Disclosure Rule Vacated by Appeals Court

The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, on December 19, 2023, granted a motion filed by business groups to vacate the SEC’s new rule that required companies to provide timelier disclosures on stock buybacks. Prior to this ruling, on October 31, 2023, the court found that the SEC “acted arbitrarily and capriciously” and in so doing violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to conduct a proper cost-benefit analysis when drafting the rule. The SEC was given 30 days to “correct the defects in the rule” but did not file a new draft. On December 7, 2023, business groups filed a motion for the court to vacate the rule.

The SEC’s finalized rule in May 2023 required companies to disclose daily stock buyback information either quarterly or semiannually to include the number of shares repurchased each day and the average price paid on that day. In addition, the rule required companies to indicate whether certain directors or officers traded the relevant securities within four days before or after public announcement of an issuer’s buyback plan or program.

© 2023 Blank Rome LLP
For more on SEC regulations, visit the NLR Securities & SEC section.