Tag: Corporate Compliance

Business and Economic Incentives Primer

Womble Carlyle

Competition among jurisdictions to recruit and retain companies is intense. To attract business to their communities, both state and local governmental authorities will often offer discretionary economic incentives for projects that generate substantial tax revenues or create significant employment opportunities. Companies requiring new or larger facilities or facing lease expirations for their existing operations should assess whether they might qualify for an “incentives package” from the various jurisdictions they are considering for their projects. The potential benefits will typically vary depending upon the project’s key capital expenditures, job creation potential and the company’s corresponding wage parameters and associated commitments. Companies with potentially qualifying projects should evaluate how to best leverage their unique strengths to negotiate all available incentive benefits and to maximize those benefits once they are secured.

Business and economic incentives are the tax, cash and in-kind benefits offered by state and local governments to induce a company to relocate to a new community or remain in its existing jurisdiction primarily to create or retain jobs and increase tax revenue. Incentives help businesses mitigate upfront capital and ongoing operating costs for its required projects. Tax incentives include a variety of income and sales/use tax credits, exemptions, reductions and abatements. These can also include other tax-related investment incentives, such as investment and tax credits, research and development tax incentives, and accelerated depreciation of industrial equipment. The Enterprise Zone (EZ), a special kind of tax incentive program (also known as Empowerment Zones and Empowerment Communities), has been used by the federal government and even more widely by many states.

Cash incentives include monetary grants, reimbursements of transportation or infrastructure costs and other financial incentives including alternative financing subsidies. One of the most common benefits in this category is the Industrial Development Bond (IDB) that is used by jurisdictions to offer low-interest loans to firms. A variation on the IDB is the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts that are used by many states. A TIF allows governments to float bonds to help companies based on their anticipated future tax impact. In-kind incentives include expedited permitting by the state, county and local municipality and customized worker training programs. Some jurisdictions also offer other in-kind benefits such as watered-down environmental regulations and “right to work” laws that inhibit union organizing. Some states also have federal grant monies they are empowered to allocate towards different programs and projects depending on a project’s possible “public” infrastructure needs and other specific criteria.

In offering incentives, cities and counties are typically driven more by investments that increase the tax base while states focus more on jobs that pay above average wages. Some jurisdictions will provide incentives only for manufacturing projects or for specific statutory lists of facilities such as manufacturing, distribution facilities, air cargo hubs, multimodal facilities, headquarters facilities and data centers. Other states will not provide incentives for retail or hospitality facilities. In general, cities and counties have more flexibility than states in the kinds of projects for which they will provide incentives. Some states have wage tests and require that health care insurance and benefits be provided at the employer’s cost or that at least a portion of the cost be subsidized.

Whether for a corporate expansion or relocation, it is critical for a company to initiate its incentive identification and negotiation efforts early in the site-selection process for its project. Specifically, to achieve the greatest negotiating leverage, a company should begin the pursuit of economic incentives at the same time it is are undertaking its site selection efforts, since it is at this point in the process that competition readily exists between the cities, counties and/or states interested in enticing the company to relocate or remain in their jurisdictions. Since the success of this process is, in part, dependent upon “competing” the relevant state and local jurisdictions, it is important for a company to make it clear to all who are acting for the company that no decision or no public announcement may be made about the company’s plans until the company has evaluated all relevant factors.

To begin the process, a company should form a project team that will work with various economic development representatives from the relevant jurisdictions to achieve the optimal incentives package. The project team should develop a formal incentives negotiation strategy that would include some if not all of the following components:

  • Identifying and analyzing all incentive opportunities available for the project.
  • Determining the company’s short and long term capital and operating costs as well as job creation estimates.
  • Preparing a preliminary “incentives” pro forma.
  • Outlining the plan for securing the incentives and evaluating the related commitments that will be necessary from the company.
  • Identifying and integrating important components of the company’s corporate culture into the negotiation requests and strategy.
  • Determining the essential needs of the project to be included as the non-negotiable points of the company’s business case.
  • Defining the “business case” for why a jurisdiction would benefit from the company’s relocation to that state/county, such as tax (income and sales) revenues to be generated and the jobs to be created by the company.
  • Identifying how to formulate the most productive partnership between the company and the community.
  • Determining how to work creatively within the state and local framework.
  • Considering the use of a third party economic impact study to create an effective business case showing the jurisdiction how to fund the incentives.

A company that is well positioned to benefit from business and economic incentives should engage a seasoned professional who has a successful track record in achieving incentive benefits from the jurisdictions relevant to its business. Working in coordination with the governmental authorities, the right advisor can assist the company in establishing timelines for critical dates, administering applications to secure the incentives, and obtaining formal jurisdictional approvals to ensure compliance is implemented and negotiated incentives are realized. The advisor will also participate, as requested, in presentations for internal and governmental board approval and provide ongoing information and updates to the company during key phases of the incentive pursuit process.

After the final incentives package has been negotiated, the company and the jurisdiction will prepare and negotiate the required incentives agreements and then pursue the formal final governmental approvals. Public relations personnel for the company and the governmental authority are typically involved at this stage to prepare supporting media releases and project announcements. Once all necessary approvals are obtained, the company must establish internal documentation and processes to satisfy the compliance requirements to realize the negotiated incentives, which typically takes the form of a compliance manual.

Business and economic incentives can be valuable tools for a company to reduce costs, increase savings and manage risks as they pursue a signature lease transaction, building acquisition or facility development. To achieve the optimal result, the incentives process must be carefully managed from inception to completion, toward the ultimate goal of creating a meaningful partnership between the company and the community in which the company will conduct its business.

This article originally was published in the August 2013 edition of “Focus on WMACCA,” the newsletter of the Washington Metropolitan Area Corporate Counsel Association. 

This article was written with Scott R. Hoffman with Cushman & Wakefield.

Article By:

 of

Investment Management Legal and Regulatory Update – October 2013

GK_Logo_Full-Color (CMYK)

SEC Issues Guidance Update for Investment Companies that Invest in Commodity Interests and Announces New Risk and Examinations Office

The staff of the Division of Investment Management has issued a Guidance Update that summarizes the views of the Division regarding disclosure and compliance matters relevant to funds that invest in commodity interests. The staff also announced the creation of a Risk and Examinations Office within the Division of Investment Management that will accompany the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) on exam visits.

Disclosure of Derivatives and Associated Risks. Any principal investment strategies disclosure related to derivatives should be tailored specifically to how a fund expects to be managed and should address those strategies that the fund expects to be the most important means of achieving its objectives and that it also anticipates will have a significant effect on its performance. In determining the appropriate disclosure, a fund should consider the degree of economic exposure the derivatives create, in addition to the amount invested in the derivatives strategy. This disclosure also should describe the purpose that the derivatives are intended to serve in the portfolio (e.g., hedging, speculation, or as a substitute for investing in conventional securities), and the extent to which derivatives are expected to be used. Additionally, the disclosure concerning the principal risks of the fund should similarly be tailored to the types of derivatives used by the fund, the extent of their use, and the purpose for using derivatives transactions.

Prior Performance Presentation. A newly registered fund that invests in commodity interests and that includes in its registration statement information concerning the performance of private accounts or other funds managed by the fund’s adviser is responsible for ensuring that such information is not materially misleading. Specifically, a fund that includes the performance of other funds or private accounts should generally include the performance of all other funds and private accounts that have investment objectives, policies, and strategies substantially similar to those of the fund.

Legend Requirement. Rule 481 under the Securities Act requires a fund to provide a legend on the outside front cover page that indicates that the SEC has not approved or disapproved of the securities or passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the disclosure in the prospectus and that any contrary representation is a criminal offense. The staff will not object if a fund that invests in commodity interests includes in the legend language that also indicates that the CFTC has not approved or disapproved of the securities or passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the disclosure in the prospectus.

Compliance and Risk Management. Day-to-day responsibility for managing a fund’s portfolio, including any commodity interests and their associated risks, rests with the fund’s investment adviser. In addition, the fund’s board generally oversees the adviser’s risk management activities as part of the board’s oversight of the adviser’s management of the fund. The staff expects that funds and their advisers would adopt policies and procedures that address, among other things, consistency of fund portfolio management with disclosed investment objectives and policies, strategies, and risks.

Each fund should have in place policies and procedures that are sufficient to address the accuracy of disclosures made about the fund’s use of derivatives, including commodity interests, and associated risks, as well as consistency of the fund’s investments in these derivatives with the fund’s investment objectives. For example, these policies and procedures should be reasonably designed to prevent material misstatements about a fund’s use of derivatives, including commodity interests, and the associated risks.

New Risk and Examinations Office. The update notes that a Risk and Examinations Office has recently been created within the Division of Investment Management to analyze and monitor the risk management activities of investment advisers, investment companies, the investment management industry and new products. The group will work closely with OCIE to make onsite visits to investment management firms.

Source: SEC Division of Investment Management Guidance, August 2013, 2013-05.

SEC Approves Registration Rules for Municipal Advisors

State and local governments that issue municipal bonds frequently rely on advisors to help them decide how and when to issue the securities and how to invest proceeds from the sales. Prior to passage of the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, municipal advisors were not required to register with the SEC. This left many municipalities relying on advice from unregulated advisors. After the Dodd-Frank Act became law, the SEC established a temporary registration regime for municipal advisors that prohibited any municipal advisor from providing advice to, or soliciting, municipal entities or other covered persons without being registered. More than 1,100 municipal advisors have since registered with the SEC. The SEC recently adopted final rules that establish a permanent registration regime for municipal advisors.

Registered municipal advisors will also likely be subject to additional new regulation from the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB). In September 2011, the MSRB withdrew several rule proposals pertaining to municipal advisors pending adoption by the SEC of a permanent registration regime for municipal advisors. Among the proposals was a rule regulating political contributions by municipal advisors. The MSRB had previously indicated that it would resubmit the withdrawn rule proposals once a final definition of the term “municipal advisor” was adopted by the SEC.

Proposed Rule

In 2010, the SEC proposed a rule governing the permanent registration process. The proposal defined “municipal advisor” broadly and would have required municipal advisor registration of appointed board members of municipalities and people providing investment advice on all public funds. The SEC received more than 1,000 comment letters on the proposal, most of which raised concerns about the broad reach of the proposal.

Final Rule

The final rule requires a municipal advisor to register with the SEC if it:

  • provides advice on the issuance of municipal securities or about certain “investment strategies” or municipal derivatives; or
  • undertakes a solicitation of a municipal entity or obligated person.

The rule clarifies who is and is not a “municipal advisor” and offers guidance on when a person is providing “advice” for purposes of the municipal advisor definition. The rule exempts employees and appointed officials of municipal entities from registration and limits the type of “investment strategies” that will result in municipal advisor status. Additionally, instead of the proposed approach that would have required individuals associated with registered municipal advisory firms to register separately, the final rule requires firms to furnish information about these individuals.

Defined Terms

Advice. A person is providing “advice” to a municipal entity or an “obligated person” based on all of the relevant facts and circumstances, including whether the advice:

  • involves a recommendation to a municipal entity;
  • is particularized to the specific needs of a municipal entity; or
  • relates to municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal securities.

Advice, however, does not include providing certain general information.

An “obligated person” is an entity such as a non-profit university or non-profit hospital that borrows the proceeds from a municipal securities offering and is obligated by contract or other arrangement to repay all or some portion of the amount borrowed.

Investment Strategies. A person providing advice to a municipal entity or an “obligated person” with respect to “investment strategies” only has to register if such advice relates to:

  • the investment of proceeds of municipal securities;
  • the investment of municipal escrow funds; or
  • municipal derivatives.

Exemptions from the Municipal Advisor Definition

The following persons conducting the specified activities would not be required to register as a municipal advisor:

Registered Investment Advisers. Registered investment advisers and associated persons do not have to register if they provide investment advice in their capacities as registered investment advisers, such as providing advice regarding the investment of the proceeds of municipal securities or municipal escrow investments.

This exemption does not apply to advice on the structure, timing, and terms of issues of municipal securities or municipal derivatives. The SEC considers advice in these areas as outside the focus of investment adviser regulation.

Independent Registered Municipal Advisor. Persons who provide advice in circumstances in which a municipal entity has an independent registered municipal advisor with respect to the same aspects of a municipal financial product or issuance of municipal securities do not have to register, provided that certain requirements are met and certain disclosures are made.

Banks. Banks do not have to register to the extent they provide advice on certain identified banking products and services, such as investments held in deposit accounts, extensions of credit, funds held in a sweep account or investments made by a bank acting in the capacity of bond indenture trustee or similar capacity.

This exemption does not apply to banks that engage in other municipal advisory activities, such as providing advice on the issuance of municipal securities or municipal derivatives, in part because municipal derivatives were a source of significant losses by municipalities in the financial crisis.

Underwriters. Brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers serving as underwriters do not have to register if their advisory activities involve the structure, timing and terms of a particular issue of municipal securities.

Registered Commodity Trading Advisor. Registered commodity trading advisors and their associated persons do not have to register if the advice they provide relates to swaps.

Swap Dealers. Registered swap dealers do not have to register as municipal advisors if they provide advice with respect to swaps in circumstances in which a municipal entity is represented by an independent advisor.

Public Officials and Employees. Public officials do not have to register to the extent that they are acting within the scope of their official capacity. This exemption addresses an unintended consequence of the proposed rule that generated significant public comment and created the impression that public officials and municipal employees would be covered if they provided “internal” advice.

This exemption covers persons serving as members of a governing body, an advisory board, a committee, or acting in a similar official capacity as an official of a municipal entity or an obligated person. For instance, it covers:

  • members of a city council, whether elected or appointed, who act in their official capacity; and
  • members of a board of trustees of a public or private non-profit university acting in their official capacity, where the university is an obligated person by virtue of borrowing proceeds of municipal bonds issued by a state governmental educational authority.

Similarly, this exemption covers employees of a municipal entity or an obligated person to the extent that they act within the scope of their employment.

Attorneys. Attorneys do not have to register if they are providing legal advice or traditional legal services with respect to the issuance of municipal securities or municipal financial products.

This exemption does not apply to advice that is primarily financial in nature or to an attorney representing himself or herself as a financial advisor or financial expert on municipal advisory activities.

Accountants. Accountants do not have to register if they are providing accounting services that include audit or other attest services, preparation of financial statements, or issuance of letters for underwriters.

Registration Forms

The final rule requires municipal advisory firms to file the following through EDGAR:

  • Form MA to register as a municipal advisor; and
  • Form MA-I for each individual associated with the firm who engages in municipal advisory activities.

The temporary registration regime will remain in place until December 31, 2014. The new rule requires municipal advisors to register on a staggered basis beginning July 1, 2014. The expiration date of the temporary rules will be extended in order to allow municipal advisors to continue to remain temporarily registered during the staggered compliance period.

Sources: SEC Approves Registration Rules for Municipal Advisors, SEC Press Release 2013-185 (September 18, 2013); Registration of Municipal Advisors, SEC Release No. 34-70462 (September 18, 2013).

SEC Eliminates the Prohibition on General Solicitation and General Advertising in Certain Private Offerings to Accredited Investors

As we reported in our July Client Alert, the SEC amended Regulation D to implement a Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act) requirement to lift the ban on general solicitation and general advertising for certain private offerings.

JOBS Act

Congress passed the JOBS Act in 2012, which directed the SEC to remove the prohibition against general solicitation and general advertising for securities offerings relying on Rule 506, provided that sales are limited to accredited investors and an issuer takes reasonable steps to verify that all purchasers are accredited investors.

While issuers will be able to widely solicit and advertise for potential investors, the JOBS Act required the SEC to adopt rules that “require the issuer to take reasonable steps to verify that purchasers of the securities are accredited investors, using such methods as determined by the Commission.” In other words, there is no restriction on who an issuer can solicit, but an issuer faces restrictions on who is permitted to purchase its securities.

Rule 506(c)

The addition of 506(c) to the existing Rule 506 permits issuers, including hedge funds and other private funds, to use general solicitation and general advertising to offer their securities provided that:

  • all purchasers of the securities are accredited investors (as defined in Rule 501);
  • the issuer takes reasonable steps to verify that the investors are accredited investors;
  • all other conditions of the Rule 506 exemption are met; and
  • Form D is completed and the box is checked indicating that Rule 506(c) is being relied upon.

Verification of Accredited Investor Status

Under the new rules, the issuer will need to take reasonable steps to verify that each investor is accredited. Whether the steps taken are “reasonable” will be a principles-based determination by the issuer, in the context of the particular facts and circumstances of each purchaser and transaction. The SEC noted that the issuer should consider the nature of the purchaser and the amount and type of information that the issuer has about the purchaser; the nature of the offering, such as the manner in which the purchaser was solicited to participate in the offering; and the terms of the offering, such as a minimum investment amount.

In response to comments received with respect to the SEC’s original rule proposal, the amendment to Rule 506 also includes a non-exclusive list of methods that issuers may use to verify that purchasers are accredited investors. The methods described in the final rule include the following:

  • Verification of Income. Review IRS forms filed for last two years and obtain a written representation of expected income for the current year.
  • Verification of Net Worth. Review documentation related to assets (bank and brokerage statements, CDs and independent appraisal reports) and liabilities (credit reports).
  • Third Party Verification. Obtain a written confirmation that a person is an accredited investor from a broker-dealer, investment adviser, attorney or CPA.
  • Existing Accredited Security Holder. For any investor who invested in an issuer’s prior Rule 506 offering as an accredited investor and remains an investor, obtain a written certification (at the time of a Rule 506(c) sale) that he or she still qualifies as an accredited investor.

Preservation of Existing Rule

The existing provisions of Rule 506 as a separate exemption are not affected by the final rule. Issuers conducting Rule 506 offerings without the use of general solicitation or general advertising can continue to conduct securities offerings in the same manner and aren’t subject to the new verification rule.

Form D

In connection with these changes, Form D has been amended to require issuers to indicate whether they are relying on 506(c), which permits general solicitation and advertising in a Rule 506 offering.

The rule amendments became effective September 23, 2013.

Sources: SEC Approves JOBS Act Requirement to Lift General Solicitation Ban, Commission Also Adopts Rule to Disqualify Bad Actors from Certain Offerings and Proposes Rules to Enable SEC to Monitor New Market and Bolster Investor Protections, SEC Press Release 2013-124 (July 10, 2013); Eliminating the Prohibition Against General Solicitation and General Advertising in Rule 506 and Rule 144A Offerings, SEC Release No. IA-3624 (July 10, 2013).

SEC Adopts Rule to Disqualify “Bad Actors” from Rule 506 Offerings

The SEC recently approved amendments to Rule 506 to set forth the “bad actor” (commonly known as “bad boy”) provisions that could disqualify issuers from relying on the rule. The Dodd-Frank Act directed the SEC to adopt the amendments in order to prevent issuers from relying on the Rule 506 safe harbor if certain “bad actors” were involved in the offering.

As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC approved disqualifications under Rule 506 that are substantially similar to the disqualifications found in other securities regulations. Persons covered by the bad boy provisions include: issuers; directors, executive officers, other officers participating in the offering, general partners or managing members of issuers; beneficial owners of 20% or more of the issuer’s voting equity securities; investment managers to an issuer that is a pooled investment fund and directors, executive officers, other officers participating in the offering, general partners or managing members of the investment manager; promoters connected with the issuer; persons compensated for soliciting investors as well as the directors, officers, general partners or managing members of any compensated solicitor. The disqualifying events include:

  • securities-related criminal convictions;
  • securities-related court injunctions and restraining orders;
  • final orders of a state securities commission, state insurance commission, state or federal bank, savings association or credit union regulator or the CFTC barring an individual from association with regulated entities or from engaging in securities, insurance or banking business or finding a violation of any law pertaining to fraudulent, manipulative or deceptive conduct;
  • SEC disciplinary orders relating to brokers, dealers, municipal securities dealers, investment advisers and investment companies and their associated persons;
  • SEC cease-and-desist orders related to violations of certain anti-fraud provisions and registration requirements of the federal securities laws;
  • suspension or expulsion from membership in, or suspension or bar from associating with a member of, a securities self-regulatory organization; and
  • SEC stop orders pertaining to the filing of a registration statement or the suspension of an exemption.

Reasonable Care Exception. Under this exception, an issuer would not lose the benefit of the Rule 506 safe harbor if it can show that it did not know and, in the exercise of reasonable care, could not have known that a covered person with a disqualifying event participated in the offering.

Disclosure of Pre-Existing Disqualifying Events. Disqualification applies only for disqualifying events that occur after September 23, 2013, the effective date of this rule. Matters that existed before the effective date of the rule and would otherwise be disqualifying are subject to a mandatory disclosure requirement to investors.

Sources: SEC Approves JOBS Act Requirement to Lift General Solicitation Ban, Commission Also Adopts Rule to Disqualify Bad Actors from Certain Offerings and Proposes Rules to Enable SEC to Monitor New Market and Bolster Investor Protections, SEC Press Release 2013-124 (July 10, 2013); Disqualification of Felons and Other Bad Actors from Rule 506 Offerings, SEC Release No. 33-9414 (July 10, 2013).

SEC Proposes Amendments to Private Offering Rules (Regulation D and Form D)

In partial response to the many comments that the SEC received with respect to its proposed JOBS Act amendments to Rule 506, the SEC recently proposed the following amendments to the private offering rules.

Advance Notice of Sale. Under the proposal, issuers that intend to engage in general solicitation as part of a Rule 506 offering would be required to file the Form D at least 15 calendar days before engaging in general solicitation for the offering. Also, within 30 days of completing an offering, issuers would be required to update the information contained in the Form D and indicate that the offering has ended.

Additional Information about the Issuer and the Offering. Under the proposal, issuers would be required to provide additional information such as:

  • types of general solicitation used;
  • methods used to verify accredited investor status;
  • publicly available website;
  • controlling persons;
  • industry group;
  • asset size;
  • breakdown of investor types (accredited/non-accredited and natural person/entity) and amounts invested; and
  • breakdown of use of proceeds.

Disqualification. Under the proposal, an issuer would be disqualified from using the Rule 506 exemption in any new offering if the issuer or its affiliates did not comply with the Form D filing requirements in a Rule 506 offering.

Legends and Disclosures. Under the proposal, issuers would be required to include certain legends or cautionary statements in any written general solicitation materials used in a Rule 506 offering. The legends would be intended to inform potential investors that the offering is limited to accredited investors and that certain potential risks may be associated with such offerings.

In addition, if the issuer is a private fund and includes information about past performance in its written general solicitation materials, it would be required to provide additional information in the materials to highlight the limitations on the usefulness of this type of information. The issuer also would need to highlight the difficulty of comparing this information with past performance information of other funds. The proposal also requests public comment on whether other manner and content restrictions should apply to written general solicitation materials used by private funds.

Submission of Written General Solicitation Materials to the SEC. Under the proposal, issuers would be required to submit written general solicitation materials to the SEC through an intake page on the SEC website. Materials submitted in this manner would not be available to the general public. As proposed, this requirement would be temporary, expiring after two years.

Guidance to Private Funds about Misleading Statements. In its current form, Rule 156 under the Securities Act provides guidance on when information in mutual fund sales literature could be fraudulent or misleading for purposes of the federal securities laws. Under the proposal, the rule would be amended to apply to the sales literature of private funds.

Comments on the proposal originally were due on September 23, 2013. However, “in light of the public interest,” the SEC re-opened the comment period until October 30, 2013.

Sources: SEC Approves JOBS Act Requirement to Lift General Solicitation Ban, Commission Also Adopts Rule to Disqualify Bad Actors from Certain Offerings and Proposes Rules to Enable SEC to Monitor New Market and Bolster Investor Protections, SEC Press Release 2013-124 (July 10, 2013); Amendments to Regulation D, Form D and Rule 156, SEC Release No. IC-30595 (July 10, 2013).

SEC Charges Investment Adviser for Misleading Fund Board About Algorithmic Trading Ability

The SEC charged an investment adviser and its former owner for misleading a mutual fund’s board of directors about the firm’s ability to conduct algorithmic currency trading so the board would approve the adviser’s contract to manage the fund.

The case arises out of an initiative by the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit to focus on the “15(c) process” – a reference to Section 15(c) of the Investment Company Act that requires a fund’s board to annually evaluate the fund’s advisory agreements. Advisers must provide the board with truthful information necessary to make that evaluation.

“It is critical that investment advisers provide truthful information to the directors of the registered funds they advise,” said Julie M. Riewe, Co-Chief of SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit. “Both boards and advisers have fiduciary duties that must be fulfilled to ensure that a fund’s investors are not harmed.”

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleged that Chariot Advisors LLC and Elliott L. Shifman misled the fund’s board about the nature, extent, and quality of services that the firm could provide. In two presentations before the board, Shifman misrepresented that his firm would implement the fund’s investment strategy by using a portion of the fund’s assets to engage in algorithmic currency trading. Chariot fund’s initial investment objective was to achieve absolute positive returns in all market cycles by investing approximately 80% of the fund’s assets under management in short-term fixed income securities, and using the remaining 20% to engage in algorithmic currency trading.

According to the SEC’s order instituting administrative proceedings, Chariot Advisors did not have an algorithm capable of conducting such currency trading. This was particularly significant because in the absence of an operating history the directors focused instead on Chariot Advisors’ reliance on models when the board evaluated the advisory contract. Even though Shifman believed that the fund’s currency trading needed to achieve a 25 to 30% return to succeed, Shifman allegedly did not disclose to the board that Chariot Advisors had no algorithm or model capable of achieving such a return.

The SEC alleges that for at least the first two months after the fund was launched, Chariot Advisors did not use an algorithm model to perform the fund’s currency trading as represented to the board, but instead hired an individual trader who was allowed to use discretion on trade selection and execution. According to the order, the trader used a technical analysis, rules-based approach for trading that combined market indicators with her own intuition.

The SEC further alleges that the misconduct by Shifman and Chariot Advisors caused misrepresentations and omissions in the Chariot fund’s registration statement and prospectus filed with the SEC and viewed by investors.

A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge to determine whether the allegations contained in the order are true and whether any remedial sanctions are appropriate.

Sources: SEC Charges North Carolina-Based Investment Adviser for Misleading Fund Board About Algorithmic Trading Ability, SEC Press Release 2013-162 (August 21, 2013); In the Matter of Chariot Advisors, LLC and Elliott L. Shifman, Investment Company Act Release No. 30655 (August 21, 2013).

Article By:

of

New Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Rules to Protect Telephone Consumers from Autodial/Robocalls

Lewis & Roca

On October 16, 2013, new Federal Communication Commission rules took effect to further protect consumers under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA). See 47 U.S.C. § 227; 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200. The changes ordered by the FCC are designed to protect consumers from unwanted autodialed or pre-recorded telemarketing calls, also known as “telemarketing robocalls.” The new TCPA rules accomplish four main things: (1) require prior written consent for all autodialed or pre-recorded telemarketing calls to wireless numbers and residential lines; (2) require mechanisms to be in place that allow consumers to opt out of future robocalls even if during the middle of a current robocall; (3) limit permissible abandoned calls on a per-calling campaign basis in order to discourage intrusive calling campaigns; and (4) exempt from TCPA requirements calls made to residential lines by health care related entities governed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. None of the FCC’s actions change the requirements for prerecorded messages that are non-telemarketing, informational calls such as calls by or on behalf of tax-exempt organizations, calls for political purposes, and calls for other non-commercial purposes including those to people in emergency situations.

Under the FCC’s new rules, “prior written consent” will require two things: a clear and conspicuous disclosure that by providing consent the consumer will receive auto-dialed or prerecorded calls on behalf of a specific seller, and a clear an unambiguous acknowledgement that the consumer agrees to receive such calls at the mobile number. The content and form of consent may include an electronic or digital form of signature such as the FTC has recognized under the E-SIGN Act. See Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, 15 U.S.C. § 7001 et seq. However, prior written consent may be terminated at any time. In addition, the written agreement must be obtained “without requiring, directly or indirectly, that the agreement be executed as a condition of purchasing any good or service.” 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(v)(A)(ii).

Read the full rule here.

Article By:

A Tip For Dealing with Automatic Gratuities in 2014

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

A new Internal Revenue Service (“IRS“) rule, set to take effect in January 1, 2014, may eliminate a common practice in the restaurant industry. Often, an automatic gratuity, normally 18%, is added to the bill of large parties. Automatic gratuities were adopted by restaurant employers as a means for ensuring that servers do not get stiffed on expensive bills. Servers heavily rely on tips to supplement a salary that is often times lower than the federal minimum wage.

Traditionally, automatically-added gratuities have been classified as employee tips. As such, it is up to the employees to report the money as income. Starting in January, automatic gratuities will be categorized as “service charges” – making them regular wages and subject to payroll tax withholdings. Employers will have to track and report any automatic tips and will be required to include the “service charge” payments in employees’ W-2 wages. Further, employers will no longer be able to count these tips as a credit to reduce their minimum wage obligation. It is a lose-lose situation because servers will not see their automatic gratuity money until payday; making it more difficult to survive on a small salary.

Many major chains, like Olive Garden and Red Lobster, have eliminated automatic gratuities in response to the approaching deadline. For restaurants that opt to keep the automatic gratuity system, payroll accounting will become much more complicated. Tips from automatic gratuities will have to be factored into hourly pay rates, which means hourly rates could vary based on how many large parties are served in any given hour.

It would be wise for smaller restaurants to follow the chain restaurants’ lead by eliminating automatic gratuities altogether. Doing so will not only to lessen compliance requirements and tax burdens, but will also keep employees happy by ensuring that the tips they earn can immediately be pocketed.

Article By:

 of

Financial Services Legislative and Regulatory Law Update – September 30, 2013

Mintz Logo

Leading the Past Week

Working through a rare weekend session, the Congress appeared no closer to being able to avoid a shutdown of the Federal Government.  Early Sunday morning the House sent back to the Senate its version of the spending bill, including two provisions – one delaying Obamacare for one year and the other repeals the medical device tax which helps fund the law.   While there are other differences in the bills – notably how long they keep the government operating, Leader Reid has made it clear that the Senate will strip out these two provisions when it meets at 2pm on Monday.  With the midnight Monday deadline quickly approaching, all sides appear resigned to a shutdown occurring and have turned their attention to positioning for the fallout.

While the political ramifications of a shutdown are unclear – with both sides believing that they will benefit, the practical results were announced late last week as various federal agencies disclosed how they will act starting on Tuesday.  For example on Friday, Treasury announced that a government shutdown would affect some activities, but that “critical functions” would continue. The IRS would have to pull back on some functions, such as fielding taxpayer queries, but other functions like managing the government’s funds, implementing tax policy would continue.  Other offices that are not funded under annual appropriations, such as the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), or the GSE’s, would continue to operate as normal.   The CFTC also released a shutdown plan, which outlined the “vast bulk” of oversight and surveillance responsibilities would be stopped.   Perhaps most troubling for the economy is the fact that the shutdown will also prevent the FHA from processing mortgages, and with nearly 45% of the market using FHA backed mortgages, the fear of a disruption to the real estate market, and thus potentially the economy as a whole.

Although there are options that both sides have to avert, or at least delay the shutdown, it now seems more likely than not, that the time will run out and the government will shut down for the first time since 1996 later this week.

Legislative Branch

Senate

Senate Banking Examines TRIA Extension

On September 25th, the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee held a hearing to examine the reauthorization of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA).  Similar to House hearing on the subject last week, the members of the Senate Banking Committee expressed general support for a reauthorization of the program but acknowledged that there is a need to evaluate and improve the program during an extension. For example, Ranking Member Crapo noted that several changes to the program which have been discussed are modifying the business deductible, changing the aggregate loss threshold, and instituting business co-insurance. Another option considered at the hearing for overhauling TRIA was instituting pre-funding of the government backstop. Lawmakers are also considering whether TRIA’s backstop should be extended to cover chemical, biological, radiological, cyber, and nuclear attacks

Majority of Senators Urge White House to Push for Currency Manipulation Protections in TPP

On September 24th, sixty senators signed onto a letter to the White House requesting the Obama Administration work to negotiate rules against currency manipulation as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other future trade deals. The letter was led by Senators Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) could complicate the Administration’s TPP talks with Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia and other countries. The House, led by Representative Sander Levin (D-MI), sent a similar letter to the White House over the summer. Levin, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee has said that “there is no point in negotiating a TPP agreement to eliminate import duties if countries are allowed to effectively re-impose those duties by manipulating their currencies.”

Senate Budget Committee Examines the Economic Effects of Political Uncertainty

As Congress continues to debate a final version of the CR to fund the government and with the debt ceiling deadline fast approaching, the Senate Budget Committee met to hear testimony from three economists on the economic effects of political uncertainty. Witnesses included Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics; Chad Stone, chief economist for the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities; and Allan Meltzer, Professor of Political Economy at Carnegie Mellon University. Witnesses warned that a default would have a large effect on “everyday Americans” as it would become more difficult to get a mortgage, stock prices decline, and unemployment grows.

Senate Banking Subcommittee Explores Economic Conditions in India

On September 25th, the Senate Banking Subcommittee on National Security and International Trade and Finance held a hearing to consider investment and market access in India. Witnesses included Dr. Arvind Subramanian, Senior Fellow with the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics; Mr. Richard Rossow, Director for South Asia with McLarty Associates; and Dr. Reena Aggarwal, Professor of Business Administration and Professor of Finance at Georgetown University. The hearing came ahead of a meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Obama.

House of Representatives

Lawmakers Question Big Banks on Student Debit Cards

On September 26th, Democratic lawmakers on the Education and Workforce Committee, joined by Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), wrote to the CEOs of several large banks requesting they explain their student debit card agreements with colleges.  Copies of the letter were sent to Wells Fargo, US Bancorp, PNC Financial Services Group, SunTrust Banks, Inc., TCF Bank, Citigroup, Huntington Bancshares Incorporated, Commerce Bancshares, Inc., and Higher One Holdings, Inc.

CBO Briefs House Committee on Budget Outlook

On September 26th, the House Budget Committee met to hear testimony from Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Doug Elmendorf on the nation’s long-term budget outlook. CBO’s most recent report was released on September 17th and notes that although in the short-term the budget will shrink, deficits are expected to begin to grow again after 2018.

Executive Branch

Federal Reserve

Basel Framework to Be Part of Stress Tests

On September 24th, the Federal Reserve announced two interim final rules clarifying how companies should incorporate Basel III regulatory capital requirements into their capital and business projections submitted as part of stress tests.  The first rule clarifies that during the upcoming stress test cycle, large banks with more than $50 billion in assets will be required to incorporate the Basel framework into their projections. The first interim final rule also directs banks to consider capital adequacy assessed against a minimum 5 percent tier 1 common ratio. The second rule provides a one-year transition period for stress test projections for most banking organizations with between $10 billion and $50 billion in total consolidated assets. The interim final rules are effective immediately but the Fed will accept comments through November 25th.

Banking Regulators Release Joint Guidance About Financial Abuse of Older Adults

On September 24th, regulators released joint guidance to clarify privacy provisions under the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act, saying that it is generally permitted for financial institutions to report suspected elder financial abuse to appropriate authorities. Regulators noted that, as older adults can be attractive targets for financial exploitation, employees of financial institutions that are able to spot irregularities or other signs of financial abuse can help protect against elder financial fraud. The guidance was released by the Federal Reserve, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

SEC

White Lays Out Enforcement, Implementation Priorities

On September 26th, speaking at the Council of Institutional Investors fall conference, Chairwoman Mary Jo White laid out the agency’s enforcement plans. White said that the SEC plans to shift its focus, to bring more cases against individuals who are in violation of securities law and to seek more mandatory compliance measures in settlements to prevent future wrongdoings. Earlier in the week, in a speech before the 2013 Bloomberg Markets 50 Summit, White also addressed enforcement, saying she has sought to make improvements to their operations, including by revising the “neither admit nor deny” policies. White also spoke to other items on the SEC’s regulatory agenda, telling summit participants that regulators have made “lots of progress” on finalizing a joint Volcker Rule and noting that the agency’s “highest immediate priority” is finalizing rulemakings under the Dodd-Frank Act and the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act.

CFTC

CFTC Announces Phase in of Swap Execution Facility (SEF) Rules

On September 27th, the CFTC announced that it would delay enforcement of new rules for Swap Execution Facilities (SEF).  The rules were slated to take effect on October 2nd but the Commission received significant push back from industry stake holders.  For example, on September 23rd the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) wrote to the CFTC requesting the agency delay the rules governing swap execution facilities (SEFs).  In addition, it was clear that within the CFTC, there were some who agreed with the industry’s perspective, as on September 26thCommissioner Scott O’Malia said an extension of the SEF effective date would allow market participants time for a smooth transition and then Commissioner Chilton echoed these comments on September 27th, saying that the Commission should extend the compliance date by two months as soon as possible.   Later that day, the CFTC announced that the delay would extend to October 30th for foreign exchange (fx) swaps, and until December 2nd for commodity and equity swaps.

Agriculture Committee Leadership Ask CFTC to Use Caution Crafting Customer Protections

On September 25th, the leadership of the Senate and House Agriculture Committees wrote to the CFTC urging the agency to use caution when drafting futures consumer protection rules which could have a large impact on the agriculture sector. The CFTC proposed rules in October 2012 following the collapse of ML Global and Peregrine Financial that the agriculture sector has warned could prove costly to customers. Chairman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK), Ranking Member Thad Cochran (R-MS), and Ranking Member Collin Peterson (D-MN) advised the CFTC that it should “weigh the benefits of these regulations against both the costs to America’s farmers and ranchers and the potential impact on consolidation in the industry.”

CFPB

Bureau and Jackson, Mississippi Begin 311 Line for Financial Issues

On September 20th, the CFPB and the City of Jackson, Mississippi announced a partnership to connect consumers with the CFPB to answer questions and submit complaints about financial products and services using their local 311 service.  Residents who dial 311 with a financial problem or complaint will be transferred directly to the Bureau where the CFPB will work with consumers on financial problems and handle consumer complaints on credit cards, mortgages, bank accounts or services, private student loans, consumer loans, credit reporting, money transfers, and debt collection.

CFPB Denies Petition to Dismiss Investigation of Tribal Lenders

On September 26th the CFPB denied a petition from three tribal payday lenders requesting that the CFPB end their investigation into whether the companies violated consumer laws. The lenders argued that the Bureau lacked the authority to make civil investigative demands to the companies due to sovereignty of the lenders via their affiliation with Native American tribes. In announcing the Bureau’s decision to proceed with the investigation, Director Cordray said that courts have agreed that “Indian tribes, like individual states, do not enjoy immunity from suits by the federal government.”

FHA

FHA to Draw on Treasury Funds to Cover Shortfall

On September 27th, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) announced that it will need to draw on $1.7 billion from the Treasury in order to cover shortfalls in the mortgage insurance fund. The shortfall, though expected, was larger than the anticipated $942 million estimate that was included in the President’s FY2014 budget proposal. In a letter to Congress on the announcement, FHA Commissioner Carol Galante said that the “required mandatory appropriation is an accounting transfer and does not reflect an up-to-date view” of the long-term fiscal health of the insurance fund.

NCUA

NCUA Sues Firms Over MBS Credit Union Failures

On September 23rd, the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) filed lawsuits against JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Barclays, Credit Suisse, Royal Bank of Scotland, UBS, Ally and Wachovia alleging the firms sold $2.4 billion in faulty mortgage-backed securities to two failed credit unions. Speaking on the suits, NCUA Chairman Debbie Matz said that credit unions the agency supervises are sharing the costs of the losses and “the people who are responsible should be required to shoulder that burden, as well.”

Miscellaneous

CRFP Examines Tax Exempt Status of IRAs

On September 27th, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) released an analysis of the preferential tax treatment of the Individual Retirement Account (IRA). The report notes that IRAs hold less than 25 percent of all the nation’s retirement assets and are used by only 5 percent of workers. The analysis notes numbers from the Joint Committee on Taxation which estimates that the subsidy will cost $15 billion in lost income tax revenue in 2013, or more than $250 billion over 10 years.

Upcoming Hearings

**(Schedule subject to change contingent on status of Federal Government)**

On Monday September 30th, in H-313 of The Capitol, the House Rules Committee will meet to consider a rule for H.R. 992, the Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act, and H.R. 2374, the Retail Investor Protection Act.

On Tuesday October 1st at 10am, in 2128 Rayburn, the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee of House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing on legislative proposals intended to create more accountability and transparency to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

On Tuesday, October 1st at 10am, in 538 Dirksen, the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee will hold a hearing titled “Housing Finance Reform: Fundamentals of a Functioning Private Label Mortgage Backed Securities Market.”

On Wednesday, October 2nd at 10am, in 106 Dirksen, the Joint Economic Committee will hold a hearing on the economic outlook.

On Wednesday, October 2nd at 10am, in 2128 Rayburn, the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee of House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing on the status of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

On Wednesday, October 2nd at 2:30pm, in 538 Dirksen, the Economic Policy Subcommittee of Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on rebuilding American manufacturing.

On Wednesday, October 9th at 2pm, in 2128 Rayburn, the Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises Subcommittee of House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing on legislation that would attempt to reduce impediments to capital formation.

On Thursday, October 10th at 10am, in 2128 Rayburn, the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee of House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing to examine international central banking models.

On Thursday, October 10th at 2pm, in 2128 Rayburn, the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee of House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing on un-banked and under-banked areas in the United States.

Article By:

 of

Former Head of Investor Relations Penalized by SEC for Selectively Disclosing Material Nonpublic Information, While Self-Disclosing Company Escapes Charges

Katten Muchin

The selective and early disclosure of material non-public information resulted in a Securities and Exchange Commission cease and desist order and civil penalties against the former head of investor relations at First Solar, Inc. (First Solar or the Company), an Arizona-based solar energy company. The SEC determined that Lawrence D. Polizzotto violated Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Regulation FD by informing certain analysts and investors ahead of the market that First Solar would likely not receive an important and much anticipated loan guarantee commitment of nearly $2 billion from the US Department of Energy (DOE). The day after those disclosures, the Company publicly disclosed this information in a press release, causing its stock price to dip six percent.

On September 13, 2011, First Solar’s then-CEO publicly expressed confidence at an investor conference that the Company would receive three loan guarantees of close to $4.5 billion, which the DOE previously committed to granting upon satisfaction of certain conditions. Polizzotto and several other First Solar executives learned a couple of days later that the Company would not receive the largest of the three guarantees. An in-house lawyer expressly advised a group of First Solar employees, including Polizzotto, that they could not answer questions from analysts and investors until the Company both received official notice from the DOE and issued a press release or posted an update on the guarantee to its website. According to the SEC, notwithstanding this instruction, Polizzotto and a subordinate, acting at Polizzotto’s direction, had one-on-one phone conversations with approximately 30 sell-side analysts and institutional investors prior to First Solar’s public disclosure. In the conversations, they conveyed the low probability that First Solar would receive one of the three guarantees. In some instances, Polizzotto went further and said that a conservative investor should assume that the guarantee would not be granted.

Polizzotto agreed to pay $50,000 to settle the charges without admitting or denying any of the SEC’s findings. He, however, was not subject to even a temporary industry bar. The SEC did not bring an enforcement action against First Solar due to the Company’s cooperation with the investigation, as well as its self-disclosure to the SEC promptly after discovering Polizzotto’s selective disclosure. In addition, the SEC emphasized the strong “environment of compliance” at the Company, including the “use of a disclosure committee that focused on compliance with Regulation FD” and the fact that the Company took remedial measures to address improper conduct, including conducting additional compliance training.

In the Matter of Lawrence D. Polizzotto, File No. 3-15458 (Sept. 6, 2013).

The Facts on FATCA – Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

On August 19, 2013, the Internal Revenue Service introduced its new registration portal to assist Foreign Financial Institutions (“FFI”) as they make efforts to comply with the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA“). Financial firms (banks, investment funds, and insurance companies) around the world must comply with the law, aimed at keeping US persons from hiding income and assets overseas, or risk serious consequences that could shut them out of financial markets. In recent years, the U.S. government has suspected that U.S. persons are underreporting massive sums of money hidden in offshore accounts.

FATCA was enacted as part of the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act of 2010 (“HIRE”). Under FATCA, FFIs are required to collect, verify, and provide information about their U.S. clients to the IRS. If they fail to do so, they are subject to a 30% withholding tax on U.S. source payments. To assist foreign countries with the Act’s reporting requirements, the U.S. Treasury Department developed model Intergovernmental Agreements (“IGAs”). FATCA implementation has been tumultuous, largely because there are foreign governments which have not entered into these IGAs with the U.S. government. To date, the Treasury has signed ten IGAs, and is engaged in ongoing conversations with more than 80 other countries. The Act was scheduled to take effect in January 2014, but the enforcement date has been postponed to July 2014. As of now, the IRS will start collecting firms’ customer account information in 2015.

FATCA implementation is set to occur in three phases. The first is implementation of the Act itself, with the collection of information regarding U.S. accountholders in FFIs. Second, FATCA partner countries will enter into bilateral agreements for the purpose of exchanging this information. Last, this information will be transferred to a centralized FATCA database that acts as the central repository for offshore account information for all countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (“OECD”). A list of these countries can be found here.

There has been significant resistance from FFIs, who are opposed to the IRS snooping into their financial affairs and frustrated with FATCA’s reporting and compliance requirements. Many FFIs believe that the law turns them into tax collectors and burdens them with a job that the IRS should be handling itself. Some FFIs, faced with the complicated burdens and tax exposure risks, have simply chosen to drop their U.S. clients. Major banks like HSBC, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse and Commerzbank are among those that have done so. This, of course, presents a major problem to Americans who conduct business or invest internationally; it is harder to obtain bank accounts, find insurance coverage, and qualify for loans. Expatriates are especially hard hit by institutions that are dropping American clients. Businesses are not exempt, either. Pursuant to FATCA, FFIs are required to report any private foreign corporation, business, or partnership in which a U.S. citizen is a ten percent or greater shareholder. A foreseeable consequence of the law is that foreigners become hesitant to do business with U.S. citizens because FATCA could expose sensitive account information and compel tax investigations.

Curbing tax evasion is a worthy goal, but FATCA comes at an expense to the law-abiding Americans citizens, expatriates, and businesses that engage in financial transactions overseas. Whether it will be a successful endeavor remains to be seen, but you can be sure that the side effects of it are already being felt by many.

Could Your Business Qualify for a 179D Green Building Tax Break?

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

If your company has built a new facility or upgraded an existing one anytime in the past six years, you might find that you qualify — at least partially — for a tax break of up to $1.80 per square foot under federal tax code section 179D, or the energy efficient commercial buildings deduction. This could be the case even if you had no concrete intention to focus on green building standards at the time.

A couple of great features of this deduction are, first, that you might be able to substantially mitigate your tax burden  as far back as six years and, second, it’s very likely that you will qualify if your facility exceeds 50,000 square feet and it meets current state building codes, according to a business tax writer for Forbes, who spent eight years as the U.S. Senate Finance Committee’s tax counsel.

The 179D tax deduction gives the business an immediate deduction in the current year plus a basis reduction for the value of the facility, which can be anything from a warehouses or parking garage to an office park or a multi-family housing unit. For private-sector projects, the building owner, assuming it paid for the construction or improvements, generally gets the deduction. In public projects, the architect, engineer or contractor can obtain it by seeking a certification letter from the government unit. Nonprofits and native American tribes are not eligible.

The green building deduction was created in recognition of the fact that around 70 percent of all electricity used in the U.S. is consumed by commercial buildings. The deduction, which is up for renewal — and possible expansion — this year, has already proven that efforts to mitigate the tax burden of businesses in a technology-neutral way is an effective way to encourage energy efficiency, according to the Forbes writer.

What improvements must be made to qualify for the green building credit? Currently, the new or renovated building merely needs to exceed the 2001 energy efficiency standards developed by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, or ASHRAE — and most state building codes already require this. That means the vast majority of new and improved buildings already meet this requirement.

It’s also possible to partially qualify for the deduction by meeting the standards only for the building envelope itself, which includes HVAC, the hot water system, and the interior lighting system. A building could qualify based upon only one of these systems, or all three.

Source: Forbes, “179D Tax Break for Energy Efficient Buildings — Update,” Dean Zerbe, Aug. 19, 2013

 of

For Small Business Owners, Suing in Small Claims Court Can Become a Big Headache

Odin-Feldman-Pittleman-logo

I recognize that when a business owner believes a monetary debt of $5,000 or less is owed to the business, there may be a temptation to control litigation costs by filing a lawsuit in the Small Claims Division of a Virginia General District Court.  Admittedly, there are some benefits, including:

  • Expeditious justice between the litigants, so the cases are not protracted
  • Formal rules of evidence do not apply, and neither side can be represented by an attorney
  • A corporation or partnership has discretion to send the owner, general partner, officer or employee to handle the case
  • Limited discovery afforded to either side, and judges tend to allow all relevant evidence to be considered with a goal towards determining the merits of the dispute

What’s the downside?  I will name a few:

  • You are not guaranteed to stay in Small Claims Court even if you start off there. If the other side hires counsel, the case can no longer be adjudicated in the Small Claims Court and it will be removed to General District Court where there is greater formality and the rules of evidence apply.  Even if the other side does not hire counsel, a defendant still has the right to remove a case to General District Court prior to the court rendering a decision.
  • You could be countersued. There are often two sides to every story.  Be aware that if the defendant files a counterclaim against the business, you as the plaintiff no longer have the ability to unilaterally discontinue the litigation.
  • You could potentially enter a protracted and expensive appeal process. Even if you are awarded a judgment, the defendant has an automatic right to appeal the case to Circuit Court when the judgment exceeds $50.  If this happens, the litigation can go on for a year in a more formal forum with considerably broader discovery allowed.

Suing in Small Claims Court may be a valid choice in some cases. However, it is always wise that a business owner consult a litigation attorney before deciding to file a lawsuit in Small Claims Court.

Resale Price Maintenance in China: Enforcement Authorities Imposing Large Fines for Anti-Monopoly Law Violations

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

Recently Shanghai High People’s Court reached a decision in the first lawsuit involving resale price maintenance (RPM) since China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) came into effect five years ago.  Shortly thereafter, a key enforcement agency announced RPM-related fines against six milk powder companies, five of which are non-Chinese.  Both cases clearly show that RPM can be a violation of the AML, and that RPM is currently under much greater scrutiny by enforcement authorities.  It would be prudent for all foreign corporations active in China’s consumer markets to take heed of these changes in China and conduct an immediate review of any potential RPM violations.

On 1 August 2013 the Shanghai High People’s Court reached a decision in the first anti-monopoly lawsuit involving resale price maintenance (RPM) since China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) came into effect in August 2008.  In addition to this judicial decision, on 7 August 2013 one of the key agencies in charge of enforcing the AML, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), announced RPM-related fines of USD 109 million against six milk powder companies, five of which are non-Chinese.  Both the High People’s Court and the NDRC have been striving to clarify how they will treat RPM, and specifically have focused on the issue of whether RPM should be treated as a per se violation or should be evaluated according to a “rule of reason” analysis.

Judicial Decisions in Civil Lawsuits

According to the recent decision by the Shanghai High People’s Court, in order to hold that an RPM provision is a monopoly agreement, the court must find that the RPM provision has restricted or eliminated competition.  Furthermore, the burden of proof will be on the plaintiff to show a restriction or elimination of competition arising out of the RPM.  The High People’s Court explicitly stated that this burden is the opposite from the burden of proof for horizontal monopolies, such as a cartel, in which case the burden of proof falls on the defendant to show that the agreement does not have any effect of eliminating or restricting competition.  This burden for horizontal monopolies has been further examined and confirmed by the “Judicial Interpretation of Anti-Monopoly Disputes” that was issued by China’s Supreme People’s Court on 1 June 2012.

Administrative Decisions in Enforcement Actions—Liquor and Infant Milk Formula

There have been several key RPM enforcement actions in 2013.  In February, the NDRC imposed a fine of USD 80 million on the famous Chinese liquor brands Maotai and Wuliangye for requiring distributors to resell the products above a certain price, which is common in some sectors in China.  On 2 July, according to the Price Supervision and Anti-Monopoly Bureau of the NDRC, six milk powder companies came under investigation for RPM violations of the AML.  According to the NDRC’s statements on the case, “from the evidence obtained, the milk powder companies under investigation instituted price controls over distributors and retailers, which excluded and limited market competition and therefore are alleged to have violated the Anti-Monopoly Law”.  The NDRC later announced record fines in that case of USD 109 million, which were the equivalent of between 3 per cent and 6 per cent of the companies’ revenue in 2012.

According to media reports, in the Maotai and Wuliangye cases, the NDRC provided clear indications about some of the factors that it will consider when determining whether the RPM has “eliminated or restricted competition”.   Specifically, when assessing the relevant market and market power of the two companies, the NDRC analysed the market structure and the role played by the two companies in the liquor industry, as well as the degree to which the products are substitutable with similar products and the loyalty of consumers towards the two liquors.  Based on this analysis, the NDRC concluded that the RPM provisions in the agreements with distributors of the two liquor giants eliminated and restricted competition, and thus were vertical “monopoly agreements”.

According to recent media reports, the NDRC has indicated it will “severely crack down” on and sanction vertical monopoly agreements such as RPM if they are maintained by business operators dominant in the market.  If business operators are not dominant, the NDRC reportedly indicated that it would still investigate all vertical monopoly conduct and determine if there has been any elimination or restriction of competition.

Conclusions

These civil lawsuits and administrative cases clearly show that RPM can be a violation of the AML and that RPM is currently under much greater scrutiny by enforcement authorities.  If RPM is an issue in civil lawsuits, a plaintiff will have to prove that RPM eliminates or restricts competition.  However, there are some indications that this burden of proof may be easily met.  In administrative cases, the NDRC will have to be satisfied that it has sufficient proof to show there is an elimination or restriction of competition.  However, it is unclear what level of evidence would be required to show such a restriction and it may not be a very high level, especially if the accused business operator is dominant in the market.

RPM has been a common feature of distribution agreements and other contracts in many sectors in China.  However, the recent cases clearly show there is a serious compliance risk if RPM continues to be part of a corporation’s normal practices.  This is particularly true for business operators that have a dominant market position or a group of business operators that are regarded as jointly dominant under the AML (in China, in certain circumstances, dominance is presumed with a market share as low as 10 per cent).  Unless the RPM conduct clearly falls within an exception in Article 15 of the AML, a company using RPM may face serious fines and confiscation of illegal gains.  It would be prudent for all foreign corporations active in China’s consumer markets to take heed of these changes to the enforcement priorities of the competition/antitrust authorities in China and conduct an immediate review of any potential RPM violations.

Alex An and Jared Nelson also contributed to this article.

Article By:

 of