Investment Archives - Page 3 of 6 - The National Law Forum

FinCEN Issues Final Rule on the Corporate Transparency Act Requiring Businesses to Report Beneficial Ownership Information

On September 30, 2022, the U.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) published its final rule implementing Section 6403 of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”). The final rule, which will take effect on January 1, 2024, will require “tens of millions” of companies doing business in the U.S. to report certain information about their beneficial owners. The reporting companies created or registered before January 1, 2024, will have until January 1, 2025, to file their initial beneficial ownership reports with FinCEN. Reporting companies created or registered on or after January 1, 2024, will be required to file initial beneficial ownership reports within 30 days of formation.

The CTA was passed by Congress on January 1, 2021, as part of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. After publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and receiving public comments, FinCEN adopted the proposed rule largely as proposed, with certain modifications intended to minimize unnecessary burdens on reporting companies.

What Entities are Reporting Companies? The final rule describes two types of reporting companies: domestic and foreign.

A domestic reporting company is any entity that is a corporation, a limited liability company, or other entity (such as limited liability partnerships, limited liability limited partnerships, business trusts, and most limited partnerships and business trusts) created by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any similar office under the law of a state or American Indian tribe.
A foreign reporting company is any corporation, limited liability company, or other entity formed under the law of a foreign country and registered to do business in any state or tribal jurisdiction by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any similar office under the law of a state or American Indian tribe.

What Entities are Exempt? The final rule exempts twenty-three separate categories of entities from the definition of the reporting company. Many of the exempted entities are already subject to federal or state regulations requiring disclosure of beneficial ownership information, such as banks, credit unions, depositary institutions, investment advisors, securities brokers and dealers, accounting firms, governmental entities, tax-exempt entities, and entities registered with the SEC under the Exchange Act of 1934. Additionally, the rules set forth an exemption for “large operating companies” that can demonstrate each of the following factors:

Employ more than 20 full-time employees in the U.S.
Have an operating presence at a physical office within the U.S.
Filed a federal income tax or information return in the U.S. for the previous year demonstrating more than $5 million in gross receipts or sales (excluding gross receipts or sales from sources outside the U.S.)

Finally, under the so-called “subsidiary exemption,” entities whose ownership interests are controlled or wholly owned by one or more exempt entities may also qualify for exemption. If a reporting company was formerly exempt but loses its exemption, it must file an updated report that announces the change and includes all the information required in a reporting company’s initial report.

Who are Beneficial Owners? The final rule requires reporting companies to report each individual who is a beneficial owner of such reporting company. A “beneficial owner” is any individual who, directly or indirectly, either exercises substantial control over the reporting company or owns or controls at least 25 percent of the ownership interests of the reporting company. An individual exercises “substantial control” if such individual:

Serves as a senior officer (except for corporate secretary or treasurer)
Has authority over the appointment or removal of any senior officer or a majority of the board of directors (or similar body)
Directs, determines, or has substantial influence over important decisions made by the reporting company
Has any other form of substantial control over the reporting company

Additionally, an individual may exercise substantial control over a reporting company, directly or indirectly, including as a trustee of a trust or similar arrangement, through:

Board representation
Ownership or control of a majority of the voting power or voting rights of the reporting company
Rights associated with any financing arrangement or interest in a company
Control over one or more intermediary entities that separately or collectively exercise substantial control over a reporting company
Arrangements or financial or business relationships, whether formal or informal, with other individuals or entities acting as nominees
Any other contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship, or otherwise

The final rule exempts five categories of individuals from the definition of beneficial owner: (i) minors, (ii) nominees, intermediaries, custodians, and agents, (iii) certain employees who are not senior officers, (iv) heirs with a future interest in the company, and (v) certain creditors.

Who are Company Applicants? In addition to the beneficial owner information, the final rule requires reporting companies created or registered on or after January 1, 2024, to report identifying information about each “company applicant.” A “company applicant” is:

Any individual who directly files the document to create a domestic reporting company or register a foreign reporting company with a secretary of state or similar office in the U.S.
Any individual who is primarily responsible for directing or controlling such filing if more than one individual is involved in the filing

The final rule provides further clarification as to certain individuals who, by virtue of their formation roles, fall under the definition of “company applicants.” For example:

If an attorney oversees the preparation and filing of incorporation documents and a paralegal files them, the reporting company would report both the attorney and paralegal as company applicants.
If an individual prepares and self-files documents to create the individual’s own reporting company, the reporting company would report the individual as the only company applicant.

The final rule removes the requirements that i) entities created before the effective date report company applicant information and ii) reporting companies update their company applicant information (except to correct inaccuracies), each of which were set forth in the proposed rules.

When are Initial Reports Due? When an initial report must be filed depends on the status of the reporting company as of January 1, 2024:

If Created or Registered on or after January 1, 2024 – It must file a report within 30 calendar days from the earlier of: i) the date on which the company receives actual notice that its creation or registration has become effective, or ii) the date a secretary of state or similar office first provides public notice, such as through a publicly accessible registry, that the company has been created or registered.
If Created or Registered Prior to January 1, 2024 – It must file a report not later than January 1, 2025.

What Information Must be Reported? An initial report must include the following information with respect to the reporting company:

The full legal name of the reporting company
Any trade name or “doing business as” name of the reporting company
The street address of the principal place of business of the reporting company (if outside the U.S., the street address of the primary location in the U.S. where it conducts business)
The state, tribal, or foreign jurisdiction of formation of the reporting company (a foreign reporting company must also report the state or tribal jurisdiction where it first registers)
The IRS Taxpayer Identification Number (“TIN”) of the reporting company (including the EIN of the reporting company, or if a foreign reporting company without a TIN, a tax identification number issued by a foreign jurisdiction and the name of such jurisdiction)

For each company applicant (of a reporting company registered or created on or after January 1, 2024) and each beneficial owner of a reporting company, the following information must be reported:

The full legal name of the individual
The date of birth of the individual
The current business street address (for a company applicant who forms or registers an entity in the course of such company applicant’s business) or residential street address (for all other individuals including beneficial owners)
A unique identifying number from, and image of, an acceptable identification document (e.g., a passport)

If a reporting company is directly or indirectly owned by one or more exempt entities and an individual is a beneficial owner of the reporting company exclusively by virtue of such individual’s ownership interest in the exempt entity, the reporting company’s report may list the name of the exempt entity in lieu of the beneficial ownership information set forth above.

When do Companies have to Report Changes? If there is any change with respect to required information previously submitted to FinCEN concerning a reporting company or its beneficial owners, including any change with respect to who is a beneficial owner or information reported for any particular beneficial owner, the reporting company is required to file an updated report within 30 calendar days of when the change occurred.

What are the Penalties for Violations? The final rule provides for a fine of up to $10,000.00 and/or imprisonment of up to two years for any person who willfully: (i) provides or attempts to provide false or fraudulent beneficial ownership information, or (ii) fails to report complete or updated beneficial ownership information to FinCEN. The penalties may also extend to individuals causing a reporting company’s failure to report or update information and senior officials of a reporting company at the time such failure occurs.

What is Coming Next from FinCEN? FinCEN is expected to publish the forms and instructions to be used for reporting beneficial ownership information well in advance of the effective date. FinCEN will further establish a secure nonpublic database for storage of the beneficial ownership information. Finally, FinCEN will issue rules on who may access the information (a limited group of governmental authorities and financial institutions), under what circumstances, and how the parties would generally be required to handle and safeguard the information.

What Should Reporting Companies be Doing Now? Existing companies should begin evaluating whether they are a “reporting company” and if so, determining who are their beneficial owners. Such reporting companies, including any other reporting companies that may be created or registered before the effective date, will have until January 1, 2025, to file an initial report. As noted, reporting companies created or registered on or after the effective date will have 30 calendar days after the date of creation or registration to file an initial report.

Article By Thomas G. Appleman, Arthur L. Griem, and Vera S. Hansen of Miller Canfield

For more financial legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

5 Keys to SEC Compliance Success

The best way to avoid the scrutiny from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that can lead to significant legal liability is to strictly comply with all of the agency’s rules and regulations. Unfortunately, given the complexity of these regulations and the constantly changing legal landscape of securities laws, such as the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this is much easier said than done.

Here are five keys to SEC compliance.

1. Identify Your Particular Needs

It should be an obvious first step, but many compliance attorneys treat all clients the same and offer a one-size-fits-all approach to complying with the regulations promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). While this might not be a terrible approach – so long as it is all-encompassing, it will keep your company in line with the SEC across the board – it can saddle your firm with concerns and extraneous internal rules that have no bearing on how you conduct business.

A great example is a cryptocurrency. The SEC is, belatedly, beginning to issue rules and regulations for financial firms that focus on and trade in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. If your brokerage firm is not buying or selling securities in crypto-assets and has no plans to do so soon, then implementing compliance measures for cryptocurrency regulations has no benefit to your company. Those measures will, however, make the regulated securities professionals who work for your firm jump through pointless hoops in the ordinary course of their business.

Adopting a compliance strategy that more precisely meets your company’s needs will let your workers perform to their full capacity while still insulating your firm from legal liability or SEC scrutiny. It will just have to be updated if you choose to expand into new forms of securities trading.

2. Craft an All-Encompassing Compliance Strategy

Based on your firm’s precise regulatory needs, the next key to success is to come up with a compliance strategy that takes into account all of the SEC’s rules that could impact your company. Given the breadth of the SEC’s jurisdiction and the sheer number of regulations that it has put forth, this can take a while.

Once your firm’s legal requirements have been ascertained, the next step is to come up with ways that you can satisfy them during the day-to-day business activities at your firm. This is another reason why every compliance strategy should be tailored to your business – a compliance technique that works well and is easy for one firm may be onerous and inconvenient for another one.

As Dr. Nick Oberheiden, founding partner of the SEC compliance law firm Oberheiden P.C., often tells clients, “All SEC compliance measures should protect the securities firm from SEC liability. However, those measures should also be judged by how burdensome they are on the firm that is employing them. The least inconvenient method to adequately insulate your firm from liability is the best. Learning about a brokerage firm and understanding its strengths and weaknesses and its capabilities help compliance lawyers craft the best solutions for their clients. Unfortunately, one of the most common complaints that securities professionals have about attorneys is that they do not listen to their particular concerns. We strive to do better.”

3. Train, Train, and Retrain Your Workers

No compliance strategy is effective if it is not implemented. Training your employees and workers in the intricacies of the compliance strategy, explaining why it is important for them to follow it strictly, and describing the penalties for noncompliance is the next key to success.

Even here, though, it is not a matter of simply giving your employees a handbook of rules, policies, and procedures to memorize. Just like how the compliance strategy should be tailored to your firm, so too should the instruction materials be tailored to each type of worker at your company. While it can help to train non-regulated administrative staff how to detect the signs of financial misconduct or fraud, there is no reason to bog them down in the details of SEC regulations that only pertain to traders – doing so can overload them with irrelevant information and make them lose sight of what they need to know.

It is also important to remember that training is not a one-time ordeal. New hires must be onboarded and taught the rules of internal compliance. Existing workers should be retrained to keep them apprised of any updates and to ensure that they remember their roles in the compliance protocol.

4. Keep Your Compliance Strategy Updated

Keeping your compliance strategy updated is also essential when it comes to compliance inspections. An out-of-date compliance protocol may still cover many of the bases for SEC compliance. However, there will be gaps in the compliance requirements that you will be unaware of, giving you a false sense of security.

The compliance strategy should not just be updated to account for new SEC regulations, though: It should also get updated whenever your brokerage firm branches out into new types of trading or adds a new kind of financial service to its portfolio. With that new line of business will likely come new SEC regulations to abide by.

5. Audit Yourself Regularly

Even if you have a good compliance program or plan, have trained workers to follow it, and keep the protocols updated, you are still moving forward blindly if you do not regularly conduct internal audits of your company to make sure that those compliance rules are working. Many compliance programs and strategies check off all of the boxes, only to lead to an SEC investigation that finds problems because a single worker did not actually understand how to correctly perform a job task.

These situations of compliance issues are incredibly frustrating. They can also be detected, identified, and corrected through a compliance strategy that includes internal auditing by outside counsel or an SEC compliance attorney with prior experience investigating securities fraud.

Article By Dr. Nick Oberheiden of Oberheiden P.C.

For more securities and SEC legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

What Public Comments on the SEC’s Proposed Climate-Related Rules Reveal—and the Impact They May Have on the Proposed Rules

On March 21, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) published for comment its much-anticipated proposed rules on climate disclosures, entitled “The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors.”^[1] The SEC invited public comments on these rules, and the response was overwhelming—nearly 15,000 comments were published on the SEC’s website over the course of three months, from individuals and organizations representing all aspects of modern American society. Few, if any, of the SEC’s rule proposals have ever received such voluminous, significant, and diverse comments. And the comments themselves range from brief statements to complex legal arguments either in support or in opposition, as well as detailed proposals for further changes to the proposed climate disclosures. The comment period closed on June 17, 2022, and further action by the SEC to finalize the proposed rule is anticipated this fall.

This article provides a brief summary of the comments, and analyzes and summaries the key points the comments conveyed.

Statistical Analysis of Form and Individualized Submissions

Since the beginning of the public comment period, the SEC has received 14,645 comments on the proposed climate disclosure rules.^[2] To provide some context for how massive that figure is, the SEC has only received 144 comments on its proposed cybersecurity risk management rules, which were announced two weeks before the proposed climate disclosures and have also been the subject of extensive commentary in the press. Yet despite the prominence of the SEC’s cybersecurity proposal, it has received fewer than 1% of the comments offered on the climate disclosure rule.

Of the 14,645 comments, approximately 12,304, or 84% of the total, are form letters. This includes 10,589 comments that the SEC itself identified as form letters, and another 1,715 apparently individualized comments that were actually form letters. However, even when removing these form letters from consideration, fully 2,341 individualized comment letters remain—a substantial number, and a significant percentage (16%) of the volume.[3]

The form letters are worth exploring in more detail. Of the 12,304 comments, fully 10,861 (88%) broadly express support for the proposed climate disclosure rule, and only 1,443 (12%) are in opposition. This disparity in the level of support for the two positions is best conveyed by the chart below.

Notably, it has been possible to identify some, although not all, of the organizations that sponsored the form letter writing campaign. In particular, form letters proposed by the Union of Concerned Scientists in support of the proposed climate disclosures were submitted 6886 times—more than 55% of the total volume of form letters. Additionally, the form letters proposed by the Climate Action Campaign and the National Wildlife Federation in support of the SEC’s proposed disclosures were also quite voluminous among the submissions—1208 and 956 comment letters, respectively. The most frequent form letters submitted in opposition to the proposed climate disclosure rules—e.g., those proposed by FreedomWorks (348 letters) and the Club for Growth (172 letters)—did not achieve nearly the same volume of submissions.

But the apparent overwhelming majority in favor of the proposed SEC climate disclosure rules, as conveyed by the form letters, is belied by the individualized submissions, which were far more closely divided. Of the 2341 individualized comment letters submitted, approximately 53% (1238 comment letters) expressed support, about 43% (1015 comment letters) were opposed, and a handful—around 4% (88 comment letters)[4]—did not express a position. The below chart demonstrates the levels of support expressed by the individualized submissions:

Besides the mere volume of submissions, however, the most noteworthy aspect of the individualized submissions are the substantive arguments—both factual and legal—that these comment letters articulate, whether in support or opposition to the proposed rules, as well as the identity of those making these submissions.

Arguments in Support of the Proposed SEC Climate Disclosure Rules

The organizations and individuals that chose to offer support for the SEC’s proposed climate disclosures represent a wide swathe of society. Broadly speaking, these proposed climate disclosures attracted support from, among others: Democratic politicians, civil society organizations (such as environmental NGOs), individual corporations, professional services organizations, and academics. While the rationales offered by these different groups varied considerably, in part due to their varying perspectives (e.g., environmental NGOs were more concerned with the impact on the transition to a clean-energy environment, while corporations often focused on the consequences of particular aspects of the rules), the individualized comments in support of the proposed disclosures nonetheless shared some common features.

Specifically, there are a number of common arguments that are frequently featured among the 1239 individualized submissions in support of the SEC’s proposed climate disclosures. Six arguments appear in over 10% of the submissions. In order of prevalence, these are:

Environmental Protection (347 submissions, 28%): that the proposed rules will help protect the environment
Investor Choice (280 submissions, 23%): that the proposed rules will enable investors to make more informed choices
Investor Protection (263 submissions, 21%): that the proposed rules will enable investors to protect themselves and their investments from climate-related risk
Standardization of Climate Disclosures (259 submissions, 21%): that the proposed rules will enable the standardization of climate disclosures, making data comparable
Increased Transparency (171 submissions, 14%): that the proposed rules will increase transparency and hold companies accountable for their emissions
Alignment with International and Foreign Regulatory Frameworks (169 submissions, 14%): that the proposed rules will bring the United States into alignment with both international frameworks and other countries (e.g., the EU)

No other argument appeared in more than 6% of the individualized submissions in support of the SEC’s proposed climate disclosures.

Notably, the most common arguments in favor of the proposed climate disclosures share a common feature: these are all policy arguments, focusing on the benefits to investors and the broader economy from the adoption of the SEC’s proposed disclosures. Only a single argument among the top ten most frequent arguments in support was a legal argument—namely that the proposed rules fall within the SEC’s statutory authority—and that argument appeared in only around 3% of the submissions (41 submissions).[5] This focus on policy benefits among supporters of the SEC’s proposed climate disclosures is unsurprising, as these public policy rationales were a key factor in encouraging the Biden Administration to pursue this regulatory agenda. However, the reluctance to engage with critics of the proposed climate disclosures on a legal basis may signal the difficulties that the SEC’s proposed climate disclosures may encounter in future court challenges.

Arguments in Opposition to the Proposed SEC Climate Disclosure Rules

Those entities and individuals that submitted individualized comment letters opposing the SEC’s proposed climate disclosures also represent a broad range of American society, albeit with a somewhat different focus. Generally, individualized letters in opposition to the SEC’s proposed climate disclosures tended to be submitted by, among others: Republican politicians, individual corporations, trade industry groups, and NGOs. (Unsurprisingly, the fossil fuel industry and extractive industries were particularly well-represented among the commenters.) These individualized submissions—frequently lengthy and extensively analyzing the SEC’s regulatory practices and authority—shared a number of common themes.

In particular, there are a number of common arguments that featured frequently among the 1014 individualized submissions to the SEC in opposition to these proposed climate disclosures. Three (3) arguments appeared in more than ten (10) percent of these submissions:

Ultra vires (322 submissions, 32% ): that the SEC lacks the ability to issue these disclosures as the proposed rule is beyond the scope of the SEC’s legal authority
Compliance Costs (218 submissions, 21% ): that compliance with the proposed rule will impose unreasonable and extensive costs on businesses
Climate Science Skepticism (123 submissions, 12%): that the science concerning climate change is unsettled and therefore the proposed rule is inappropriate

Although no other common argument appeared in more than 7% of the individualized letters in opposition, it should still be noted that there were a large number of letters that objected to the increased burdens placed on particular types of businesses, whether farmers (53 submissions, 5%), fossil fuel companies (49 submissions, 5%), or small businesses (36 submissions, 4%).

Overall, it is striking that around a third of the comments submitted in opposition stated that the SEC had acted beyond its authority (ultra vires) in proposing this new rule. While this critique is hardly novel—it has been a frequent refrain of the Republican SEC Commissioners ever since this topic was first broached—the prevalence of this argument among the individualized comments suggests that both the public and sophisticated market actors perceive this issue as a key vulnerability in the SEC’s proposal, and that this legal argument will likely be emphasized in the inevitable legal challenge to this SEC rule. And, based on recent decisions by the Supreme Court, it is altogether likely that this line of attack may find a sympathetic audience in the courts.

Potential Changes to the SEC Climate Disclosure Rules Resulting from Public Comments

Despite the differences between the advocates and opponents of the SEC’s proposed climate disclosures, both sides submitted proposals to the SEC to change or adjust the proposed rules. Although there was often substantial disagreement about the content of these proposed changes, there were also significant areas of convergence.

Some of the changes to the SEC’s proposed climate disclosures frequently submitted by supporters of the rule included:

ISSB: that the SEC should further align its proposal with the ISSB and help create a global standard (76 comments);
Extended Phase-In Period: to extend the phase-in period for these new disclosure requirements (72 comments);
Alignment with International and Foreign Standards: that the SEC should further align its proposal with international and foreign standards, such as the EU or TCFD (66 comments);
Enhance Scope 3 GHG Emissions: to eliminate exemptions so that all companies must disclose Scope 3 GHG emissions (55 comments);
Principles-Based Approach to Materiality: to adopt a principles-based approach to materiality rather than bright-line rules (53) comments;
Remove Scope 3 GHG Emissions: to remove the requirement that Scope 3 GHG emissions be disclosed (36 comments);
Furnish, Not File: that the disclosures be provided in a document that is “furnished” to the SEC, rather than filed (which impacts potential liability) (26 comments).

Although certain proposed changes by proponents of the SEC’s proposed climate disclosure rule are undeniably expected (e.g., removing exemptions for disclosure of Scope 3 GHG emissions), there are others that seem somewhat surprising on initial review (e.g., extending the phase-in period or removing Scope 3 GHG emissions entirely). This can most easily be explained by the fact that supporters of the SEC’s proposed rule include corporations and other business interests, which will resist certain burdensome regulations even if generally offering support for the overall thrust of the proposal. There are also academics and others who continue to express skepticism concerning the utility of disclosing Scope 3 emissions, or even whether it can be adequately measured.

It should be emphasized that these changes proffered by supporters of the SEC’s proposed rule, many of which are designed to render the proposed rule less onerous, may indicate that the support for the proposed rule—or at least the most stringent aspects of it—is relatively weak (or at least among the corporate interests nominally aligned with the SEC).

The most frequent changes suggested by opponents of the rule included:

Remove Scope 3 GHG Emissions: to remove the requirement that Scope 3 GHG emissions be disclosed (69 comments);
Principles-Based Approach to Materiality: to adopt a principles-based approach to materiality rather than bright-line rules (35 comments);
Extended Phase-In Period: to extend the phase-in period for these new disclosure requirements (25 comments);
Furnish, Not File: that the disclosures be provided in a document that is “furnished” to the SEC, rather than filed (which impacts potential liability) (18 comments).

These proposed changes (and others) advanced by opponents of the SEC’s proposed rule are generally designed to make the rules less stringent and also to reduce costs and potential legal liability.

As can be seen by comparing the above lists, there are certain areas where suggested changes to the proposed rule converged. In particular, there are issues where both opponents of the SEC’s proposed rule and some of its supporters would try to render it less intrusive or impactful, particularly with respect to the elimination of the requirement to report Scope 3 GHG emissions and to extend the phase-in period further. (Although, as noted, this apparent convergence between opponents and supporters of the SEC’s proposed rule may be due to divergent interests among the supporters of the SEC’s proposed rule with respect to its implementation.)

But, regardless of the specific content of the particular proposed changes, what is undoubtedly significant is that these proposed changes have highlighted the aspects of the SEC’s proposed climate disclosure rule that are likely most sensitive to regulated corporations. Such an insight reveals not only the areas where active lobbying is most likely to take place, but also previews probable priorities for corporate compliance departments. In effect, focusing on the aspects of the proposed rule where changes were proposed is a means to identify the key issues from the perspective of the regulated entities and the public at large.

Conclusion

The level of engagement with the SEC’s proposed climate disclosures, as demonstrated by the number and detail of the public comments offered, is extraordinary. This degree of attention indicates the significant impact that is expect to result from the ultimate promulgation of these rules (or a revised version thereof).

Of course, the key question here is what changes, if any, are likely to be made to the SEC’s proposed rule based upon the public comments submitted to the SEC. In this context, it is noteworthy that a handful of key issues have been identified by both proponents and opponents of the proposed disclosures as especially ripe for potential revision. As noted above, these include, among others, the length of the phase-in period and the disclosure of Scope 3 GHG emissions. If any changes are to be made to the SEC’s proposed climate disclosure rule, it is likely that such changes will be related to these issues.

However, given the relative lack of forward momentum with respect to other aspects of the Biden Administration’s climate agenda, there may well be political pressure not to weaken or otherwise rollback the SEC’s proposed rule, as this is one of the few areas where significant—and publicly-recognized—progress has been made with regulations designed to address the issue of climate change. Further, the Biden Administration’s SEC has certainly recognized the inevitability of a legal challenge to these proposed climate disclosures, and, since no degree of alteration would suffice to preempt such a lawsuit, the SEC may conclude that it is better to seek to implement all aspects of the proposed regulation for the political benefit that can be achieved in the short term, since the substantive aspects of the proposed disclosure may not ultimately survive judicial scrutiny. The SEC may also prefer to send a strong signal to the market by maintaining its original proposed rule. Recognizing these pressures, it seems unlikely that the public comments submitted to the SEC will have a significant impact on the final rule promulgated in the coming months—and improbable that the SEC will make the proposed disclosures less robust.

FOOTNOTES

^[1]These proposed rules are discussed more fully in our prior publication: https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2451/2022-03-30-brief-summary-secs-proposed-climate-related-rules

^[2]Although the total number of comments, when including both form letters and individualized letters, is 14,739, there are 94 comment letters on the SEC website that are duplicates, and have thus been removed from the calculation.

^[3]For comparison, the proposed SEC rule on disclosing compensation ratios drew about 300,000 form letters and around 1500 individualized comment letters. In this case, the individualized comment letters represented only about 0.5% of the total volume. https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-07-13/s70713.shtml

^[4]The eighty-eight comment letters that did not adopt an express position on the proposed climate disclosure rules instead conveyed a number of different points, including proposing narrow changes to the proposed rule without taking a stance on the rule as a whole, or offering further context for the SEC’s actions (e.g., comparing the SEC to other regulators, whether domestic or international). This category also includes a number of early comments that simply requested that the SEC extend the deadline for submitting comments.

^[5]There are public comments in support of the proposed rule that focus on the legal issues. In particular, the submission of Prof. John Coates of Harvard Law School, a former SEC official, is devoted exclusively to defending the legal authority of the SEC to issue the proposed climate disclosure rule. https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-22/s71022-20130026-296547.pdf

Article By Jacob H. Hupart, Megan N. Gates, William F. Weld, Douglas P. Baumstein, Jennifer B. Rubin, and Courtney O. Taylor of Mintz. Luke Haubenstock also contributed to this article.

For more securities and SEC legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

A Fool in Idaho; SEC Sues Idahoans for Insider Trading Scheme

In July 1993 two brothers, David and Tom Gardner, and a friend, Erik Rydholm, founded a private investment advisory firm in Alexandria, Virginia. They named that firm Motley Fool after the court jester in “As You Like It,” a play written by William Shakespeare (it is believed in 1599). The Motley Fool, or Touchstone as he is known in the play, was the only character who could speak the truth to Duke Frederick without having his head cut off. Similarly, Motley Fool, the advisory firm, sought to give investors accurate advice, even if it flew in the face of received wisdom. For example, in advance of April Fool’s Day 1994, Motley Fool issued a series of online messages promoting a non-existent sewage-disposal company. The April Fool’s Day prank was intended to teach investors a lesson about penny stock companies. The messages gained widespread attention including an article in The Wall Street Journal.

Over time Motley Fool grew into a worldwide subscription stock recommendation service. It now releases new recommendations every Thursday, and subscribers receive them through computer interfaces provided by Motley Fool. The terms of service in a Motley Fool subscription agreement (in the words of the May 3, 2022 Complaint brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission [“SEC”] in the Federal Court for the Southern District of New York) “expressly prohibit unauthorized access to its systems.” David Lee Stone of Nampa, Idaho (southwest of Boise), is a 36-year-old computer design and repair person with a degree in computer science. Since June 2021, he and his wife have lived periodically in Romania, a fact cited in the Complaint, suggesting, perhaps, some involvement with Romania-based computer hackers. In any event, Stone is alleged in the Complaint to have used deceptive means beginning in November 2020 to obtain pre-release access to upcoming Motley Fool stock picks. Using that information, Stone and a co-defendant made aggressive investments, typically in options, which generated more than $12 million in gains. Stone, his codefendant, and his family and friends all benefited financially from knowing in advance the Motley Fool picks.

The SEC seeks injunctions against Stone and his co-defendant, as well as disgorgement with interest and civil penalties, for violating the antifraud provisions of federal law. The Commission also seeks disgorgement with interest from the family and friends. In addition, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York has filed criminal charges against Stone.

This case is in many ways reminiscent of the 1985 federal prosecution by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (who happened to be Rudolph Giuliani at the time) of R. Foster Winans. Winans was, from 1982 to 1984, the co-author of “Heard on the Street,” a column in The Wall Street Journal. Winans leaked advance word of what would be in his column to a stockbroker who then invested with the benefit of that information, sharing some of the profits with Winans. Winans argued that his actions were unethical, but not criminal. He was found guilty of insider trading and wire fraud and was sentenced to 18 months in prison. He appealed his conviction all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court rulings.

Attempting to profit on market sensitive information can be both a civil and a criminal offense. The SEC Enforcement Division and the relevant U.S. Attorney are prepared to introduce a perpetrator to those consequences.

Article By Peter D. Hutcheon of Norris McLaughlin P.A.

For more securities and SEC legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

“My Lawyer Made Me Do It” is Not an Absolute Defense to Bankruptcy Court Sanctions

Last year, we offered a lesson and a moral from a North Carolina district court decision reversing a $115,000 sanctions order by a North Carolina bankruptcy court.

The lesson from the case was that the bankruptcy court cannot sanction a creditor if there is an objectively reasonable basis for concluding that the creditor’s conduct is lawful.

The moral was that a creditor can avoid the time, expense, and risk associated with litigating contempt and sanctions issues by taking basic steps to ensure that confirmed Chapter 11 plans are clear and precise. The moral is even more glaring now because a recent decision from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reveals that the parties continue to fight in court over the easily-avoidable sanctions order. The decision also clarifies when and why a bankruptcy court can sanction a creditor.

Factual Background

In 2009, the Beckharts filed Chapter 11. At the time, they were almost a year behind on a loan secured by the property at Kure Beach. The loan servicer objected to planning confirmation because it did not specify how post-petition mortgage payments would be applied to principal and interest. The bankruptcy court confirmed the plan without clarifying the issue, but the servicer did not ask the court to reconsider its order, nor did it appeal.

The Beckharts paid for five years. Shellpoint acquired the loan from the original servicer and treated it as in default based on unpaid accrued arrearages. Periodically, Shellpoint sent default letters to the Beckharts, who disputed the default. Counsel for Shellpoint advised that the confirmation order had not changed the loan contract terms and that the loan remained in default. The matter escalated with the Beckharts filing complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Shellpoint commenced foreclosure, then represented to the Beckharts that it was ceasing foreclosure, but then posted a foreclosure hearing notice on the Beckharts’ door (allegedly due to error).

Litigation

In January 2020, the Beckharts moved the bankruptcy court to find Shellpoint in contempt and award them monetary sanctions. The court held a hearing in June and, in September 2020, found Shellpoint in contempt. The court tagged Shellpoint with $115,000 in sanctions for lost wages, “loss of a fresh start,” attorney’s fees, and travel expenses.

Bankruptcy courts have the power to hold a party in civil contempt and to impose sanctions for violation of a confirmed plan. The test for liability is based on a recent United States Supreme Court decision — Taggart v. Lorenzen. The Taggart test prohibits sanctions if there was an “objectively reasonable basis for concluding that the creditor’s conduct might be lawful.” There can be contempt for violating the discharge injunction only “if there is no fair ground of doubt as to whether the order barred the creditor’s conduct.”

In reversing the bankruptcy court, the district court noted that the plan and confirmation order did not state how much the debtors would owe on confirmation, did not say how the $23,000 in arrears would be paid, and did not set the amount of the first payment. Confusingly, the confirmation order also said that the original loan terms would remain in effect, except as modified. Finally, the district court pointed out that Shellpoint was repeatedly advised by counsel that their behavior was authorized, and reliance on the advice of outside counsel is a sufficient defense to civil sanctions. Based on all these facts, the district court found that Shellpoint acted in good faith and interpreted the confirmation order in a manner consistent with the contractual terms of the loan, and that was objectively reasonable.

Taggart was a Chapter 7 case involving a discharge violation, but the Fourth Circuit held that the “no fair ground of doubt” test applied broadly in bankruptcy – including in Chapter 11 cases.

But the Fourth Circuit disagreed with the district court’s decision to reverse the bankruptcy court because the creditor had requested and received legal advice from outside counsel. The Fourth Circuit held that advice of counsel is not an absolute defense in civil contempt. The Court suggested that, under the Taggart test, advice of counsel “may still be considered in appropriate circumstances as a relevant factor” and “a party’s reliance on guidance from outside counsel may be instructive, at least in part, when determining whether that party’s belief that she was complying with the order was objectively unreasonable.”

The Fourth Circuit held that both lower courts had made mistakes and sent the case back to the bankruptcy court to “reconsider the contempt motion under the correct legal standard, including any additional fact-finding that may be necessary.”

Creditors can take some comfort in the “no fair ground of doubt” test, which is more forgiving than a strict liability standard. But creditors can’t blame their lawyer for perilous conduct and expect the court to exonerate them.

But the most important takeaway hasn’t changed: Creditors should insist on clear and specific plan terms. After over two years of litigation, Shellpoint remains in peril of sanctions. All of this could have been avoided had the loan servicer insisted the plan specify how the Beckharts’ payments would be applied to satisfy the arrearage.

Article By Lance P. Martin of Ward and Smith, P.A.

For more bankruptcy legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

How Changing Beneficial Ownership Reporting May Impact Activism

The SEC in February proposed amendments to Regulation 13D-G to modernize beneficial ownership reporting requirements. Adoption of the amendments as proposed will accelerate the timing – and expand the scope – of knowledge of certain activist activities. The deadline for comments on the proposed rules was April 11 and final rules are expected to be released later this year.

The current reporting timeline creates an asymmetry of information between beneficial owners on the one hand and other stockholders and issuers on the other. The SEC proposal is seeking to eliminate this asymmetry and address other concerns surrounding current beneficial ownership reporting. The accelerated beneficial ownership reporting deadlines will result in greater transparency in stock ownership, allowing market participants to receive material information in a timely manner and potentially alleviating the market manipulation and abusive tactics used by some investors.

The shortened filing deadlines should benefit a company’s overall shareholder engagement activities. The investor relations team at a company will have a more accurate and up-to-date picture of its institutional investor base throughout the year, which should result in more timely outreach to such shareholders.

INVESTOR ACCUMULATION OF SHARES BEFORE DISCLOSURE

Although issuers will likely view the proposed rules as beneficial, many commentators have predicted a negative impact on shareholder activism. Under the current reporting requirements, certain activist investors may benefit by having both additional time to accumulate shares before disclosing such activities and potentially more flexibility in strategizing with other investors.

Many commentators have argued that the proposed shorter timeline for beneficial ownership reporting will negatively impact an activist shareholder’s ability to accumulate shares of an issuer at a potentially lower price than if market participants had more timely knowledge of such activity and intent. In many cases a company’s stock price is impacted once an investor files a Schedule 13D with clear activist intent. This can even occur in some cases once a Schedule 13G is filed by a known activist investor without current activist intent.

If the shorter reporting deadlines reduce such investors’ profit, it is expected that an investor’s incentive to accumulate stock in order to initiate change at a company will also be reduced. Activists instead may be encouraged to engage more with management. In other words, the shorter reporting period may deter short-term activists and encourage more long-term focused activism.

TIMING OF ISSUER RESPONSE

The shorter reporting deadlines are also expected to result in management having earlier notice of any takeover attempt and to give a company the opportunity to react more quickly to any such attempt. There is potential for this to lead to increased use of low-threshold poison pills. But the SEC stated in the proposed rules release that it believes the risk of abundant reactionary low-threshold poison pills is overstated due to scrutiny of such poison pills from courts and academia, limitations imposed by state law and the unlikelihood that the beneficial ownership would trigger the low-threshold poison pills.

Companies that have low-threshold poison pills – such as one designed to protect a company’s net operating losses – may want to review them to confirm that the proposed rules would not be expected to have any impact. For example, such poison pills may link the definition of beneficial ownership to the SEC rules, including Schedule 13D and 13G filings.

‘GROUP’ REPORTING

Another proposed change expected to affect shareholder activism is the expanded definition of ‘group’ for the purposes of reporting under Schedule 13D. The current rules require an explicit agreement between two or more persons to establish a group for purposes of the beneficial ownership reporting thresholds.

Commentators believe that under the current rules, certain investors seeking change at a company may share the fact that they are accumulating shares of a company with other shareholders or activists, which can then act on this information before the general public is aware; in other words, before public disclosure in and market reaction to the Schedule 13D filing. This activity may result in near-term gains for the select few involved before uninformed shareholders can react.

Under the SEC’s proposed amended Rule 13d-5, persons who share information with another regarding an upcoming Schedule 13D filing are deemed to have formed a group within the meaning of Section 13(d)(3) regardless of whether an explicit agreement is in place, and such concerted action will trigger reporting requirements. This proposed change is expected to benefit companies and shareholders overall by preventing certain investors from acting in concert on information not known to a company and its other shareholders.

The full impact of the proposed rule changes on shareholder activism cannot be accurately predicted, but we believe that at a minimum, issuers will find it beneficial to have more regularly updated information on their institutional investor base for, among other things, their shareholder engagement efforts.

Article By Alexandra Clark Layfield and Rachel Solino of Jones Walker LLP

For more Securities and SEC news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

SEC Targets Companies Conducting Cryptomining

The SEC recently doubled the size of its Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit. Since its inception in 2017, the SEC’s Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit has launched more than 80 investigations resulting in over $2 billion in monetary penalties. With more dedicated investigative attorneys, trial counsel, and fraud analysts, the SEC’s cryptocurrency-related investigations are expected to substantially rise in the months and years ahead.

The tip of the spear will include the areas that the SEC said would be its focus moving forward:

crypto asset offerings
crypto asset exchanges
crypto asset lending and staking products
decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms
non-fungible tokens (NFTs); and
stablecoins

View SEC press release here.

Given the heightened scrutiny, however, even companies outside of the traditional cryptocurrency industry may find themselves subject to enforcement actions and penalties. For example, the SEC recently announced that it reached a $5.5 million settlement with technology company NVIDIA Corporation for the company’s alleged failure to disclose on its Form 10-Q for fiscal year 2018 that cryptomining was a significant element of its revenue growth. View release here.

NVIDIA is not a cryptocurrency-related company, but rather is a technology company that markets and sells accelerated computing technologies, including graphics processing units (GPUs) for PC gaming, the company’s largest specialized market. The SEC alleged that, as interest in cryptocurrencies began to increase in 2017, NVIDIA customers increasingly began using gaming GPUs for cryptomining of Ether (ETH), which rose in price from under $10 to nearly $800 between 2017 and 2018.

In its Form 10-Q for fiscal year 2018, despite knowledge (discerned by the SEC from internal company documents and communications) of cryptomining as a significant driver of its GPU sales growth in its gaming division, the SEC alleged that NVIDIA failed to disclose that this growth was largely driven by demand for gaming GPUs to use in cryptomining. The SEC further alleged that this failure to disclose misled investors about the growth of NVIDIA’s gaming business in violation of Section 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and the disclosure provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

As the SEC steps up its cryptocurrency related investigation and enforcement actions, publicly traded companies must exercise increased diligence in disclosure of activities that touch cryptocurrency assets. Even internal dialogue about revenues or other disclosable material that touches cryptocurrencies, as happened to NVIDIA, could subject companies to increased scrutiny and significant monetary penalties.

Article By Matthew E. Brown, Matthew B. Lerner, Matthew G. Lindnbaum, and Robert L. Lindholm with Nelson Mullins.

For more articles about cryptomining, visit the NLR Financial Institutions & Banking section.

Regulation by Definition: CFPB Broadens Definition of “Unfairness” to Rein in Discrimination

In a significant move, the CFPB announced on March 16 a revision to its supervisory operations to address discrimination outside of the traditional fair lending context, with future plans to scrutinize discriminatory conduct that violates the federal prohibition against “unfair” practices in such areas as advertising, pricing, and other areas to ensure that companies are appropriately testing for and eliminating illegal discrimination. Specifically, the CFPB updated its Exam Manual for Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices (UDAAPs) noting that discrimination may meet the criteria for “unfairness” by causing substantial harm to consumers that they cannot reasonably avoid.

With this update, the CFPB intends to target discriminatory practices beyond its use of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) – a fair lending law which covers extensions of credit – and plans to also enforce the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), which prohibits UDAAPs in connection with any transaction for, or offer of, a consumer financial product or service. To that end, future examinations will focus on policies or practices that, for example, exclude individuals from products and services, such as “not allowing African-American consumers to open deposit accounts, or subjecting African-American consumers to different requirements to open deposit accounts” that may be an unfair practice where the ECOA may not apply to this particular situation.

The CFPB notes that, among other things, examinations will (i) focus on discrimination in all consumer finance markets; (ii) require supervised companies to include documentation of customer demographics and the impact of products and fees on different demographic groups; and (iii) look at how companies test and monitor their decision-making processes for unfair discrimination, as well as discrimination under ECOA.

In a statement accompanying this announcement, CFPB Director Chopra stated that “[w]hen a person is denied access to a bank account because of their religion or race, this is unambiguously unfair . . . [w]e will be expanding our anti-discrimination efforts to combat discriminatory practices across the board in consumer finance.”

Putting it Into Practice: This announcement expands the CFPB’s examination footprint beyond discrimination in the fair lending context and makes it likely that examiners will assess a company’s anti-discrimination programs as applied to all aspects of all consumer financial products or services, regardless of whether that company extends any credit. By framing discrimination also as an UDAAP issue, the CFPB appears ready to address bias in connection with other kinds of financial products and services. In particular, the CFPB intends to closely examine advertising and marketing activities targeted to consumers based on machine learning models and any potential discriminatory outcomes.

Article By Moorari Shah and A.J. S. Dhaliwal of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

For more financial legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

SEC Issues Two Whistleblower Awards for Independent Analysis

On February 18, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced two whistleblower awards issued to individuals who provided independent analysis to the SEC which contributed to a successful enforcement action. One whistleblower received an award of $375,000 while the other received $75,000.

According to the award order, the whistleblowers “each voluntarily provided original information to the Commission that was a principal motivating factor in Enforcement staff’s decision to open an investigation.”

Through the SEC Whistleblower Program, qualified whistleblowers, individuals who voluntarily provide original information which leads to a successful enforcement action, are entitled to a monetary award of 10-30% of funds recovered by the government.

A 2020 amendment to the whistleblower program rules established a presumption of a statutory maximum award of 30% in cases where the maximum award would be less than $5 million and where there are no negative factors present. The SEC notes that this presumption did not apply to the two newly awarded whistleblowers. According to the SEC, the first whistleblower unreasonably delayed in reporting their disclosure and the second whistleblower only provided limited assistance.

In the award order, the SEC justifies its decision to grant the first whistleblower a larger award than the second. According to the SEC, the first whistleblower’s disclosure included high quality about an issue which “was the basis for the bulk of the sanctions in the Covered Action” whereas the second whistleblower’s disclosure did not touch on this pivotal issue. Furthermore, the first whistleblower provided significant ongoing assistance to the SEC staff while the second whistleblower did not.

Since issuing its first award in 2012, the SEC has awarded approximately $1.2 billion to 247 individuals. Before blowing the whistle to the SEC, individuals should first consult an experienced SEC whistleblower attorney to ensure they are fully protected under the law and qualify for the largest award possible.

Article By Mary Jane Wilmoth of Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto. Geoff Schweller also contributed to this article.

For more whistleblower and white collar crime legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Red States Move to Penalize Companies That Consider Climate Change When Making Investments

A number of conservative-leaning states, particularly those with a significant fossil fuel industry (e.g., Texas, West Virginia), have begun implementing polices and enacting laws that penalize companies which “pull away from the fossil fuel industry.” Most of these laws focus on precluding state governmental entities, including pension funds, from doing business with companies that have adopted policies that take climate change into account, whether divesting from fossil fuels or simply considering climate change metrics when evaluating investments.

This trend is a troubling development for the American economy. Irrespective of the merits of the policy, or fossil fuel investments generally, there are now an array of state governments and associated entities, reflecting a significant portion of the economy, that have adopted policies explicitly designed to remove climate change or other similar concerns from consideration when companies decide upon a course of action. But there are other states (typically coastal “blue” states) that have enacted diametrically opposed policies, including mandatory divestments from fossil fuel investments (e.g., Maine). This patchwork of contradictory state regulation has created a labyrinth of different concerns for companies to navigate. And these same companies are also facing pressure from significant institutional investors, such as BlackRock, to consider ESG concerns when making investments.

Likely the most effective way to resolve these inconsistent regulations and guidance, and to alleviate the impact on the American economy, would be for the federal government to issue a clear set of policy guidelines and regulatory requirements. (Even if these were subject to legal challenge, it would at least set a benchmark and provide general guidance.) But the SEC, the most likely source of such regulations, has failed to meet its own deadlines for promulgating such regulations, and it is unclear when such guidance will be issued.

In the absence of a clear federal mandate, the contradictory policies adopted by different state governments will only apply additional burdens to companies doing business across multiple state jurisdictions, and by extension, to the economy of the United States.

“Republicans and right-leaning groups fighting climate-conscious policies that target fossil fuel companies are increasingly taking their battle to state capitals. Texas, West Virginia and Oklahoma are among states moving to bar officials from dealing with businesses that are moving to ditch fossil fuels or considering climate change in their own investments. Those steps come as major financial firms and other corporations adopt policies aligned with efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

Article By Jacob H. Hupart of Mintz

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Category: Investment

FinCEN Issues Final Rule on the Corporate Transparency Act Requiring Businesses to Report Beneficial Ownership Information

Like this: