investment Archives - The National Law Forum

Third Time’s a Charm? SEC & CFTC Finalize Amendments to Form PF

On February 8, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) jointly adopted amendments to Form PF, the confidential reporting form for certain registered investment advisers to private funds. Form PF’s dual purpose is to assist the SEC’s and CFTC’s regulatory oversight of private fund advisers (who may be both SEC-registered investment advisers and also registered with the CFTC as commodity pool operators or commodity trading advisers) and investor protection efforts, as well as help the Financial Stability Oversight Council monitor systemic risk. In addition, the SEC entered into a memorandum of understanding with the CFTC to facilitate data sharing between the two agencies regarding information submitted on Form PF.

Continued Spotlight on Private Funds

The continued focus on private funds and private fund advisers is a recurring theme. The SEC recently adopted controversial and sweeping new rules governing many activities of private funds and private fund advisers. The SEC’s Division of Examinations also continues to highlight private funds in its annual examination priorities. Form PF is similarly no stranger to recent revisions and expansions in its scope. First, in May 2023, the SEC adopted requirements for certain advisers to hedge funds and private equity funds to provide current reporting of key events (within 72 hours). Second, in July 2023, the SEC finalized amendments to Form PF for large liquidity fund advisers to align their reporting requirements with those of money market funds. And last week, this third set of amendments to Form PF, briefly discussed below.

SEC Commissioner Peirce, in dissent:

“Boundless curiosity is wonderful in a small child; it is a less attractive trait in regulatory agencies…. Systemic risk involves the forest — trying to monitor the state of every individual tree at every given moment in time is a distraction and trades off the mistaken belief that we have the capacity to draw meaning from limitless amounts of discrete and often disparate information. Unbridled curiosity seems to be driving this decision rather than demonstrated need.”

Additional Reporting by Large Hedge Fund Advisers on Qualifying Hedge Funds

These amendments will, among other things, expand the reporting requirements for large hedge fund advisers with regard to “qualifying hedge funds” (i.e., hedge funds with a net asset value of at least $500 million). The amendments will require additional disclosures in the following categories:

Investment exposures, borrowing and counterparty exposures, currency exposures, country and industry exposures;
Market factor effects;
Central clearing counterparty reporting;
Risk metrics;
Investment performance by strategy;
Portfolio, financing, and investor liquidity; and
Turnover.

While the final amendments increase the amount of fund-level information the Commission will receive with regard to individual qualifying hedge funds, at the same time, the Commission has eliminated the aggregate reporting requirements in Section 2a of Form PF (noting, in its view, that such aggregate information can be misleading).

Enhanced Reporting by All Hedge Funds

The amendments will require more detailed reporting on Form PF regarding:

Hedge fund investment strategies (while digital assets are now an available strategy to select from, the SEC opted not to adopt its proposed definition of digital assets, instead noting that if a strategy can be classified as both a digital asset strategy and another strategy, the adviser should report the strategy as the non-digital asset strategy);
Counterparty exposures (including borrowing and financing arrangements); and
Trading and clearing mechanisms.

Other Amendments That Apply to All Form PF Filers

General Instructions. Form PF filers will be required to report separately each component fund of a master-feeder arrangement and parallel fund structure (rather than in the aggregate as permitted under the existing Form PF), other than a disregarded feeder fund (e.g., where a feeder fund invests all its assets in a single master fund, US treasury bills, and/or “cash and cash equivalents”). In addition, the amendments revise how filers will report private fund investments in other private funds, “trading vehicles” (a newly defined term), and other funds that are not private funds. For example, Form PF will now require an adviser to include the value of a reporting fund’s investments in other private funds when responding to questions on Form PF, including determining filing obligations and reporting thresholds (unless otherwise directed by the Form).
All Private Funds. Form PF filers reporting information about their private funds will report additional and/or new information regarding, for example: type of private fund; identifying information about master-feeder arrangements, internal and external private funds, and parallel fund structures; withdrawal/redemption rights; reporting of gross and net asset values; inflows/outflows; base currency; borrowings and types of creditors; fair value hierarchy; beneficial ownership; and fund performance.

Final Thoughts

With the recent and significant regulatory spotlight on investment advisers to private funds and private funds themselves, we encourage advisers to consider the interrelationships between new data reporting requirements on Form PF and the myriad of new regulations and disclosure obligations being imposed on investment advisers more generally (including private fund advisers).

The effective date and compliance date for new final amendments to Form PF is 12 months following the date of publication in the Federal Register.

Robert Bourret also contributed to this article.

Upstream and Affiliate Guaranties in NAV Loans

Guaranties are a common feature in fund finance transactions. Particularly in NAV loans, upstream and affiliate (or “sideways”) guaranties are used. Below we discuss some of the context for the use of these types of guaranties, as well as some of the issues that lenders should consider in relying on them.

Upstream Guaranties

It is not uncommon in NAV loan transactions for the borrower to hold the underwritten assets for the financing (i.e., the fund’s portfolio of investments) through one or more controlled subsidiary holding vehicles (each, a “HoldCo”). Lenders may take a pledge of the management and economic interests in the HoldCos (rather than the underlying investments). In order to get as close to the underlying investments as possible (without taking a pledge), lenders may require that a HoldCo issue a guaranty directly to the lenders (or the administrative agent, on behalf of the lenders), guaranteeing the borrower’s obligations under the NAV loan facility. This “upstream” guaranty provides the lenders a direct claim against the HoldCo for amounts due under the loan, mitigating some of the risk of structural subordination to potential creditors (expected or unexpected) at the level of the HoldCo.[1]

Affiliate Guaranties

It is also common in NAV loan facilities for the borrower’s portfolio of investments to be held by multiple subsidiaries and/or affiliates of the borrower. Each such subsidiary or affiliate may be designated as a guarantor for repayment of the loan. As a result, such entities end up guaranteeing the obligations of their affiliates. The purpose of these affiliate guaranties is the same as the upstream guaranties discussed above – namely, to provide the lenders with a more direct enforcement claim in a default scenario.

Use of Such Guaranties

Motivations for the use of such upstream and affiliate guaranties may include:

a lender’s desire to underwrite a broader portfolio of investments, mitigating concentration risk to the portfolio of a single holding entity;
a lender’s desire to ensure that it is not subordinate to creditors that may arise at the level of the entity that directly owns the investment; or
a borrower’s desire to obtain a higher loan-to-value ratio than the lenders would otherwise provide based on the investments alone.
While upstream and affiliate guaranties can help to address these issues, they may raise nuanced legal issues that should be discussed with counsel in light of the relevant facts and circumstances.

Enforceability Considerations

Guaranties constitute the assumption of the liabilities of another entity and are contingent claims against the guarantor. Under certain insolvency laws, guaranties may be subject to challenge, and payments under guaranties may be subject to avoidance. Upstream or affiliate guaranties may be subject to heightened scrutiny and challenge in a bankruptcy or distress scenario. Below are a few potential issues lenders should bear in mind with respect to upstream and affiliate guaranties.

1. Constructively Fraudulent Transfer Avoidance. Under Bankruptcy Code section 548 and certain state laws, (a) transfers of property (including grants of security interests or liens), or (b) obligations assumed (such as incurring a loan or guaranty obligation) may be avoided as constructively fraudulent if BOTH of the following requirements are satisfied:[2]

(i) the transferor/guarantor does not receive reasonably equivalent value; AND
(ii) the transferor/guarantor is insolvent or undercapitalized or rendered insolvent, undercapitalized or unable to pay its debts because of the transfer or the assumed liability.

A guaranty by a parent of the obligations of a wholly owned and solvent subsidiary, a so-called downstream guaranty, is generally regarded as providing the parent with reasonably equivalent value through an enhancement of the value of its equity ownership of the subsidiary.

Upstream and affiliate guaranties require more scrutiny than guaranties by a borrower parent to determine whether any potential enforceability issues are present.

a. Reasonably Equivalent Value. The determination of value is not formulaic or mechanical, but rather generally determined by the substance of the transaction. Value or benefits from a transfer may be direct (e.g., receipt of loan proceeds) or indirect. But if indirect, they must be “fairly concrete.”

In each of the above scenarios, we are assuming that the upstream or affiliate guarantor would not use the proceeds of any loans and, consequently, would not be added to the loan facility as a borrower. However, other indirect but tangible benefits or value to the guarantor should be identified, e.g., favorable loan terms or amendments, use of the NAV facility proceeds that may indirectly but materially benefit the guarantor, maintenance of the entire fund group of entities that benefits the guarantor, etc.

b. Financial Condition of Guarantor. The financial condition of the transferor/guarantor is evaluated at the time of the incurrence of the guaranty. The evaluation is made from the debtor/guarantor – in what condition was the guarantor left after giving effect to the transfer or assumption of the obligation. Diligence regarding a guarantor’s financial condition may demonstrate that such guarantor is sufficiently creditworthy to undertake the guaranty and remain solvent and able to conduct its respective businesses. Representations from the guarantor may be sought to confirm its financial condition.

c. Potential Mitigants. In addition to performing diligence with respect to the above points, lenders and their counsel will often include contractual provisions to mitigate the possibility that a guaranty may be found to constitute a fraudulent transfer. Savings clauses, limited recourse guaranties, and net worth guaranties are all tools that can be used to address the issues noted above. The scope and appropriateness of such provisions is beyond the scope of this article and should be discussed with external deal and restructuring counsel.

2. Preference Challenge. Under Bankruptcy Code section 547, a transfer made by a debtor to a creditor, on account of an antecedent debt, that is made while the debtor was insolvent and within 90 days before the bankruptcy case has been commenced may be subject to avoidance as a preferential transfer. Certain defenses may apply to a potential preferential transfer, including the simultaneous exchange of “new value” by the creditor. However, note that any pre-bankruptcy transfers of value, like payments under a guaranty, may be subject to scrutiny and potential challenge by the guarantor/debtor or a bankruptcy trustee.

Guaranties can be an important element in structuring NAV loan transactions to achieve the terms desired by the parties and to provide necessary protections for the lenders, but consideration needs to be given to the legal issues, such as the ones mentioned here, that their inclusion can present.

[1] Lenders will typically also require the HoldCo to pledge its accounts to which proceeds of the underlying investments are paid, allowing lenders to foreclose on such cash at the HoldCo level, without the need for such cash to first be distributed up to the borrower.

[2] Note that the precise language of certain state fraudulent transfer laws may differ, but conceptually, most state statutes require a showing of (i) insufficient or unreasonably small consideration in exchange for the transfer or liability incurred, and (ii) the transferor/debtor being insolvent at the time of the transfer, or becoming insolvent or subject to financial distress as a result of the transfer.

Multi-Club Ownership – For the Good of the Game?

Alongside the rise of investment from sovereign wealth and private equity funds, sport has also seen an increase in multi-club/franchise ownership groups. These groups, often spanning across different sports, leagues, countries, and continents, allow investors to diversify their portfolios and spread their risks.

However, in football, the rise of the Multi-Club Ownership (MCOs) model poses a challenge for how the sport is governed and has implications on current and future financial regulation. MCOs acquire multiple football clubs, building a network of related teams in the process. This, consequentially, has a knock-on effect on player transfers, commercial opportunities, and the overall competitive balance of football across the globe.

In this article, we discuss the benefits of MCOs for both clubs and owners, the potential competitive advantages clubs can gain through MCOs, and whether the existing financial regulations are fit for purpose given the increasing number of MCOs within the sport.

Governance

One of the key benefits for clubs under an MCO structure is the ability to leverage centralized governance infrastructure and apply lessons learned from across the group. By centralizing key departments at the portfolio level, and incentivizing knowledge sharing within the group, MCOs can apply synergies and implement best practices with each new acquisition, leading to a more effective and efficient operation. Additionally, the centralized governance structure within an MCO brings with it opportunities for financial benefits in the form of cost savings and potentially increased revenues.

Sponsorships and Commercial Deals

Operating under an MCO allows clubs to benefit from sponsorships and other commercial deals negotiated at the group level, while also increasing individual brand awareness for each respective club. For example, an MCO could negotiate a group sponsorship agreement with a kit manufacturer or shirt sponsor covering a number of teams within the group, including the flagship club.

Agreements of this kind would be beneficial for all parties involved. The sponsor increases its own profile by being associated with the flagship club, while also getting instant access to a variety of markets through the other clubs in the agreement. At the group level, the homogeneity created by having clubs within the group playing in similar kits creates a stronger brand identity, whilst also boosting the brand profile for the smaller clubs by further associating them with the flagship club. Additionally, a group agreement would allow the MCO to secure a competitive rate that may have been unattainable for a solitary club.

Player Scouting, Acquisition, and Development

The other major financial benefit for clubs in an MCO structure relates to how players are scouted, acquired, and developed. A common feature of MCOs is the application of a uniform strategy, across all portfolio clubs, set at a group level by a Sporting/Technical Director. When trickled down to each club, this results in a global scouting network, acquiring local talent with the group’s playing style in mind. These players will then be brought into an academy, through which they will be developed to play in the MCO’s preferred playing style.

While this does not represent an immediate cost saving, this network of local scouting and academies at the club level can lead to a significant competitive and financial advantage as players move within the group from smaller clubs to the flagship club. By transferring or loaning players “in-house”, MCOs can ensure that a player’s development is not hampered by being played in an unfavorable position, or by being asked to perform a different role, protecting their value.

Additionally, by acquiring players from within the group, clubs save both time and money on scouting, as players are already a known quantity within the network. Furthermore, the receiving club acquires a player tailor-made to their playing style, reducing the time required to bed them in.

“In-house” Transfer Agreements

As exemplified by the transfer of Hassane Kamara between Pozzo family-owned clubs Watford and Udinese, “in-house” transfers can be leveraged to alleviate financial constraints for clubs within the group. Kamara, initially purchased by Watford in January 2022 for £4m, and who went on to be Watford’s player of the season, was subsequently sold to Udinese in August 2022 for £16m.

However, Kamara was then loaned straight back to Watford for the 2022/23 season. Although prima facie, this transfer does not benefit Udinese, it allowed Watford to recognize an £8m profit on Kamara while retaining his services, and strengthening their cash flow at a time when they were negotiating contracts with other star players. While “in-house” transfers of this kind raise questions regarding their fitness and propriety, they also have implications on competitive balance.

Parent Feeder

The most recognizable transfer strategy within MCOs is the feeder club model. This can be mutually beneficial to both clubs, with the best-performing players transferring to the “parent” clubs” and the “feeder” club receiving transfer income, as well as occasional loan transfers of youth team players to develop while remaining in the MCO structure.

Such a relationship can be seen between Red Bull owned, RB Leipzig (RBL) and FC Red Bull Salzburg (FCS). Since 2015, twelve players have transferred directly from FCS to RBL, with transfer fees totaling £119.75m. Eight of these players, bought for a total of £73.85m have subsequently been sold for a total of £117.50m, generating £43.65 profit RBL. The cumulative market value of the four players still playing for RBL has risen by £26.32m since their relevant transfers. For perspective, there have only been four transfers from RBL to FCS in the same period. [i]

Competition Integrity

Although centralized governance structures provide a wealth of benefits to clubs and owners within MCOs, there is a regulation to limit the effects of centralized governance on the integrity of competition.

UEFA’s regulations on common ownership prohibit teams from competing in the same competition where a single person or entity has a de facto control over both clubs. For clubs under common ownership to compete in the same competition, they must demonstrate that there are disparities within the clubs’ corporate matters, financing, personnel, and sponsorship arrangements.

On only one occasion since 2002 has UEFA’s rule on common ownership been considered. RBL and FCS both qualified for the 2017/18 Champions League and had to make significant structural changes in order for both teams to be admitted to that season’s edition. Therefore, as long as MCOs are willing to sacrifice centralized operations to an extent satisfactory to UEFA regulations, mutual competition is allowed. However, while many smaller clubs within more centralized MCO structures may not have short-term goals of European Football, UEFA regulations do raise questions over the investor’s long-term footballing ambitions for those clubs.

Financial Sustainability Regulations

In addition to the on-field benefits, being part of an MCO also provides opportunities for clubs to improve their financial position, and potentially exploit loopholes in existing financial regulation. UEFA’s recently introduced Financial Sustainability Rules (FSR) are built upon three pillars: solvency, stability, and cost control. The new cost control regulation, known as the squad cost ratio, states that a club’s outlays on wages, agents’ fees, and amortization costs must be less than 70% of club revenues. [ii]

In a scenario where an MCO owned club requires to decrease their squad cost ratio, it is possible that group sponsorship agreements and in-house transfers could be used to achieve this. By selling players within an MCO, and then receiving those players back on loan, clubs will recognize a profit on the sale for the purposes of FSR and bring down their squad cost ratio.

When considering group sponsorship agreements in respect of FSR, it is also possible that the accounting treatment of this contract at the club level could be engineered to assist a club in complying with the squad cost ratio. The allocation of revenue from a group-level sponsorship to each of the clubs under the agreement is not required to be split evenly, which provides MCOs with an opportunity to funnel revenues from group sponsorships to their clubs complying with FSR. With no current guidance or regulation on how group sponsorships should be treated from an accounting perspective, group sponsorships are another tool that can be utilized to improve their squad cost ratio.

Fair Value Regulations

Although MCOs bring opportunities to improve squad cost ratios, the FSR regulations also require all transactions to be made at “fair value”. This means that financial arrangements for sponsorships and player transfers must be accounted for on an “arm’s length” basis. Where there are doubts amongst the Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) board, it can request an adjustment of the proceeds resulting from the transfer of a player, or the allocation of sponsorship monies.

However, there is currently no precedent or evidence to indicate how UEFA would view the accounting treatment for a club under a group sponsorship agreement or the transfer of players within MCOs. Furthermore, while there is a clear means to value a sponsorship agreement, this is considerably more difficult with regard to transfers, specifically the valuation of a player.

While age, injury record, marketability, and contract length, are all attributable factors, a player’s worth comes down to how much the selling club desires weighted against how much the buying club is willing to pay. An MCO structure circumvents this issue and allows for “in-house” transfers at an inflated value stipulated by the shared owner/s. Given the regulations, it is unlikely any club would want to pique the interests of the CFCB by hyper-inflating the value of a transfer, but whether MCOs will be deterred from increasing the value of in house transfers by smaller, nominal values remains to be seen.

The Future of MCOs

Recent trends have shown that the existence of MCOs will be sustained over the coming years. Sport has developed alongside the increasingly commercialized world, resulting in significant growth in investor interest across multiple clubs and sports. However, how the governance and regulation of MCOs evolves will define their development in the long term. Another factor that must be considered is whether investors will prefer multi-sport ownership (MSOs), which bring with them their own regulatory considerations, particularly in relation to conflicts of interest. Nonetheless, in the immediate future we expect continued investment in Football, the question is whether they remain satisfied with just one club, or one sport.

[i] All figures have been taken from https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/

[ii] A full copy of UEFA’s new regulations can be found here

Kurun Bhandari (Director) and James Michaels (Associate) at Ankura authored this article.

For more entertainment, art, and sports legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Who Owns the Crypto, the Customer or the Debtor?

Whose crytpo is it? With the multiple cryptocurrency companies that have recently filed for bankruptcy (FTX, Voyager Digital, BlockFi), and more likely on the way, that simple sounding question is taking on huge significance. Last week, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Chief Judge Martin Glenn) attempted to answer that question in the Celsius Network LLC bankruptcy case.

The Facts of the Case

Celsius and its affiliated debtors (collectively, “Debtors”) ran a cryptocurrency finance platform. Faced with extreme turbulence in the cryptocurrency markets, the Debtors filed Chapter 11 petitions on July 13, 2022. As part of their regular business, the Debtors had allowed customers to both deposit cryptocurrency digital assets on their platform and earn a percentage yield, as well as take out loans by pledging their cryptocurrencies as security. One specific program offered by the Debtors was the “Earn” program, under which customers could transfer certain cryptocurrencies to the Debtors and earn “rewards” in the form of payment of in-kind interest or tokens. On the petition date, the Earn program accounts (the “Earn Accounts”) held cryptocurrency assets with a market value of approximately $4.2 billion. Included within the Earn Accounts were stablecoins valued at approximately $23 million in September 2022. A stablecoin is a type of cryptocurrency designed to be tied or pegged to another currency, commodity or financial instrument.

Recognizing their emerging need for liquidity, on November 11, 2022, the Debtors filed a motion seeking entry of an order (a) establishing a rebuttable presumption that the Debtors owned the assets in the Earn Accounts and (b) permitting the sale of the stablecoins held in the Earn Accounts under either section 363(c)(1) (sale in the ordinary course of business) or section 363(b)(1) (sale outside the ordinary course of business) of the Bankruptcy Code. The motion generated opposition from the U.S. Trustee, various States and State securities regulators and multiple creditors and creditor groups. The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors objected to the sale of the stablecoins under section 363(c)(1) but argued that the sale should be approved under section 363(b)(1) because the Debtors had shown a good business reason for the sale (namely to pay ongoing administrative expenses of the bankruptcy cases). On January 4, 2023, the court issued its forty-five (45) page memorandum opinion granting the Debtors’ motion.

The Court’s Decision

Although the ownership issue may appear complex given the nature of the assets (i.e., cryptocurrency), the bankruptcy court framed the issue into relatively straightforward state law questions of contract formation and interpretation. The court first analyzed whether there was a valid contract governing the parties’ rights to the cryptocurrency assets in the Earn Accounts. Under governing New York law, a valid, enforceable contract requires an offer and acceptance (i.e., mutual assent), consideration and an intent to be bound. The court found that all three elements were satisfied. The Debtors required that all customers agree to and accept “Terms of Use.” The Terms of Use was set up as a “clickwrap” agreement that required customers to agree to the terms and prevented the customers from advancing to the next page and completing their sign up unless they agreed to the Terms of Use. Under New York law, “clickwrap” agreements are sufficient to constitute mutual assent. The court also found that consideration was given by way of allowing the customers to earn a financing fee (i.e., the rewards in the form of payment of in-kind interest or tokens). Finally, the court noted that no party had presented evidence that either the Debtors or the customers lacked intent to be bound by the contract terms. Accordingly, the court held that the Terms of Use constituted a valid contract, subject to the rights of customers to put forth individual contract formation defenses in the future, including claims of fraudulent inducement based on representations allegedly made by the Debtors’ former CEO, Alex Mashinsky.

Having found a valid contract to presumptively exist, the court turned its attention to what the Terms of Use provided in terms of transfer of ownership. In operative part, the Terms of Use provided:

In consideration for the Rewards payable to you on the Eligible Digital Assets using the Earn Service … and the use of our Services, you grant Celsius … all right and title to such Eligible Digital Assets, including ownership rights, and the right, without further notice to you, to hold such Digital Assets in Celsius’ own Virtual Wallet or elsewhere, and to pledge, re-pledge, hypothecate, rehypothecate, sell, lend or otherwise transfer or use any amount of such Digital Assets, separately or together with other property, with all the attendant rights of ownership, and for any period of time, and without retaining in Celsius’ possession and/or control a like amount of Digital Assets or any other monies or assets, and use or invest such Digital Assets in Celsius’ full discretion. You acknowledge that with respect Digital Assets used by Celsius pursuant to this paragraph:

You will not be able to exercise rights of ownership;
Celsius may receive compensation in connection with lender or otherwise using Digital Assets in its business to which you have no claim or entitlement; and
In the event that Celsius becomes bankrupt, enters liquidation or is otherwise unable to repay its obligations, any Eligible Digital Assets used in the Earn Service or as collateral under the Borrow Service may not be recoverable, and you may not have any legal remedies or rights in connection with Celsius’ obligations to you other than your rights as a creditor of Celsius under any applicable laws.

Based on this language, the court held that the Terms of Use unambiguously transferred ownership of the assets in the Earn Accounts to the Debtors. Central to the court’s decision was that under the Terms of Use customers had granted the Debtors “all right and title to such Digital Assets, including ownership rights.” Based on this language, the court found that title and ownership of the cryptocurrency held in the Earn Accounts was “unequivocally transferred to the Debtors and became property of the Estate on the Petition Date.”

Finally, the court found that the Debtors had shown that they needed to generate liquidity to fund the bankruptcy cases, and that additional liquidity would be needed early this year. Accordingly, the court held that the Debtors had shown sufficient cause to permit the sale of the stablecoins outside of the ordinary course of business in accordance with section 363(b)(1).

Implications

Given the turbulent nature of the cryptocurrency market and the likelihood of further cryptocurrency bankruptcy filings, the court’s ruling is sure to have significant implications. First, unless it is reversed on appeal, the opinion means that the Debtors’ Earn program customers do not own the funds in their digital accounts and will instead be relegated to the status of unsecured creditors with a highly uncertain recovery. Second, the opinion underscores the Wild West nature of crypto and the fact that unlike deposits at a federally insured financial institution, deposits at cryptocurrency exchanges are not similarly insured and may be at risk. Third, customers or account holders in other cryptocurrency exchanges or businesses should carefully review the applicable terms of use to determine if those terms transferred ownership of their digital assets to their cryptocurrency counterparty. It is likely a fair assumption that such other terms of use transferred ownership in the same way that the Celsius Terms of Use did, in which case customers must remain vigilant of the financial health of their cryptocurrency counterparty. Finally, all parties engaging in on-line business transactions, including those outside of cryptocurrency, are on notice that clickwrap agreements commonly found in such transactions are, at least under New York law, enforceable. In short, those agreements mean something, and the fact that a party did not read the terms before agreeing to them through a “click” is likely not going to be a viable defense to the enforcement of those terms.

For more Bankruptcy Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

UK Prohibits Certain Investment in Russia

From 19 July 2022,¹ it is a violation of UK financial sanctions for any person who knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that they are carrying out, directly or indirectly, certain investment activity in Russia. These prohibitions follow the UK Government’s 6 April 2022 announcement of its intention to introduce an outright ban on all new outward investment in Russia.

The prohibitions are subject to exceptions and do not impact acts undertaken to satisfy obligations under a contract concluded before 19 July 2022, or an ancillary contract necessary for the satisfaction of that contract, subject to notifying Her Majesty’s Treasury at least five working days before the day on which any related act is carried out. There is also the option to apply for a specific Treasury licence, such as to enable humanitarian assistance activity or if connected with the provision of medical goods or services.

Furthermore, General Licence INT/2022/2002560 has been granted, taking effect from 19 July 2022 and expiring on 26 July 2022, allowing a seven-day wind-down period in respect of the prohibited activities.

What Is Prohibited?

The Regulations prohibit:

Directly or indirectly establishing any joint venture with a person connected with Russia;
Opening representative offices or establishing branches or subsidiaries in Russia;
Directly or indirectly acquiring any ownership interest in Russian land and persons connected with Russia for the purpose of making funds or economic resources available directly or indirectly to, or for the benefit of, persons connected with Russia;
Directly or indirectly acquiring any ownership interest in or control over a relevant entity or persons (other than an individual) with a place of business in Russia for the purpose of making funds or economic resources available, directly or indirectly, to, or for the benefit of, persons connected with Russia; and
The provision of investment services directly related to all the activities summarised above.

Definitions

A “person connected with Russia” means:

any individual or group of individuals who are ordinarily resident or located in Russia, or an entity which is incorporated or constituted under Russian law or domiciled in Russia;²

and is not:

A Schedule 2 Entity, as detailed in the Regulations;³ or
An entity domiciled outside of Russia or a branch, or subsidiary, of such a non-Russian entity.⁴

A “branch”⁵ means, in relation to a person other than an individual, a place of business which forms a legally dependent part of that person and which carries out all or some of the transactions inherent in the business of that person.

A “relevant entity”⁶ means a person, other than an individual, which has a place of busines located in Russia, but is not a person connected with Russia.

A person directly or indirectly “acquiring any ownership interest in or control over a person or entity”⁷ means:

Acquiring any share in the person or entity;
Acquiring any voting rights in the person or entity;
Acquiring any right to appoint or remove a majority of the board of directors of the person or entity; or
Acquiring any means of ensuring that the affairs of the person or entity are conducted in accordance with the wishes of the person.

Exceptions

The exceptions⁸ introduced enables a person to deal directly or indirectly with:

A transferable security otherwise prohibited by Regulation 16;
A relevant security issued by a person connected with Russia; or
A relevant security issued by a relevant entity.

Full definitions of the terms above are included within Regulation 60ZZA.

What Is Prohibited?

The Regulations prohibit:

Directly or indirectly establishing any joint venture with a person connected with Russia;
Opening representative offices or establishing branches or subsidiaries in Russia;
Directly or indirectly acquiring any ownership interest in Russian land and persons connected with Russia for the purpose of making funds or economic resources available directly or indirectly to, or for the benefit of, persons connected with Russia;
Directly or indirectly acquiring any ownership interest in or control over a relevant entity or persons (other than an individual) with a place of business in Russia for the purpose of making funds or economic resources available, directly or indirectly, to, or for the benefit of, persons connected with Russia; and
The provision of investment services directly related to all the activities summarised above.

Definitions

A “person connected with Russia” means:

any individual or group of individuals who are ordinarily resident or located in Russia, or an entity which is incorporated or constituted under Russian law or domiciled in Russia;²

and is not:

A Schedule 2 Entity, as detailed in the Regulations;³ or
An entity domiciled outside of Russia or a branch, or subsidiary, of such a non-Russian entity.⁴

A “relevant entity”⁶ means a person, other than an individual, which has a place of busines located in Russia, but is not a person connected with Russia.

A person directly or indirectly “acquiring any ownership interest in or control over a person or entity”⁷ means:

Acquiring any share in the person or entity;
Acquiring any voting rights in the person or entity;
Acquiring any right to appoint or remove a majority of the board of directors of the person or entity; or
Acquiring any means of ensuring that the affairs of the person or entity are conducted in accordance with the wishes of the person.

Exceptions

The exceptions⁸ introduced enables a person to deal directly or indirectly with:

A transferable security otherwise prohibited by Regulation 16;
A relevant security issued by a person connected with Russia; or
A relevant security issued by a relevant entity.

Full definitions of the terms above are included within Regulation 60ZZA.

FOOTNOTES

¹ Regulation 18B introduced via The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 12) Regulations 2022 [2022 No. 801], in force as of 19 July 2022.

² Regulation 19A(2), The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 [2019 No. 855] – as amended.

³ See pp. 123-124.

⁴ Regulation 16(4D), Ibid.

⁵ Regulation 18B(8), The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 12) Regulations 2022 [2022 No. 801].

⁶ Regulation 18B(8), Ibid.

⁷ Regulation 18B(8), Ibid.

⁸ Regulation 60ZZA, Ibid.

Article By Annabel Thomas, Jo Rickards, Gavin Costelloe, Bethany Histed, Kara M. Bombach, and Erik de Bie of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

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

EV Buses: Arriving Now and Here to Stay

In the words of Miss Frizzle, “Okay bus—do your stuff!”¹ A favorable regulatory environment, direct subsidy, private investment, and customer demand are driving an acceleration in electric vehicle (EV) bus adoption and the lane of busiest traffic is filling with school buses. The United States has over 480,000 school buses, but currently, less than one percent are EVs. Industry watchers expect that EV buses will eventually become the leading mode for student transportation. School districts and municipalities are embracing EV buses because they are perceived as cleaner, requiring less maintenance, and predicted to operate more reliably than current fossil fuel consuming alternatives. EV bus technology has improved in recent years, with today’s models performing better in cold weather than their predecessors, with increased ranges on a single charge, and requiring very little special training for drivers.² Moreover, EV buses can serve as components in micro-grid developments (more on that in a future post).

The Investment Incline

Even if the expected operational advantages of EV buses deliver, the upfront cost to purchase vehicles or to retrofit existing fleets remains an obstacle to expansion. New EV buses price out significantly more than traditional diesel buses and also require accompanying new infrastructure, such as charging stations. Retrofitting drive systems in existing buses comparatively reduces some of that cost, but also requires significant investment.³

To detour around these financial obstacles, federal, state, and local governments have made funding available to encourage the transition to EV buses.⁴ In addition to such policy-based subsidies, private investment from both financial and strategic quarters has increased. Market participants who take advantage of such funding earlier than their competitors have a forward seat to position themselves as leaders.

You kids pipe down back there, I’ve got my eyes on a pile of cash up ahead!

Government funding incentives for electrification are available for new EV buses and for repowering existing vehicles.⁵ Notably, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act committed $5 billion over five years to replace existing diesel buses with EV buses. Additionally, the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act provided $18.7 million in rebates for fiscal year 2021 through an ongoing program.

In 2021, New York City announced its commitment to transition school buses to electric by 2035. Toward that goal, the New York Truck Voucher Incentive Program provides vouchers to eligible fleets towards electric conversions and covers up to 80% of those associated costs.⁶ California’s School Bus Replacement Program had already set aside over $94 million, available to districts, counties, and joint power authorities, to support replacing diesel buses with EVs, and the state’s proposed budget for 2022-23 includes a $1.5 billion grant program to support purchase of EV buses and charging stations.

While substantial growth in EV bus sales will continue in the years ahead, it will be important to keep an eye out for renewal, increase or sunset of these significant subsidies.

Market Players and Market Trends, OEMs, and Retrofitters

The U.S is a leader in EV school bus production: two of the largest manufacturers, Blue Bird and Thomas Built (part of Daimler Truck North America), are located domestically, and Lion Electric (based in Canada) expects to begin delivering vehicles from a large facility in northern Illinois during the second half of 2022. GM has teamed up with Lighting eMotors on a medium duty truck platform project that includes models prominent in many fleets, and Ford’s Super Duty lines of vehicles (which provide the platform for numerous vans and shuttle vehicles) pop up in its promotion of a broader electric future. Navistar’s IC Bus now features an electric version of its flagship CE series.

Additionally, companies are looking to a turn-key approach to deliver complete energy ecosystems, encompassing vehicles, charging infrastructure, financing, operations, maintenance, and energy optimization. In 2021, Highland Electric Transportation raised $253 million from Vision Ridge Partners, Fontinalis Partners (co-founded by Bill Ford) and existing investors to help accelerate its growth, premised on a turn-key fleet approach.⁷

Retrofitting is also on the move. SEA Electric (SEA), a provider of electric commercial vehicles, recently partnered with Midwest Transit Equipment (MTE) to convert 10,000 existing school buses to EVs over the next five years.⁸ MTE will provide the frame for the school uses and SEA will provide its SEA-drive propulsion system to convert the buses to EV.⁹ In a major local project, Logan Bus Company announced its collaboration with AMPLY Power and Unique Electric Solutions (UES) to deploy New York City’s first Type-C (conventional) school bus.¹⁰

Industry followers should expect further collaborations, because simplifying the route to adopting an EV fleet makes it more likely EV products will reach customers.

Opportunities Going Forward

Over the long haul, EV buses should do well. Scaling up investments and competition on the production side should facilitate making fleet modernization more affordable for school districts while supporting profit margins for manufacturers. EVs aren’t leaving town, so manufacturers, fleet operators, school districts and municipalities will either get on board or risk being left at the curb.

Article By Michael J. Small and Samantha Ruppenthal at Foley & Lardner LLP

For more utilities and transportation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

¹https://shop.scholastic.com/parent-ecommerce/series-and-characters/magic-school-bus.html

²https://www.busboss.com/blog/having-an-electric-school-bus-fleet-is-easier-than-many-people-think

³https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/570326-electric-school-bus-investments-could-drive-us-vehicle

⁴https://info.burnsmcd.com/white-paper/electrifying-the-nations-mass-transit-bus-fleets

⁵https://stnonline.com/partner-updates/electric-repower-the-cheaper-faster-and-easier-path-to-electric-buses/

⁶https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/296-21/recovery-all-us-mayor-de-blasio-commits-100-electric-school-bus-fleet-2035

⁷https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2021-02-16/highland-electric-transportation-raises-253-million-from-vision-ridge-partners-fontinalis-partners-and-existing-investors

⁸https://www.electrive.com/2021/12/07/sea-electric-to-convert-10k-us-school-buses/#:~:text=SEA%20Electric%20and%20Midwest%20Transit,become%20purely%20electric%20school%20buses.

⁹ Id.

¹⁰https://stnonline.com/news/new-york-city-deploys-first-type-c-electric-school-bus/

A Virtual Discussion Series | Part I: Labor, Employment and OSHA Developments and Strategies for Companies and PE Investors Navigating COVID-19 Hurdles

In this webinar, Partners in the Private Equity/Mergers and Acquisitions Practice Group, Heather Rahilly and Andrew Ritter, moderate a discussion with Partners in the Labor, Employment and OSHA Practice Group, Michael Miller and Lawrence Peikes, to discuss developments and strategies in labor, employment and OSHA for companies and investors navigating COVID-19 hurdles.

Key takeaways from this webinar include:

New developments and trends in labor and employment laws
Summary of current changes to OSHA regulations and standards
New litigation and regulatory concerns and how to mitigate risk
How legal developments in OSHA, labor and employment may affect current and future deal practice

ARTICLE BY Heather Rahilly, Andrew Ritter,

Michael L. Miller and Lawrence Peikes at Wiggin and Dana LLP.

For more on OSHA labor regulation, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

National Security vs. Investment: Are we striking the right balance?

The U.S. Treasury Department’s final regulations, giving it more power to scrutinize any national security risks that may arise from deals between U.S. and foreign companies, are scheduled to go into effect this week, Feb. 13, 2020.

The regs implement the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA) and provide the interagency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) broader authority over certain investments and real estate transactions. Critics say the regs will change cross-border M&A deal-making for years to come, and advance increasingly protectionist U.S. policy.

Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin said the regs will strengthen national security and “modernize the investment review process,” while maintaining “our nation’s open investment policy by encouraging investment in American businesses and workers, and by providing clarity and certainty regarding the types of transactions that are covered.”

We have previously described in the MoginRubin Blog how not everyone shares the Treasury Secretary’s respect for CFIUS.

Financial writer and author Robert Teitelman described it in an article for Barron’s as “a creature from the shadows of the administrative state” that “defines obscurity in the federal government.” He said it “encourages the very practices the administration condemns in China.” Hernan Cristerna, co-head of global mergers and acquisitions at JPMorgan Chase, told the New York Times that CFIUS is the “No. 1 weapon in the Trump administration’s protectionist arsenal” and called it “the ultimate regulatory bazooka.”

Enacted in August 2018, FIRRMA gives CFIUS much greater reach into deals where national security is a potential issue. Specifically, the law extends CFIUS’s jurisdiction over “certain non-controlling investments into U.S. businesses involved in critical technology, critical infrastructure, or sensitive personal data. Big data, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, and biotechnology are among the specific technologies the law was designed to protect. It also establishes CFIUS’s jurisdiction over real estate deals.

The regulations limit CFIUS’s application of its expanded jurisdiction to “certain categories of foreign persons,” and has “initially” designated a handful of countries as “excepted foreign states.” They are Australia, Canada, and the U.K., countries with which the U.S. has “robust intelligence sharing and defense industrial base integration mechanisms.” The list may be expanded in the future, according to the regs.

‘Controlling interest’ redefined.

Attorneys, in-house counsel and other professionals deeply involved in cross-border transactions are already experiencing some nuts and bolts changes that other professionals want to be aware of.

For example, deals that would give foreign companies “controlling interest” are no longer the only deals the committee will examine; it is now interested in deals that would transfer non-controlling but “substantial interest” when critical technologies, critical infrastructure, or the private data of U.S. citizens are involved. Deals that fall into these categories now require filing; previously they were optional. Deals that would once have sailed through scrutiny may now be delayed by investigations. CFIUS also has more time to review transactions. The initial stage ends within 45 days and the second phase can last from 45 to 60 days. Filing fees are set but cannot be more than 1% of the value of the transaction or $300,000, whichever figure is lower. And, of course, there is increased risk that they be ultimately be blocked.

The regs include a new definition of “principal place of business” as the “primary location where an entity’s management directs, controls, or coordinates the entity’s activities, or, in the case of an investment fund, where the fund’s activities and investments are primarily directed, controlled, or coordinated by or on behalf of the general partner, managing member, or equivalent.” If the entity is determined to be in the U.S. and has represented in its most recent submission or filing to a U.S. or foreign government that if either its principal place of business, principal office and place of business, address of principal executive offices, address of headquarters, or equivalent, is outside the U.S. then that location is deemed the entity’s principal place of business unless it can prove that the location has changed since the filing.

These new regulations will impact many purely private cross-border transactions, especially in the areas of critical infrastructure, sensitive personal data, and real estate.

Early consideration important.

M&A counsel must now consider CFIUS implications early-on, not only to avoid delay and frustration, but to account for CFIUS clearance in deal timing and closing deadlines. Fines may be levied if CFIUS notices are not timely filed.

Fund managers who make large investments in U.S. companies can also expect to be asked to represent in deal documents that their funds or investors do not require a mandatory CFIUS filing.

For more background and additional insights, please read our previous post, CFIUS: A Guardian of National Security or a Protectionist Tool? Also, you can download the regulations from the MoginRubin website: Part-800-Final-Rule-Jan-17-2020 & Part-802-Final-Rule-Jan-17-2020

© MoginRubin LLP

ARTICLE BY Dan Mogin and Jennifer M. Oliver of MoginRubin.

For more on CFIUS regulations, see the National Law Review Global Law section.

Swap New Year’s Resolutions for Real Property with a 1031 Tax-Deferred Exchange

A 1031 Tax-Deferred Exchange (“§ 1031 Exchange”) is an extremely useful tax strategy for taxpayers that maintain real property for productive use in trade, business or for investment. It allows a taxpayer to defer payment of capital gains tax on investment properties that are sold.

A taxpayer continues to qualify for a § 1031 Exchange if the following rules are met: (1) the properties being exchanged must be “like-kind”; (2) the taxpayer must transfer property held for productive use in a trade, business or for investment (the “Relinquished Property”) and subsequently receives property to be held either for productive use in a trade, business or for investment (the “Replacement Property”)”; (3) the Replacement Property value must be greater than or equal to the Relinquished Property value; (4) the taxpayer must not receive “boot” in order for the exchange to remain tax-free; (5) the name on title of the Relinquished Property must mirror the name on the title of the Replacement Property; (6) the taxpayer must identify a replacement property within 45 days after the taxpayer transfers the Relinquished Property; and (7) the taxpayer must receive the Replacement Property within 180 days of the transfer of the Relinquished Property, or on the date the taxpayer’s tax return is due, whichever is earlier.

Section 1031 Exchanges, while an excellent tax deferral tool, are not without complications. Section 1031 Exchanges must be used exclusively for the exchange of real property held for investment or business purposes. Section 1031 Exchange rules also require the title of the Replacement Property to be under the same name as the title of the Relinquished Property. Any real property interests owned by a limited liability company or a partnership must be reinvested by the entity in real property of “like-kind” nature for investment or business purposes in order for it to qualify under § 1031. This is a problem if an individual member or partner of the entity wishes to “cash out” or reinvest in something other than “like-kind” real property. To remedy this problem, many transactions are structured as a “drop and swap” where the interests in the real property are transferred to the individuals as tenants in common and those tenants in common, as individuals, deed the Relinquished Property to the buyer. Because the taxpayers, as individuals, sold the Relinquished Property, it is the individuals that must reinvest in the Replacement Property to utilize the tax deferrals under § 1031. Because the individuals are tenants in common, each is able to choose independently whether to reinvest in a Replacement Property and defer tax under § 1031 or cash out and pay the tax on their individual earnings from the sale of the property.

However, this “drop and swap” technique is increasingly disfavored by the IRS and may create tax implications for the taxpayers if the real property is acquired by the individual taxpayers immediately prior to the sale. Since real property must be for investment or business purposes to be eligible under a § 1031 Exchange, it is best practice to distribute the interests in the property to the individuals well in advance of the date of the relinquishment so each individual holds the property long enough to constitute an investment. While the IRS has not provided guidelines on the length of the holding period, it is recommended that such transfer, or “drop” to the individuals occur at least a year in advance before the closing on the Relinquished Property and that records be kept of the transfer and the intent of the taxpayers to hold the real property for business or investment. Moreover, taxpayers need to take care when transferring (“dropping”) the interest in the real property from the entity to individual tenancy-in-common interests to ensure the taxpayers aren’t viewed as operating as a partnership and thus, subject to ownership constraints of a partnership (this would likely negate the drop and swap technique and require the individuals, as tenants-in-common but operating as a partnership, to all invest in the Replacement Property for some to benefit from tax deferral under a §1031 Exchange).

There does not appear to be any limitation on how an individual taxpayer uses their proceeds if they are cashing out, and have no intent to defer tax under a § 1031 Exchange. However, for a taxpayer to defer tax under a § 1031 Exchange the above requirements must be met, and there can be no actual or constructive receipt of money or other property before the taxpayer actually receives the Replacement Property. Even if the taxpayer may ultimately receive the like-kind Replacement Property, any receipt of cash or other property, including an interest in an additional entity or personal property, prior to that Replacement Property will make the transaction a sale rather than a deferred exchange and prevent the taxpayer from gaining the tax deferral under a § 1031 Exchange.

ARTICLE BY Michael Van Someren and Danielle S. Snyder of Davis Kuelthau.

See more on the topic via the National Law Review Tax Law page.

SEC Proposes Significant Amendments to Investment Adviser Advertising Rule

The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission” or the “SEC”), on November 4, approved the publication of a substantial release (the “Release” ¹proposing significant amendments to the rules under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”) that govern advertising by investment advisers and the solicitation of advisory and fund investments, as well as related recordkeeping and SEC Form ADV disclosure requirements. This memorandum provides a summary of the proposed amendments to the advertising rule and related recordkeeping requirements; a separate memorandum addresses the proposed amendments to the solicitation rule.²

The Advisers Act advertising rule, Rule 206(4)-1, has not been amended significantly since it was first adopted in 1961. ³The changes now proposed by the SEC are largely motivated by the SEC’s desire to modernize the rule and create a more “principles-based” approach to advertising regulation.

I. Overview of the Amendments

Broadened Definition of “Advertisement”: The proposed amendments to Rule 206(4)-1 would broaden the definition of “advertisement” to cover all communications that promote an investment adviser’s services, even if sent to a single person, subject to specific exemptions.
Advertising Standards: The amendments would replace the current list of prohibited forms of advertisement with general prohibitions on misleading advertising practices. The proposed amendments would also adopt new requirements for advertisements that include gross, past, extracted, related or hypothetical performance.
Administrative Provisions: Advisers would have to designate specific employees to review and approve advertisements before distribution. Advisers would also be required to report certain of their advertising practices on Form ADV, and would be subject to new recordkeeping obligations under Rule 204-2 intended to require advisers to demonstrate their compliance with the new obligations under Rule 206(4)-1.
Comment Period: The comment period will end 60 days after the Release is published in the Federal Register.
Compliance Date: Compliance with the amended rules would be required one year after the effective date.

II. Broadened Definition of “Advertisement”

A. Overview

Rule 206(4)-1 currently defines “advertisement” to mean “any notice, circular, letter or other written communication addressed to more than one person, or any notice or other announcement in any publication or by radio or television [emphasis added].”

Under Proposed Rule 206(4)-1(e), “advertisement” would be defined to mean “any communication, disseminated by any means, by or on behalf of an investment adviser, that offers or promotes the investment adviser’s investment advisory services or that seeks to obtain or retain one or more investment advisory clients or investors in any pooled investment vehicle advised by the investment adviser [emphasis added].” The proposed rule would expand the definition of “advertisement” to apply to any communication that promotes an investment adviser’s services, regardless of the form of the communication or the manner in which it is distributed (e.g., in writing, electronically, in audio or video files, blogs or social media), and even if sent to a single person.

Certain communications would nonetheless be excluded from the proposed expanded definition of “advertisement”: (i) live oral communications not broadcast on electronic media;⁴ (ii) responses to unsolicited requests for information about an adviser’s services, except for (a) communications about performance results to Retail Persons and (b) all communications about Hypothetical Performance; ⁵(iii) communications about registered investment companies (“RICs”) or business development companies (“BDCs”);⁶ and (iv) disclosures required by statute or regulation (e.g., information required by Part 2 of Form ADV or Form CRS).

B. Key Terms

Certain of the terms used in the proposed definition of “advertisement” are further explained or defined in the Release or in the proposed amendments. The key terms are as follows:

Disseminated by any means. This phrase would replace the current limitation to written communications or announcements made over radio or television. The Release emphasized that the focus of the amended rule is “on the goal of the communication, and not its method of delivery.”
By or on behalf of an investment adviser. The proposed rule would apply to material disseminated by an adviser’s agents, such as consultants and solicitors, 7 or by an investment adviser’s affiliates, and may apply, depending on the facts and circumstances, to material disseminated by unaffiliated third parties. 8 The determination of whether material distributed by a third party is considered an “advertisement” of the adviser will depend on the adviser’s involvement in the content or production of the material (g., whether the investment adviser assists in preparing the content, influences or controls the substance of the content or pays for the distribution). Advisers should thus implement appropriate procedures to monitor materials distributed on their behalf to assure compliance with the requirement of any newly adopted rules.
Offers or promotes the investment adviser’s investment advisory services. Material providing a client with general account information in the regular course of business or disseminating general educational materials about investing and markets would not be considered advertisements. However, the Commission may consider an adviser’s market commentary to be an advertisement if the commentary offers or promotes the adviser’s services. 9
Investors in any pooled investment vehicle. This provision treats investors in a pooled investment vehicle, other than investors in a RIC or a BDC,¹⁰ as clients of the adviser. This provision would provide additional protections for investors in pooled investment vehicles beyond those already provided under Rule 206(4)-8 (prohibiting fraudulent practices with respect to pooled investment vehicles).

III. Advertising Standards

A. General Prohibitions

The current rule contains a general prohibition on false or misleading statements, and additionally prohibits four specific types of communications in advertisements: (i) testimonials; (ii) past specific recommendations; (iii) representations that a chart or graph alone can be relied upon to make investment decisions; and (iv) misrepresentations about the cost of services. The proposed amendments replace these specific prohibitions by instead creating General Prohibitions that largely incorporate principles developed through the Commission’s prior no-action letters and are consistent with other anti-fraud provisions in the Federal securities laws.¹¹

Under Proposed Rule 206(4)-1, advisers would be prohibited from making untrue or misleading statements or omissions, making material claims that are unsubstantiated,¹² failing to “clearly and prominently” disclose potential risks, or referencing performance results and specific investment advice in a way that is not fair and balanced.¹³ A finding of negligence would be sufficient to establish a violation of the General Prohibitions.¹⁴

B. Specific Investment Advice

The SEC proposes to replace the prescriptive requirements currently applicable to advertisements that include discussions of “past specific recommendations” with a principles-based approach that would permit material that discusses “specific investment advice” as long as it is “fair and balanced.”¹⁵ The Release notes that the following current guidance may be helpful to advisers in satisfying the “fair and balanced” requirement:

referring to the information that must currently be included when presenting a list of all past specific recommendations made by the adviser within the past year;¹⁶
using objective, non-performance based criteria to select the securities discussed in advertisements;¹⁷ and
considering “the facts and circumstances of the advertisement, including the nature and sophistication of the audience.”

While reference to current guidance may be useful, the proposed rule would provide advisers with greater flexibility to include discussions of specific investment advice in advertising material, provided that the discussion is fair and reasonable, and includes sufficient information and context to enable recipients to evaluate the discussion.¹⁸ Advisers would, however, be subject to the specific requirements applicable to performance information discussed in Section D below.

C. Testimonials, Endorsements, and Third-Party Ratings

The proposed amendments establish conditions that, if followed, allow for the use of testimonials, endorsements and third-party ratings in advertisements.¹⁹

Advisers using Testimonials²⁰ or Endorsements²¹ in advertisements must “clearly and prominently disclose”: (i) that the testimonial was given by a client or investor, and the endorsement was given by a person who is not a client or investor; and (ii) whether the adviser, or anyone acting on its behalf, provided (cash or non-cash) compensation for the testimonial or endorsement.²²
Third-Party Ratings²³ may be used if: (i) the adviser “reasonably believes”²⁴ that the questionnaires used to produce the ratings were designed to produce unbiased results; and (ii) the adviser or third party clearly and prominently discloses information including the rating date, time period on which the rating was based, the identity of the third party that produced the rating and whether the adviser, or anyone acting on its behalf, provided compensation, in the form of cash or otherwise.

D. Performance Advertising

The current rule does not address the appropriate presentation of an adviser’s performance results. Guidance on performance advertising has been developed through SEC no-action letters.²⁵ The proposed rule would establish explicit requirements as to the use of performance results, setting different standards depending on whether the advertisement is a Retail or Non-Retail Advertisement, as defined below.

Non-Retail Advertisements would mean advertisements directed at Non-Retail Persons, defined for this purpose as “qualified purchasers” or “knowledgeable employees,”²⁶ as defined in the Investment Company Act.²⁷ For such advertisements, an adviser would be required to implement “policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the advertisement is disseminated solely to qualified purchasers and knowledgeable employees.”
Retail Advertisements would mean advertisements directed at Retail Persons, meaning anyone other than a Non-Retail Person.

Under the SEC proposal, performance information would be subject to the following requirements:

All Portfolio²⁸ performance results included in Retail Advertisements must be presented in 1-, 5-, and 10-year periods, “each presented with equal prominence and ending on the most practicable date.”²⁹
To use Gross Performance³⁰ in a Retail Advertisement, the advertisement must: (i) present Net Performance³¹ results “with at least equal prominence,” in a format designed to facilitate comparison with the Gross Performance, using the same calculation methods and calculated over the same prescribed time periods;³² and (ii) provide, or offer to provide promptly, a percentage schedule of the fees and expenses deducted to calculate Net Performance.³³
To use Gross Performance in a Non-Retail Advertisement, an adviser must provide or offer to provide promptly, a percentage schedule of the fees and expenses deducted to calculate Net Performance. The Non-Retail Advertisement would not, however, be required to include Net Performance results.³⁴
An advertisement may include Related Performance³⁵ only if it includes the performance of all Related Portfolios,³⁶ unless (a) the performance results advertised are no higher than they would have been if no Related Portfolios were excluded, and (b) for Retail Advertisements, the performance results must be presented for the required time periods noted above, notwithstanding the exclusion of some Related Portfolios.³⁷
Extracted Performance³⁸ may be used only “if the advertisement provides, or offers to provide promptly, the performance results of all investments in the Portfolio from which the performance was extracted.”
To use Hypothetical Performance,³⁹ an adviser would be required to:
1. adopt policies and procedures “reasonably designed to ensure that the Hypothetical Performance is relevant to the financial situation and investment objectives” of the recipient. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that an adviser only provides hypothetical performance “where the recipient has the financial and analytical resources to assess the hypothetical performance and that the hypothetical performance would be relevant to the recipient’s investment objective”;⁴⁰
2. provide, in both Retail and Non-Retail Advertisements, “calculation information” that is tailored to the audience receiving it, to enable recipients to understand the criteria and assumptions used in calculating Hypothetical Performance; and
3. provide in Retail Advertisements, or offer to provide promptly in Non-Retail Advertisements, “risk information” tailored to the audience receiving it, to enable recipients to understand the risks and limitations of using the Hypothetical Performance in making investment decisions.

All performance advertisements must comply with the General Prohibitions. Though the Commission declined to require specific disclosures, the Release noted that examples of disclosures currently used by advisers in performance advertisements include: “(1) the material conditions, objectives, and investment strategies used to obtain the results portrayed; (2) whether and to what extent the results portrayed reflect the reinvestment of dividends and other earnings; (3) the effect of material market or economic conditions on the results portrayed; (4) the possibility of loss; and (5) the material facts relevant to any comparison made to the results of an index or other.”⁴¹ In line with its principles-based approach, advisers would be required to include appropriate disclosures to reflect the assumptions and factors relevant to the calculation of performance information.⁴²

E. Portability

The Commission has issued a number of no-action letters on when investment advisers may advertise performance results from the firm’s predecessor entities or from entities at which the firm’s employees were previously employed.⁴³ Neither the current rule nor the proposed amendments set explicit standards for portability; the determination is subject to analysis under whether the porting of the prior results would be misleading. However, the Release does summarize and discuss the Commission’s considerations as to when portability is appropriate:

“(i) the person responsible for such results is still the adviser;

(ii) the prior account and the present account are similar enough that the performance results would provide relevant information;

(iii) all prior accounts that are being managed in a substantially similar fashion to the present account are being factored into the calculation; and

(iv) the advertisement includes all relevant disclosures.”⁴⁴

The Release stated that the portability of testimonials, endorsements, and third-party ratings would be governed by the same considerations as predecessor performance results.

IV. Administrative Provisions

A. Internal Review and Approval of Advertisements

Proposed Rule 206(4)-1(d) creates a new requirement that investment advisers designate an employee to review and approve all advertisements before they are disseminated. The only exceptions to this rule are for (1) communications to only a single person, household, or investor in a pooled investment vehicle and (2) live oral communications broadcast on electronic media. The SEC did not propose an exemption from pre-distribution reviews for Non-Retail Advertisements.⁴⁵

B. Amendments to Form ADV

The proposed rule would amend Item 5 of Part 1A of Form ADV to add a subsection “L. Advertising Activities” to help SEC staff prepare for on-site examinations. This five-question subsection would ask advisers to respond yes or no to the following questions:

(1) Whether any of the adviser’s advertisements contain performance results;

(2) If so, whether all of those performance results were verified or reviewed by a person who is not a “related person” (i.e., an entity unaffiliated with the adviser);

(3) Whether any of the adviser’s advertisements include testimonials, endorsements, or third-party ratings, and if so, whether the adviser provides direct or indirect compensation in connection with their use; and

(4) Whether any of the adviser’s advertisements includes a reference to specific investment advice provided.

C. Amendments to the Books and Records Rule

First, the recordkeeping requirements of Rule 204-2(a)(11) would be expanded to require advisers to keep copies of all advertisements disseminated, whereas the rule currently requires that advisers only keep records of written communications disseminated to 10 or more people. This provision would require that advisers retain records of the risk and calculation information for Hypothetical Performance that they are required to provide under amended Rule 206(4)-1(c)(1)(v) because the Commission views such additional information as part of the advertisement itself.⁴⁶

Second, the amended recordkeeping rule would require investment advisers make and keep originals of: (1) written communications sent or received relating to the performance or rate of return of any or all Portfolios and (2) supporting records regarding the calculation of the performance or rate of return of any or all Portfolios.

Third, advisers would be required to retain records of any questionnaires and surveys used to obtain third-party ratings for advertisement purposes.

Finally, advisers would be required to maintain records of the written approvals for all advertisements.

V. Summary and Policy Considerations

The SEC has issued a thoughtful proposal that would adopt a technology-neutral, principles-based approach to investment adviser advertising. The Release includes extensive questions on all aspects of the proposal, and industry participants should carefully consider whether to submit responses.

One issue that is not specifically addressed in the Release is the degree to which the amended rules should be harmonized more closely with equivalent FINRA standards for broker-dealer communications and NFA standards for promotional material distributed by CFTC-registered firms. These considerations are particularly relevant to SEC-registered investment advisers that are also registered with the CFTC as CPOs or CTAs, which are subject to both SEC and NFA requirements, and advisers who market interests in funds they advise through broker-dealers, in which case the sales material would be subject to both the SEC and FINRA requirements. Finally, we note that the Release contains a wealth of material on current requirements for investment adviser advertising, which firms may consult to confirm that their current advertising practices conform to applicable SEC standards.

1 Commission Release No. IA-5407 (Nov. 4, 2019).

2 See Cadwalader Clients and Friends Memo titled SEC Proposes Significant Amendments to Investment Adviser Solicitation Rule, dated December 3, 2019 (the “Cadwalader Investment Adviser Solicitation Proposal Memo”).

3 Any reference to Rules in this memorandum shall mean rules promulgated under the Advisers Act, unless otherwise specified.

4 The Release differentiates between “live” oral communications, which are not “advertisements” if not broadcast widely on electronic media, and pre-recorded communications, which could be considered advertisements. Additionally, any written materials (e.g., slides, storyboards, or scripts) prepared in advance for use during a live oral communication could be considered advertisements. See Release, pp. 41-42.

5 See Section III.D., infra, for definitions.

6 Specifically, the exclusion would apply to sales material about RICs and BDCs complying with the advertising requirements of rules 156 and 482 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”).

7 Persons who promote an investment adviser’s services through testimonials or endorsements may be considered solicitors and thus subject to the requirements of both Rule 206(4)-1 (the advertising rule) and Rule 206(4)-3 (the solicitation rule). See Cadwalader Investment Adviser Solicitation Proposal Memo, Section III.A at nn.16-17 and accompanying text.

8 The Release discusses the circumstances in which online material may be deemed to be an investment adviser’s advertising as a result of linkages between the investment adviser’s website or social media site and third-party sites. See Release, pp. 25-28.

9 See Release, p. 33 (citing Investment Counsel Association of America, Inc., SEC Staff No-Action Letter (Mar. 1, 2004)).

10 The Release reasons that investors in RICs and BDCs are adequately protected by provisions of the Securities Act and Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Investment Company Act”). See Release, pp. 36-40.

11 See, e.g., Release, pp. 67-68 (delineating criteria that would help advisers comply with the proposed rule (citing Franklin Management, Inc., SEC Staff No-Action Letter (Dec. 10, 1998))).

12 Put differently, an adviser would have to be able to substantiate every material claim contained in its advertisements.

13 This would prohibit, for example, cherry-picking favorable results or time periods. The “fair and balanced” standard mirrors FINRA Rule 2210(d)(1)(A), which requires broker-dealer communications to be “fair and balanced.”

14 See Release, p. 54 at n.109 and accompanying text.

15 The SEC proposes to replace the current Rule’s reference to “past specific recommendations” with “specific investment advice” to clarify that the Rule applies to current advice, and investments in a discretionary account. See Release, pp. 68-69.

16 Rule 206(4)-1(a)(2) currently requires that advisers advertising their past specific recommendations disclose a list of all recommendations they made in the last year, including: the name of each security, the date and nature of the recommendation (e.g., buy, sell, hold), the market price of the security at the time of the recommendation and as of the most recent date, the price at which the recommendation was to be acted upon and a warning that “it should not be assumed that recommendations made in the future will be profitable or will equal the performance of the securities in this list.”

17 See the TCW Group, SEC Staff No-Action Letter (Nov. 7, 2008) (declining to recommend enforcement action when a chart contained in an advertisement was clear, consistent, and included both the account’s best and worst performance during the period).

18 See Release, pp. 64-65.

19 FINRA permits broker-dealers to include testimonials in sales material, but requires additional disclosures when they are used in retail communications. See FINRA Rule 2210(d)(6).

20 “Testimonial” would be defined in Proposed Rule 206(4)-1(e) as “any statement of a client’s or investor’s experience with the investment adviser or its advisory affiliates.” The proposed rule defines “advisory affiliate” by reference to the definition in Form ADV, which includes, among others, entities “directly or indirectly controlling or controlled by” the investment adviser. This would thus include entities in the ownership chain of the adviser, but not entities under common control (i.e., sister companies). See Release, pp. 78-79 at n.152 and accompanying text.

21 “Endorsement” would mean “any statement by a person other than a client or investor indicating approval, support, or recommendation of the investment adviser or its advisory affiliates.”

22 Examples of non-cash compensation could include reduced-fee or no-fee advisory services, or the adviser referring its clients or investors to the third-party’s business. See Release, p. 90.

23 “Third-party rating” would mean “a rating or ranking of an investment adviser provided by a person who is not a related person and such person provides such ratings or rankings in the ordinary course of its business.” The proposed rule uses the Form ADV definition of “related person”: “[a]ny advisory affiliate and any person that is under common control with your firm.” A third-party rating is thus a rating produced by an entity that is not a parent, subsidiary, or entity in a common control relationship with the adviser. The Release notes that “The requirement that the provider not be an adviser’s related person would avoid the risk that certain affiliations could result in a biased rating.” See Release, p. 81.

24 The Release provides no definition for “reasonable belief,” and instead suggests that advisers be responsible for creating internal policies and procedures to implement the “reasonable belief” provisions.

25 See, e.g., Clover Capital Mgmt., Inc., SEC Staff No-Action Letter (Oct. 28, 1986) (discussing when an advertisement using Hypothetical Performance might be false or misleading); Anametrics Investment Management, SEC Staff No-Action Letter (Apr. 5, 1977) (stating that advertising account performance without disclosing that the market significantly outperformed the account over the same time period was misleading); Bradford Hall, SEC Staff No-Action Letter (Jul. 19, 1991) (stating that the presentation of gross performance not reflecting a deduction for advisory fees would be misleading).

26 A “knowledgeable employee” would be a Non-Retail Person solely with respect to a fund falling within the exclusion from the definition of an “investment company” in Section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act, advised by the investment adviser. See Release, pp. 114-15.

27 The Commission decided against treating other categories of investors as Non-Retail Persons, such as Regulation D accredited investors, and Rule 205-3(d)(1) qualified clients. See Release, p. 114. We note the following regarding the treatment of retail vs. non-retail advertisements by the National Futures Association (“NFA”) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”):

– The NFA governs communications by firms registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), including commodity pool operators and commodity trading advisors (“CPOs” and “CTAs”). The NFA imposes somewhat more lenient requirements on promotional material directed at “qualified eligible persons” (“QEPs”) as defined in CFTC Rule 4.7. See, e.g., NFA Compliance Rule 2-29(c). QEPs include, but are not limited to, “qualified purchasers” and “knowledgeable employees.” An SEC-registered investment adviser that is also registered with the CFTC as CPO or CTA would thus have to determine whether it is sending sales material to (i) a Retail or Non-Retail Person under the SEC’s proposed rule, and (ii) a QEP or non-QEP under CFTC Rule 4.7.

– FINRA Rule 2210, governing broker-dealer communications, distinguishes between “retail communications” and “institutional communications.” For this purpose, an “institutional communication” is a communication sent exclusively to “institutional investors,” which are defined as certain categories of regulated entity, and other entities or individuals that have total assets of at least $50 million. See FINRA Rule 2210(a)(4) incorporating the definition of “institutional account” in FINRA Rule 4512(c). This is a higher asset test than that used in the “qualified purchaser” definition, which requires individuals to own at least $5 million in investments, and institutions to own and invest at least $25 million in investments. This means that where an investment adviser directly markets interests in a fund operated under Section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act to “qualified purchasers” and “knowledgeable employees,” it may treat those investors as “Non-Retail Persons,” whereas if interests in the fund are sold through a broker-dealer, the broker-dealer would be required to treat those investors as “retail investors” for purposes of complying with the communications requirements of FINRA Rule 2210.

28 “Portfolio” would mean a group of investments managed by the investment adviser, including an account or a “pooled investment vehicle” as defined in Rule 206(4)-8(b) (i.e., an “investment company” as defined in Section 3(a) of the Investment Company Act, or a fund falling within the exclusion from the definition of an “investment company” in Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act). Proposed Rule 206(4)-1(e)(10).

29 If the relevant Portfolio did not exist for a particular prescribed period, then the life of the Portfolio must be submitted for that period.

30 “Gross Performance” would mean “the performance results of a Portfolio before the deduction of all fees and expenses that a client or investor has paid or would have paid in connection with the investment adviser’s investment advisory services to the relevant Portfolio.” Proposed Rule 206(4)-1(e)(4).

31 “Net Performance” would mean “the performance results of a Portfolio after the deduction of all fees and expenses that a client or investor has paid or would have paid in connection with the investment adviser’s investment advisory services to the relevant Portfolio, including, if applicable, advisory fees, advisory fees paid to underlying investment vehicles, and payments by the investment adviser for which the client or investor reimburses the investment adviser.” Proposed Rule 206(4)-1(e)(6).

32 The Release does not prescribe a specific calculation of Gross and Net Performance; the Commission seeks comment on what additional guidance it should provide for such calculations.

33 See Release, p. 128 (noting that “Where an adviser presents net performance, whether because net performance is required under the proposed rule or because the adviser otherwise chooses to present it, the schedule should show the fees and expenses actually applied in calculating the net performance that is presented.”).

34 We note that the NFA recently amended NFA Compliance Rule 2-29(b)(5) to include a specific requirement that past performance be presented on a net basis, regardless of whether the recipient is a QEP (and thus a Non-Retail Person). See NFA Notice to Members I-19-26 (Nov. 13, 2019). This reflects existing requirements under the CFTC and NFA rules that require CPOs and CTAs to calculate rate of return information on a net basis regardless of whether the investor is a QEP. See NFA Compliance Rule 2-29(b)(5)(ii).

35 “Related Performance” would mean “the performance results of one or more related Portfolios, either on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis or as one or more composite aggregations of all Portfolios falling within stated criteria.” Proposed Rule 206(4)-1(e)(11).

36 “Related Portfolio” would mean a “Portfolio with substantially similar investment policies, objectives, and strategies as those of the services being offered or promoted in the advertisement,” including, but not limited to, Portfolios for the account of the investment adviser or its advisory affiliate. Proposed Rule 206(4)-1(e)(12).

37 Under FINRA guidance, a broker-dealer may only include related performance information in sales materials distributed to (i) “institutional investors,” as defined in FINRA Rule 2210(a)(4), or (ii) qualified purchasers with respect to their investment in funds falling within Section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act. See, e.g., FINRA Interpretive Letter to Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, dated April 16, 2018; see also FINRA Interpretive Letter to Davis Polk & Wardwell, dated Dec. 30, 2003. The Release notes FINRA’s more restrictive approach, and comments that: “We believe that the utility of related performance in demonstrating the adviser’s experience in managing portfolios having specified criteria, together with the provisions designed to prevent cherry-picking and the provisions of paragraph (a) [imposing prohibitions on false or misleading advertisements], support not prohibiting related performance in advisers’ Retail Advertisements.” See Release, p. 151.

38 “Extracted Performance” would mean “the performance results of a subset of investments extracted from a Portfolio.”

39 “Hypothetical Performance” would mean “performance results that were not actually achieved by any Portfolio of any client of the investment adviser.” Under this definition, results achieved by proprietary accounts of the adviser would be “hypothetical” as they would not be achieved by a client of the adviser. Examples of Hypothetical Performance that an adviser may use include Backtested Performance, Representative Performance (including performance of “model” portfolios), and Targets and Projections. See Proposed Rule 206(4)-1(e)(5) and Release, pp. 162-67, for definitions and discussions of these subsets of Hypothetical Performance.

40 See Release, p. 171. The Release further notes that in determining whether hypothetical performance is relevant to a Retail Person, a firm’s policies should include “parameters that address whether the Retail Person has the resources to analyze the underlying assumptions and qualifications of the hypothetical performance to assess the adviser’s investment strategy or processes, as well as the investment objectives for which such performance would be applicable.” In light of this requirement, the Release concludes that investment advisers would not be permitted to include hypothetical performance in advertisements that are distributed generally to Retail Persons regardless of their financial situation or investment objectives. See Release, p. 174.

FINRA and the NFA take differing approaches to hypothetical performance information:

– FINRA only permits broker-dealers to include hypothetical (backtested) performance information in certain communications with “institutional investors” as defined in FINRA Rule 2210(a)(4). See, e.g., FINRA Interpretive Letter to Foreside, dated Jan. 31, 2019.

– The NFA prohibits CFTC-registered firms from including hypothetical performance in promotional material sent to non-QEPs (i.e., Retail Persons) with respect to any trading program for which the firm has three months of actual trading results. Further, to the extent hypothetical performance information is permitted in retail promotional material, NFA requires a CFTC-registered firm to include comparable information regarding actual past performance of all customer accounts directed by the firm for the last five years (or the entire performance history, if less than five years). These restrictions do not, however, apply to hypothetical performance included in promotional material sent exclusively to QEPs (i.e., Non-Retail Persons). See NFA Compliance Rule 2-29(c)(3), (4) and (6).

41 See Release, pp. 103-05.

42 See Release, p. 105

43 The Commission also recently extended these guidelines to a case in which an investment adviser desired to use performance results of its predecessor entity after an internal restructuring. See South State Bank SEC Staff No-Action Letter (May 8, 2018) (not recommending enforcement action when the successor entity would operate in the same manner and under the same brand name as the predecessor).

44 See Horizon Asset Management, LLC, SEC Staff No-Action Letter (Sept. 13, 1996).

45 By contrast, FINRA Rule 2210(b)(3) permits post-distribution reviews of broker-dealer communications to “institutional investors” as defined in FINRA Rule 2210(a)(4) provided the firm trains personnel in the firm’s procedures governing institutional communications, and implements follow-up procedures to confirm that the procedures have been followed.

46 This information includes the criteria, assumptions, and methodology used in calculations, and the risks and limitations of the calculations. See Release, pp. 176-77, 287-88.

ARTICLE BY Steven Lofchie, Dorothy D. Mehta, Mark Highman and Nikita B. Cotton of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP.

For more Securities and Exchange Commission regulations, see the National Law Review Securities Law section.

Share this:

Like this:

Upstream Guaranties

Affiliate Guaranties

Use of Such Guaranties

Enforceability Considerations

Share this:

Like this:

Governance

Sponsorships and Commercial Deals

Player Scouting, Acquisition, and Development

“In-house” Transfer Agreements

Parent Feeder

Competition Integrity

Financial Sustainability Regulations

Fair Value Regulations

The Future of MCOs

Share this:

Like this:

The Facts of the Case

The Court’s Decision

Implications

Share this:

Like this:

What Is Prohibited?

Definitions

Exceptions

What Is Prohibited?

Definitions

Exceptions

FOOTNOTES

Share this:

Like this:

The Investment Incline

You kids pipe down back there, I’ve got my eyes on a pile of cash up ahead!

Market Players and Market Trends, OEMs, and Retrofitters

Opportunities Going Forward

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

‘Controlling interest’ redefined.

Early consideration important.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

I. Overview of the Amendments

II. Broadened Definition of “Advertisement”

III. Advertising Standards

IV. Administrative Provisions

V. Summary and Policy Considerations

Share this:

Like this: