Corporate law Archives - Page 7 of 29 - The National Law Forum

EPA Launches Their New Office: What Does the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights Mean for Companies and ESG in the United States?

On September 24, 2022, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the creation of a new national office dedicated to advancing environmental justice (EJ) and civil rights. Known as the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, the creation of the new office delivers on a noteworthy campaign promise of President Joe Biden, who committed to elevating these issues during his presidency and ensuring justice and equality for overburdened, underserved communities.

“From day one, President Biden and EPA have been committed to delivering progress on environmental justice and civil rights and ensuring that underserved and overburdened communities are at the forefront of our work,” said EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan. “With the launch of a new national program office, we are embedding environmental justice and civil rights into the DNA of EPA and ensuring that people who’ve struggled to have their concerns addressed see action to solve the problems they’ve been facing for generations.”

“Since the beginning of the Biden Administration, its appointees have consistently stressed the idea of environmental justice,” said Jacob Hupart, Member at Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. “Specifically, in this context, the invocation of environmental justice has focused on the principle that addressing the various environmental issues confronting society—including the challenge of climate change—must also take into consideration that underserved communities frequently are disproportionately impacted by environmental issues, and so these communities should receive particular attention. That the Biden Administration is establishing an EPA office dedicated specifically to this issue is congruent with their prior rhetoric and action (such as the appointment of Michael Regan as the EPA Administrator), and emphasizes this aspect of their environmental program.

What is the Intent and Significance of the EPA’s New Office?

With more than 200 EPA staff members across ten regions dedicated to the project, the office will put substantial resources into environmental justice efforts across the United States. This includes, but is not limited to, working with state, local, and Tribal partners to understand their EJ needs, disbursing grants and technical assistance, cooperating with other EPA offices to incorporate EJ initiatives in all areas, and ensuring funding recipients are complying with relevant civil rights laws.

This new focus by the EPA is extremely meaningful not only for environmental justice in the US, but for the direction of major regulatory and administrative bodies. “The EPA and the White House have enunciated policy, established guidance, and issued Executive Orders, but these tools do not have enforceable legal requirements,” explained Richard Glaze, environmental litigator and Partner at Barnes & Thornburg LLP. “Combining the existing Office of Environmental Justice with the External Civil Rights Compliance Office to form the Office of Environmental Justice and Civil Rights sends a signal that the EPA is willing to use enforcement tools with teeth to advance the administration’s Environmental Justice goals.”

Stacey Halliday, environmental lawyer and Principal at Beveridge & Diamond PC, noted how this is a substantial shift from the status quo. “In the past two years, we’ve seen momentum in fits and spurts from a variety of executive branch agencies following the January 27 issuance of EO 14008– including notable action from CEQ, DOE, DOJ, DOT and EPA,” she says. “However, this most recent action by EPA is only likely to accelerate this momentum and have impacts that will extend beyond the Biden Administration. We can expect to see more alignment between EPA program offices […] and a ‘from-the-top’ imperative to incorporate EJ in overall agency decision-making. This is a big change from past practice when EJ and civil rights enforcement were separately housed within other program offices and lacked this level of authority and agency-wide reach.”

“The Department of Justice is fully on board with the EPA in this effort,” added Mr. Glaze. “It recognizes that “Environmental justice and Title VI are both rooted in the same basic principle that no person should bear an unfair share of harm on account of their race, color or national origin” and warns that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act is a powerful for the coordination of Title VI and Environmental Justice.”

What Does the New EPA Office Mean for Companies?

The EPA’s new office comes at a time when companies are turning their focus to the upcoming recession, reminding them that climate and social justice must remain a top priority even as companies prepare for economic instability. This should send a message to corporations who have already been facing mounting pressure to incorporate climate justice considerations into their missions and operations. By creating a political culture of increased environmental and social scrutiny, the Biden administration is slowly changing “ESG” from a greenwashing buzzword to a corporate obligation.

“Companies seeking to gain the benefit of competitive federal funding,” said Ms. Halliday, “especially following the flush of resources coming from the IIJA and IRA – are more frequently asked to provide a detailed accounting of how they will assess and address EJ impacts, as well as how projects may contribute to the Justice 40 Initiative (directing 40% of benefits from federal climate investments to disadvantaged communities).”

“Although the ultimate impact of this new office is uncertain, as the actual initiatives and enforcement actions brought will have to be assessed and evaluated, at minimum, the creation of this office indicates that policy and enforcement actions centered around environmental justice are more likely to appear over the coming months and years,” added Mr. Hupart. “It should also be noted, however, that other environmental actions undertaken by the Biden Administration—such as the mandatory climate disclosures proposed by the SEC, which would be applicable to all public companies—are more likely to be an immediate focus for corporate America rather than potential EPA enforcement actions focused on specific instances implicating environmental justice concerns.”

What Does the New EPA Office Mean for ESG Considerations?

The environmental, social, and governance movement (ESG) has been undeniably energized by the EPA’s new office, particularly at a time when ESG movements are under scrutiny. If Biden’s plan to make environmental justice a more common business priority succeeds, centering sustainability issues will no longer be enough for firms to differentiate themselves to investors. Corporations targeting ethically-minded shareholders will need to develop more detailed, creative ESG approaches.

“Environmental justice combines elements of the “E” and the “S” of ESG and companies that have embraced ESG are well-advised to consider whether their operations implicate environmental justice and, if they do, give these issues the attention they deserve,” said Mr. Glaze. “Combined with the recent SEC climate disclosure rule, these ESG issues that companies have considered ‘optional’ will now have more force behind them [and companies] can no longer ignore them.”

“Even before the creation of this office, the renewed federal and state prioritization of EJ has had an impact on corporate behavior – driven broadly by federal guidance and tools, new state permitting requirements, targeted environmental enforcement, and investor demand,” said Ms. Halliday. “In the last year or so, we have seen an increase in shareholder proposals related to climate disclosures, racial equity audits and environmental justice audits, with investors seeking to understand how company activities impact disadvantaged communities and implications for long-term value for the company.”

Article By Chandler Ford, Crissonna Tennison, Shelby Garrett, and Casey Karthaus of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEC Awards $825,000 to Whistleblower

On October 11, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced a $825,000 whistleblower award issued to an individual who voluntarily provided the agency with original information about securities fraud.

The SEC Whistleblower Program offers monetary awards to qualified whistleblowers whose disclosures contribute to the success of enforcement actions. SEC whistleblower awards are for 10-30% of the funds collected by the government in the relevant enforcement action.

According to the SEC award order, the whistleblower “expeditiously provided detailed information that prompted the opening of the investigation.” Furthermore, the whistleblower “thereafter met with Commission staff in person and provided additional information after submitting the initial TCR.”

In addition to monetary awards, the SEC Whistleblower Program offers anti-retaliation protections to whistleblowers, including confidentiality. Thus, the SEC does not disclose any information that could identify a whistleblower.

Since the whistleblower program was established in 2010, the SEC has awarded more than $1.3 billion to over 280 individual whistleblowers. In August 2021, SEC Chair Gary Gensler stated that the program “has greatly aided the Commission’s work to protect investors” and noted that “the SEC has used whistleblower information to obtain sanctions of over $5 billion from securities law violators” and “return over $1.3 billion to harmed investors.”

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

For more criminal law and business crimes legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

The “Iron Curtain” has Fallen: A Radical Shift in Lawyers Representing Whistleblowers

Whistleblower Network News (WNN) recently revealed, for the first time, that major corporate law firms specializing in representing defendants before the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have, in some cases, switched sides and are now representing whistleblowers who are turning in corporate fraudsters. All but one of the firms identified by the SEC did not call public attention to their new-found client base – most likely because they did not want to upset their bread-and-butter corporate clients. It appears that major corporate law firms now understand that the Dodd-Frank Act’s whistleblower reward provisions are incredibly effective in incentivizing corporate insiders to report fraud, even when those insiders are executives usually on the other side of a whistleblower issue. Lawyers who traditionally represent whistleblowers understand that Dodd-Frank is well designed and is being professionally implemented by the SEC. Corporate lawyers and their firms have apparently caught on to this new reality and are now representing whistleblowers.

That defense firms are now actively engaged in representing whistleblowers cannot be denied. Lists of law firms that have prevailed in Dodd-Frank whistleblower cases, disclosed in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed with the SEC, document that 9.3% of firms that have obtained rewards on behalf of whistleblowers were traditional defense firms. These firms include some of the largest defense firms in the United States that represent numerous corporations subjected to SEC enforcement actions for violating securities laws as well as firms that have defended corporations against whistleblowers in retaliation cases.

If that statistic holds, it is clear hundreds of corporate defense firms or their attorneys are representing whistleblowers in confidential investigations. Why are these cases still under review? Dodd-Frank is still a young law, and the vast majority of cases have not yet resulted in formal reward determinations. Cases often take five years or more to be finalized, and as of the end of Fiscal Year 2021 over 51,000 whistleblower cases had been filed with the SEC. Furthermore, under the FOIA requests the SEC only released the names of law firms that prevailed in a whistleblower case. The names of firms that did not prevail in a claim, or firms that represent whistleblowers in ongoing investigations, were not disclosed.

Time will tell whether defense firms’ representation of whistleblowers who accuse their employers (or other corporate wrongdoers) of fraud is a good or bad development. But unique issues will arise whenever a firm that primarily generates its profits from representing corporations accused of wrongdoing switches sides and represents a whistleblower who has accused an executive of engaging in fraud. Although such representations may be permitted under the attorney’s rules of ethics, this does not mean that such representations are always in the best interest of a lawyer’s clients. There are inherent potential conflicts whenever a defense firm switches sides and decides to represent a whistleblower reporting major corporate crimes.

Regardless of where you stand on this issue, one thing is clear: the ethical, policy and legal implications of defense firms representing whistleblowers is a dramatic shift in legal practice and must be carefully evaluated. Defense firms must understand that whenever they represent a whistleblower, they must zealously advocate on their behalf, even when the precedents set by their cases may be used against their corporate clients. Likewise, whistleblowers need to be aware of the implications of choosing a lawyer whose primary practice is representing corporate crooks. Conflicts of interest may not initially be visible but can unfold as a case progresses.

The Revelation

In August of 2022, Bloomberg Law and a draft non-peer-reviewed article published by University of Kansas Professor Alexander Platt raised the issue of which law firms represent whistleblowers. Bloomberg and Platt obtained lists of law firms that prevailed in Dodd-Frank whistleblower cases. They used the lists to identify a small number of firms, all of which could be classified as pro-whistleblower firms. These firms’ practices are centered on fighting corporate fraud and speculated whether these firms were being given preferential treatment by the SEC. Neither publication offered proof of any wrongdoing. But Platt and Bloomberg did not list all the law firms that prevailed in Dodd-Frank cases. Significantly, neither even mentioned the fact that major defense law firms had already filed and won Dodd-Frank cases on behalf of whistleblowers. Additionally, the two authors did not explore the special issues that could arise when firms dedicated to defending white-collar criminals quietly switch sides.

In response to Platt and Bloomberg, WNN filed its own Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to obtain access to the documents relied upon in the two articles. The SEC released over 1000 pages of documents to WNN, including all its correspondence with Platt and all the records provided to Platt (and Bloomberg) that identified law firms that successfully represented whistleblowers.

On September 27, 2022, WNN revealed, for the first time, that the SEC had identified 64 law firms that successfully obtained a reward on behalf of a whistleblower. Among those firms were six that primarily represent corporations and individuals accused of corporate crimes. These defense firms included industry giants such as Winston & Strawn and Akin Gump. Together, the defense firms have already obtained over $56 million in rewards on behalf of whistleblowers. In response to the Platt, Bloomberg, and WNN FOIA requests, the SEC only identified firms that had already prevailed and obtained a reward on behalf of their clients. Approximately 50,000 cases are pending within the SEC’s reward program, and there is a long delay in processing whistleblower cases. Therefore, one can assume that numerous other pending cases where these or other defense firms are actively representing whistleblowers that were not disclosed by the SEC.

It is important to note that the Dodd-Frank provisions only apply to large fraud cases. No reward is available unless the SEC issues sanctions against the entity being investigated in excess of $1 million. Thus, the cases previously targeted by the defense firms and currently under investigation by the SEC would implicate major frauds.

The defense firms identified by WNN as being listed in the SEC-released materials were:

Winston & Strawn, LLP: Winston advertises itself as defending “companies and individuals in SEC enforcement and regulatory matters related to allegations involving securities fraud.” But not mentioned on its webpage is that it also represented a securities law whistleblower who obtained a $2.2 million reward.

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP: Akin Gump also describes its practice as representing “companies and individuals” under investigation by various regulatory agencies, including the SEC. Akin’s attorneys obtained a Dodd-Frank reward of $800,000 award.

Haynes and Boone, LLP: This 600-lawyer defense firm’s website explained that it has “represented employers” in “whistle blowing.” However, the SEC documents revealed the firm also represented a whistleblower who obtained a “20%” award against a corporate fraudster.

Levine Lee LLP: Although this firm markets itself as successfully representing clients accused of violating anti-fraud laws, like the other defense firms, it has apparently started a whistleblower practice and obtained a reward of $10 million on behalf of a whistleblower.

Leader Berkon Colao & Silverstein LLP: This defense firm prevailed in cases filed on behalf of two separate whistleblowers and had considerable success. Their whistleblower clients obtained $15 million and $27 million in awards.

Sallah Astarita & Cox, LLC: Although this firm “regularly represents financial institutions” in “fraud” cases, the firm also represented a whistleblower who obtained a $1.8 million award. Sallah Astarita was the only firm that listed its Dodd-Frank Act whistleblower case on its website as among the victories achieved by one of its partners.

The SEC’s Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Program

Professor Platt and Bloomberg Law criticized the SEC’s Dodd-Frank program as having a bias in favor of a small number of whistleblower-rights law firms that had employed former SEC lawyers. However, the information revealed by WNN completely refuted this negative implication raised by Platt and Bloomberg. Instead, the FOIA documents support a finding that the SEC program is a paradigm of fairness and openness. The extensive correspondence between Platt and the SEC demonstrates that the Commission freely disclosed the names of the firms that had won cases while carefully balancing the confidentiality needs of the whistleblower clients. These numbers illustrate a program open to law firms regardless of their reputation or whether they employ former government lawyers. They also reveal a program open to working directly with whistleblowers and rewarding them even if they had no lawyer. Not one document produced provided any evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing, bias, or unprofessionalism. The numbers speak for themselves:

Over 50 pro se whistleblowers won cases on their own behalf. This high percentage of unrepresented applicants who successfully navigated the SEC’s program is remarkable. In other legal programs, pro se whistleblowers (and other unrepresented persons) lose the vast majority of their cases. Not so under Dodd-Frank. This demonstrates a high level of commitment by the SEC to helping individual whistleblowers who could not afford or obtain lawyers.
Of the 64 law firms that prevailed in a Dodd-Frank reward claim, only 12 had hired former SEC lawyers to assist in the cases. Thus, the vast majority of successful law firms (52 of the 64) had no “insider” connection to the SEC. This fact demonstrates the Commission’s staff’s willingness to work closely with attorneys who had no “friends” in the agency and whose information was solely merit-based. Moreover, a significant percentage of the firms that did employ former SEC or Justice Department lawyers were the very defense firms that Bloomberg Law and Platt did not discuss or analyze.
The Commission’s staff demonstrated no bias against firms based on their practice areas. The Commission’s enforcement staff and Whistleblower Office worked with law firms that were defense-based (6) and law firms that traditionally represent whistleblowers or employees in lawsuits against companies (many of the remaining 58).

The FOIA documents support a finding that the Commission’s staff is open to whistleblowers, regardless of whether they represent themselves or whether or not the firms raising the concerns have any “insider” connections. Organizations such as the National Whistleblower Center, which regularly works with whistleblowers, have widely praised the program, as have the last three Chairs of the SEC, appointed by Presidents Obama, Trump, and Biden. The Commission itself confirmed that as of September 2021, it returned over $1.3 billion to harmed investors based on whistleblower cases.

The Future Role of Defense Firms in Dodd-Frank Cases

The SEC cannot implement special rules that would be prejudicial to traditional defense firms that file whistleblower cases. Likewise, whistleblowers have the right to hire counsel of their choice and, in most cases, can knowingly waive potential conflicts of interest. But the mere fact that traditional defense firms can lawfully represent whistleblowers without violating any SEC or local Bar rules does not address the special problems that may exist when a defense firm represents a whistleblower. For example, such representations can result in significant conflicts of interest that may not be apparent at the commencement of a case. This may result in the whistleblower’s attorneys not advocating for legal precedents that could harm their other corporate clients.

Traditional defense firms should implement internal procedures to guard against potential problems based on the obvious conflicts that can arise when they represent clients on both sides of whistleblower-disclosure cases. More significantly, it is absolutely crucial that whistleblowers fully understand the potential for conflicts of interest when deciding on the best attorneys to hire. Attorneys working for defense firms must clearly spell out these issues and ensure that when representing a whistleblower, their prospective client is fully aware of all the risks and limitations.

Among the rules, procedures, and practices that defense firms should implement or carefully consider are:

At the very least, defense firms representing whistleblowers should identify this on their websites. Corporate clients should know that the firm also represents whistleblowers and should be able to question counsel on these matters so they feel comfortable that no conflicts would arise.
Whistleblower clients need full disclosure of how the defense firm’s primary practice may impact the representation. This is particularly true whenever a case would require advocacy on behalf of a whistleblower that could expand legal interpretations benefiting whistleblowers. It is hard to reconcile how a law firm defending some clients against whistleblowers can effectively argue before administrative agencies or courts of law legal precedents that could expand the rights of whistleblowers. These expanded rights could and would ultimately not be to the advantage of corporate clients accused of wrongdoing.
Similarly, defense firms need to reconcile how they can advocate for a whistleblower who engaged in tactics, such as removing documents or one-party tape recording, that their corporate clients may find offensive. This is particularly true when the zealous representation of a whistleblower requires expanding the ability of whistleblowers to obtain evidence of wrongdoing, and the precedent this advocacy establishes may be used against the firm’s current or future corporate clients.
The potential for a conflict of interest needs to be fully explored in every case. One issue that firms and clients may not be fully aware of is how the “related action” provisions of the laws impact potential conflicts. Once the SEC obtains a sanction of over $1 million in any case, all “related actions” become eligible for a reward. Sanctions issued by other law enforcement or regulatory agencies based on “related” claims can form the basis of a reward. When examining whether a conflict exists, law firms need to look beyond the SEC action and determine witnesses, parties, and issues that may be implicated in a “related action.” This determination is critical even if the related action is not based on any securities law violation.
Defense firms can also explore ways to refer potential whistleblower clients to attorneys whose practices are based solely on representing whistleblowers. These referrals would help ensure that the defense firm is not conflicted (either as a matter of ethics or marketing) and that the client can obtain the best counsel.

Conclusion: The Iron Curtain has Fallen

Whistleblower representation is entering a new world. The “iron curtain” that formerly separated law firms that represent corporate crooks from those that represent whistleblowers has fallen. This new reality is not without serious risks to whistleblowers (and corporate clients). Whistleblowers must be fully aware of the dangers of having a corporate law firm represent them. Corporate law firms must institute procedures to guard against conflicts of interest and to ensure they can zealously represent whistleblowers. Zealous representation is needed even when the precedents established in these cases may create trouble for their other client base.

At the end of the day, the fact that defense law firms are now representing whistleblowers affirms the success of Dodd-Frank. It is an affirmation of the critical nature of the information whistleblowers provide to the government and the role of this insider information in stopping otherwise hard to detect corporate crimes. The “iron curtain” has fallen, but it has fallen in the direction that helps whistleblowers. It has fallen in the direction that affirms the quality of their disclosures. It refutes the often-repeated slander that whistleblowers are somehow simply disgruntled employees.

Whistleblowers are essential to ensuring fairness in the markets, holding wrongdoers accountable, and deterring future wrongdoing. The SEC has publicly recognized this, and now leading corporate defense attorneys have quietly recognized it. Defense firms like Akin Gump, Winston and Strawn, and Hayes and Boone got it right when they advocated for paying whistleblowers substantial rewards. Whistleblowers whose information holds corporate criminals accountable deserve large rewards. These rewards are in the public interest, and the SEC Dodd-Frank whistleblower program must be protected, enhanced and expanded.

Sources:

Article By Stephen M. Kohn of Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto

For more criminal law and business crimes legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

NYC Issues Proposed Rules for Its Automated Employment Decision Tools Law

On Friday, September 23, 2022, the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (“DCWP”) released a Notice of Public Hearing and Opportunity to Comment on Proposed Rules related to its Automated Employment Decision Tool law (the “AEDT Law”), which goes into effect on January 1, 2023. As we previously wrote, the City passed the AEDT Law to regulate employers’ use of automated employment decision tools, with the aim of curbing bias in hiring and promotions; as written, however, it contains many ambiguities, which has left covered employers with open questions about compliance.

The proposed rules are intended to clarify the requirements for the use of automated employment decision tools within New York City, the definitions of key terms in the AEDT law, the notices to employees and applicants regarding the use of the tool, the bias audit for the tool, and the required published results of the bias audit.

The DCWP’s public hearing on the proposed rules and deadline for comments are October 24, 2022. Although the proposed rules may be modified prior to adoption, the following summarizes the key provisions.

“Substantially assist or replace discretionary decision making”

The AEDT Law applies to an automated decision tool that is used “to substantially assist or replace discretionary decision making.” It does not, however, specify the type of activities that constitute such conduct or what particular AI-powered employment tools are covered by the law.

The proposed rules attempt to provide guidance on this issue by defining “substantially assist or replace discretionary decision-making” as one of the following actions:

relying solely on a simplified output (score, tag, classification, ranking, etc.), without considering other factors; or
using a simplified output as one of a set of criteria where the output is weighted more than any other criterion in the set; or
using a simplified output to overrule or modify conclusions derived from other factors including human decision-making.

“Bias Audit”

Pursuant to the AEDT Law, before using an automated employment decision tool, a covered employer or employment agency must subject the tool to a “bias audit” no more than one year prior to the use of the of the tool. The law explains that “bias audit” means an “impartial evaluation by an independent auditor,” but does not otherwise specify who or what constitutes an “independent auditor” or what the “bias audit” must contain. The proposed rules address these gaps.

First, the proposed rules define “independent auditor” as “a person or group that is not involved in using or developing an [automated employment decision tool] that is responsible for conducting a bias audit of such [tool].” This definition does not specify that the auditor must be a separate legal entity from the creator or vendor of the tool and therefore suggests that it may be acceptable for the auditor to be employed by the organization using the tool, provided the auditor does not use and has not been involved in developing the tool.

Second, the proposed rules state that the required contents of a “bias audit” will depend on how the employer or employment agency uses the tool.

If the tool selects individuals to move forward in the hiring process or classifies individuals into groups, the “bias audit,” at a minimum, would need to:

calculate the selection rate for each category;
calculate the impact ratio for each category; and
where the tool classifies candidates into groups, the bias audit must calculate the selection rate and impact ratio for each classification.

If the automated employment decision tool merely scores candidates, the “bias audit” at a minimum, would need to:

calculate the average score for individuals in each category; and
calculate the impact ratio for each category.

The preamble to the proposed rules makes clear that DCWP intends these calculations to be consistent with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (“UGESP”), 29 C.F.R. § 1607.4, and borrows concepts from the framework established by the UGESP in the definitions of “impact ratio” and “selection rate.”

Under the AEDT Law, upon completion of a bias audit, and prior to using the automated employment decision tool, covered employers and employment agencies must make the date and summary of the results of the bias audit publicly available on the careers or job section of their website in a clear and conspicuous manner. The proposed rules clarify that publication may be made via an active hyperlink to a website containing the required information, as long as the link is clearly identified as linking to the results of the bias audit. The required information must remain posted for at least six months after the covered employer or employment agency uses the tool for an employment decision.

Required Notices

The AEDT Law also specifies that employers and employment agencies must notify candidates for employment and employees who reside in New York City as follows:

at least ten business days prior to using an automated decision tool, that such a tool will be used to assess or evaluate the candidate or employee, and allow the individual to request an alternative selection process or accommodation;
at least ten business days prior to use, the job qualifications and characteristics that the tool will use in the assessment or evaluation; and
if not disclosed on the employer or employment agency’s website, information about the type of data collected for the tool, the source of such data, and the employer or employment agency’s data retention policy shall be available upon written request by the individual and be provided within thirty days of the written request.

Covered employers and employment agencies have expressed concern about the practical and administrative difficulties of providing the above notices in the fast-paced environment of today’s recruiting and hiring.

In apparent response to these concerns, the proposed rules clarify that the employer or employment agency may provide the notices required by paragraphs (1) and (2) by:

(a) in the case of candidates, including notice on the careers or jobs section of its website at least ten business days prior to the use of the tool, and (b) in the case of employees, including notice in a written policy or procedure that is provided to employees at least ten business days prior to use;
including notice in a job posting at least ten days prior to using the tool; or
(a) in the case of candidates, providing notice via U.S. mail or email at least ten business days prior to use of the tool; and (b) in the case of employees, providing written notice in person, via U.S. mail, or email at least ten business days prior to use.

In short, under the proposed rule, an employer or employment agency could comply with the AEDT Law by providing the required notice when first posting the job.

With respect to the notice requirement in paragraph (3), the proposed rules state that an employer or employment agency must provide notice to covered individuals by including notice on the careers or jobs section of its website, or by providing written notice in person, via U.S. mail, or by email within 30 days of receipt of a written request for such information. If notice is not posted on the website, the employer or agency must post instructions for how to make a written request for such information on its careers or job section of the website.

Finally, although the AEDT Law requires an employer or employment agency to allow covered individuals to request an alternative selection process, the proposed rules state that nothing requires an employer or employment agency to provide an alternative selection process.

Article By Adam S. Forman, Nathaniel M. Glasser, Robert J. O’Hara, Alexander J. Franchilli, and Ridhi D. Madia of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

NAVEX Report Reveals Increase in Whistleblower Retaliation and Reporting of Misconduct

NAVEX’s 2022 Risk & Compliance Hotline & Incident Management Benchmark Report reveals an increase in internal reporting about misconduct and an increase in allegations of retaliation. The analysis of data from 3,470 organizations that received more than 1.37 million individual reports identified the following trends (see the full report for a discussion of additional trends and analysis of the data):

“More actual allegations of misconduct, rather than inquiries about policies or possible misconduct. Ninety percent of all reports in 2021 were allegations of misconduct, up from 86 percent last year and hitting an all-time high since our first benchmark report more than ten years ago.”
“Reports about retaliation, harassment and discrimination jumped – especially retaliation. In 2021, reports of retaliation nearly doubled . . . Taken altogether, these findings suggest employees are more attuned to workplace civility issues. That would fit with external trends such as more talk about systemic racism, income inequality and political divisions; as well as increasing protection for whistleblowers and employees’ awareness of those protections.”
“Substantiation rates continue to edge upward. Overall substantiation rates rose from 42 percent in 2020 to 43 percent in 2021, and up from 36 percent a decade ago. The reports substantiated most often were data privacy concerns (63 percent), environmental issues (59 percent), and confidential and proprietary information (54 percent). The reports substantiated least often were about retaliation (24 percent).”
“The substantiation rate for reports of retaliation also went up slightly, from 23 percent in 2020 to 24 percent in 2021 – the highest substantiation rate seen since 2016. While steady, this substantiation rate is significantly below the overall median case substantiation rate of 43 percent in 2021. These cases, though difficult to prove, warrant attention.”
“Reports of harassment exceeded levels from the height of the #MeToo movement.”

Corporate Whistleblower Protections

Whistleblower retaliation remains all too prevalent. A September 14, 2022 Bloomberg article titled Whistleblower retaliation remains all too prevalent discusses how “choosing to be a whistle-blower can also be a lonely, risky road” and identifies many deterrents to speaking up – “[t]hey may be afraid of litigation, ruining their reputations, losing security clearances or facing jail time.”

Fortunately, federal and state laws afford corporate whistleblowers remedies to combat retaliation, and whistleblower reward laws incentivize whistleblowers to take the considerable risks entailed in reporting fraud and other wrongdoing to the government. For example, the

SEC Whistleblower Program offers awards to eligible whistleblowers who provide original information that leads to successful SEC enforcement actions with total monetary sanctions exceeding $1 million. A whistleblower may receive an award of between 10% and 30% of the total monetary sanctions collected in actions brought by the SEC and in related actions brought by other regulatory or law enforcement authorities. The SEC Whistleblower Program allows whistleblowers to submit tips anonymously if represented by an attorney in connection with their tip.

What is Whistleblower Retaliation?

Whistleblower retaliation laws prohibit a broad range of retaliatory actions against whistleblowers, including any act that would dissuade a worker from engaging in protected whistleblowing. Examples of actionable whistleblower retaliation include:

Terminating a whistleblower;
Constructively discharging a whistleblower;
Demoting a whistleblower;
Suspending a whistleblower;
Harassing a whistleblower or subjecting the whistleblower to a hostile work environment;
Reassigning a whistleblower to a position with significantly different responsibilities;
Issuing a performance evaluation or performance improvement plan that supplies the necessary foundation for the eventual termination of the whistleblower’s employment, or a written warning or counseling session that is considered discipline by policy or practice and is routinely used as the first step in a progressive discipline policy;
Placing the whistleblower on administrative leave;
Threatening to take an adverse action against a whistleblower;
Subjecting a whistleblower to a retaliatory investigation or retaliatory surveillance;
Suing a whistleblower for the purpose of retaliating against the whistleblower;
Outing a whistleblower;
Intimidating a whistleblower;
Initiating a law enforcement investigation or facilitating an employee’s detention by U.S. ICE after the employee reported a serious injury; or
Discriminating against a whistleblower in the terms and conditions of employment because of whistleblowing.

The DOL Administrative Review Board has emphasized that statutory language prohibiting discrimination “in any way” must be broadly construed and therefore a whistleblower need not prove that a retaliatory act had a tangible impact on an employee’s terms and conditions of employment.

What Damages Can a Whistleblower Recover in a Whistleblower Retaliation Case?

Whistleblower retaliation can exact a serious toll, including lost pay and benefits, reputational harm, and emotional distress. Indeed, whistleblower retaliation can derail a career and deprive the whistleblower of millions of dollars in lost future earnings.

Whistleblowers should be rewarded for doing the right thing, but all too often they suffer retaliation and find themselves marginalized and ostracized. Federal and state whistleblower laws provide several remedies to compensate whistleblowers that have suffered retaliation, including:

back pay (lost wages and benefits);
emotional distress damages;
damages for reputational harm;
reinstatement or front pay in lieu thereof;
lost future earnings; and
punitive damages.

Combating Whistleblower Retaliation: How to Maximize Your Recovery

Whistleblower protection laws can provide a potent remedy, but before bringing a retaliation claim, it is crucial to assess the options under federal and state law and develop a strategy to achieve the optimal recovery. Key issues to consider include the scope of protected whistleblowing, the burden of proof, the damages that a prevailing whistleblower can recover, the forum where the claim would be litigated, and the impact of the retaliation claim on a whistleblower rewards claim.

Scope of Protected Whistleblowing

There is no federal statute that provides general protection to corporate whistleblowers. Instead, federal whistleblower protection laws protect specific types of disclosures, such as disclosures of securities fraud, tax fraud, procurement fraud, or consumer financial protection fraud. The main sources of federal protection for corporate whistleblowers include the whistleblower protection provisions of the following:

The False Claims Act (FCA) — protecting disclosures about fraud directed toward the government, including actions taken in furtherance of a qui tam action and efforts to stop a violation of the FCA;
The Defense Contractor Whistleblower Protection Act (DCWPA) — protecting whistleblowing about gross mismanagement of a federal contract or grant; a gross waste of federal funds; an abuse of authority relating to a federal contract or grant or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or a violation of law, rule, or regulation related to a federal contract;
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) — protecting disclosures about mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, securities fraud, a violation of any SEC rule, or shareholder fraud;
The Dodd-Frank Act (DFA) — protecting whistleblowing to the SEC about potential violations of federal securities laws;
The Taxpayer First Act (TFA) — protecting disclosures about tax fraud or tax underpayment;
The Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) — protecting disclosures concerning violations of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rules or federal laws regulating unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices in the provision of consumer financial products or services; and
The Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) — protecting disclosures about violations of the Bank Secrecy Act.

While most of these anti-retaliation laws protect internal disclosures (e.g., reporting to a supervisor), whistleblower protection under the DFA is predicated on a showing that the whistleblower disclosed a potential violation of federal securities law to the SEC prior to suffering an adverse action.

State law may also provide a remedy, including the anti-retaliation provisions in state FCAs. And approximately 42 states recognize a common law wrongful discharge tort action (a public policy exception to at-will employment), which generally protects refusal to engage in illegal activity and the exercise of a statutory right.

Burden of Proof

To maximize the likelihood of winning a case (or at least getting the case before a jury), it is useful to select a remedy with a favorable causation standard (the level of proof required to link the protected whistleblowing to the adverse employment action). SOX has a favorable “contributing factor” causation standard, i.e., the whistleblower prevails by proving that their protected whistleblowing affected in any way the employer’s decision to take an adverse action. In contrast, the FCA and DFA require the whistleblower to prove “but for” causation, i.e., the adverse action would not have happened “but for” the protected whistleblowing (albeit there is no need to prove that it was the sole factor).

Damages and Remedies in Whistleblower Retaliation Cases

Variations in the remedies available to whistleblowers under federal anti-retaliation laws may warrant bringing more than one claim. For example, the DCWPA authorizes an award of back pay (the value of lost pay and benefits), and the FCA authorizes an award of double back pay. If the whistleblower’s disclosures are protected under both statutes, then the whistleblower should bring both claims.

While a prevailing whistleblower can recover back pay under both the DFA and SOX (double back pay under the former and single back pay under the latter), the DFA does not authorize special damages, i.e., damages for emotional distress and reputational harm. In contrast, SOX authorizes uncapped compensatory damages. Therefore, a whistleblower protected under both statutes should bring the SOX claim within the much shorter SOX statute of limitations (180 days) to recover both double back pay and special damages.

State law may also provide a remedy, and if the whistleblower can pursue both a statutory remedy and a wrongful discharge tort, the latter may offer the opportunity to seek punitive damages.

Forum Selection and Administrative Exhaustion

When selecting the optimal remedy to combat retaliation, a whistleblower should consider the forum where the claim would be tried and determine whether the claim must initially be investigated by a federal agency before the whistleblower can litigate the claim. SOX provides an unequivocal exemption from mandatory arbitration, but Dodd-Frank claims are subject to arbitration. Accordingly, a whistleblower protected both by SOX and Dodd-Frank should file a SOX claim within the 180-day statute of limitations to preserve the option to try the case before a jury.

Several of the corporate whistleblower protection laws require that the whistleblower file the claim initially at a federal agency and permit the agency to investigate the claim before the whistleblower can litigate the claim. This is called administrative exhaustion, and failure to comply with that requirement can waive the claim. In contrast, the FCA and DFA do not require administrative exhaustion.

Impact of Whistleblower Retaliation Claim on Whistleblower Rewards Claim

Another important consideration is the potential impact of a retaliation case on a qui tam or whistleblower rewards case. Filing an FCA retaliation claim while a qui tam suit is under seal poses some risk of violating the seal, which could bar the whistleblower from recovering a relator share. Therefore, counsel should consider filing the FCA retaliation claim under seal along with the qui tam suit.

Further, whistleblowers pursuing rewards claims at federal agencies (e.g., SEC or IRS whistleblower claims) while simultaneously pursuing related retaliation claims (e.g., a SOX or TFA claim) should assess the potential impact of the retaliation claim and the potential discoverability of submissions to the SEC or IRS on the rewards claim(s).

Although the patchwork of whistleblower protection laws fails to protect disclosures about certain forms of fraud, there are important pockets of protection. To effectively combat retaliation, whistleblowers should avail themselves of all appropriate remedies.

Article By Jason Zuckerman and Matthew Stock of Zuckerman Law

For more criminal law / business crimes legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Accounting Cases Involving SPACs

The Accounting Class Action Filings and Settlements—2021 Review and Analysis report features a spotlight section on accounting-related SPAC cases.

Special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) have become an increasingly popular way for private companies to become publicly traded. The process typically proceeds through four phases:

The SPAC initial public offering (IPO), when the SPAC becomes public as a shell company;
the search for a merger target, which typically involves a definitive time period (e.g., two years);
the merger closing, during which time the SPAC sponsor and target company announce the merger, file a proxy statement, and solicit shareholder approval; and
the period when the equity of the combined company becomes publicly traded, often referred to as the “De-SPAC” period.

Commentators have cited various reasons for the popularity of SPACs, including the perception of market participants that a private company may have more certainty as to pricing and control over the deal terms through a SPAC as compared to a traditional IPO.¹ During 2021, there were 613 SPAC IPOs—nearly twice the number of traditional IPOs—and the $144.5 billion of capital raised was record-setting.²

SPAC filings that include accounting allegations tripled in 2021 as compared to the prior year.

SEC Statements Regarding Financial Accounting and Reporting

The increased popularity of SPACs has led to certain concerns from regulators. For example, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued an investor bulletin on SPACs highlighting that the increased number of SPACs seeking to acquire an operating business may result in fewer attractive initial acquisitions.³As of December 31, 2021, 575 SPACs were still searching for a merger target.⁴

The SEC has also highlighted concerns related to financial accounting and reporting issues that SPACs may face. For example, the SEC’s Acting Chief Accountant, Paul Munter, issued a statement on March 31, 2021, that raised questions about whether private company targets have the people and processes in place and the time that is needed to successfully transition to public company reporting requirements. Mr. Munter highlighted examples of complex financial accounting and reporting issues, including accounting for complex financial instruments and the need to comply with public company requirements for reporting on internal controls.⁵

Shortly after his March 31 statement, Mr. Munter and John Coates, the Acting Director of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance, issued a statement on April 12, 2021, that addressed accounting and reporting considerations for warrants issued by SPACs.⁶ The statement resulted in almost 500 SPACs restating their accounting for warrants by June 22, nearly all of which identified a material weakness in internal controls.⁷

Recent Trends in SPACs Involving Accounting Issues

During 2019 and 2020, only a handful of federal securities class actions involving SPACs were filed, but in 2021, federal filings involving SPACs became the dominant filing trend.⁸ Consistent with that overall trend, SPAC filings that include accounting allegations tripled in 2021 as compared to the prior year.

There are several trends in SPAC cases involving accounting issues over the past three years:

Approximately one in three initial complaints involving SPACs from 2019 through 2021 included accounting issues.
Three law firms—The Rosen Law Firm, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, and Pomerantz LLP—were associated with almost 80% of accounting case filings involving SPACs from 2019 through 2021.
Short-seller reports were commonly cited in cases involving SPACs. However, those reports were cited over one and a half times more often in accounting cases as compared with non-accounting cases filed during 2019 through 2021.
The median filing lag after a De-SPAC transaction was much greater in 2019–2020 (450 days) than it was in 2021 (106 days) for accounting case filings from 2019 through 2021 involving SPACs.
Inappropriate revenue recognition and weaknesses in internal controls were the most common allegations in SPAC accounting cases, followed by allegedly omitted disclosures of related-party transactions.

Because filings of SPAC cases have largely occurred very recently, based on our research only one of these cases had reached settlement as of the end of 2021, and this case included accounting allegations. As more of these cases progress, SPAC cases may play a role in future accounting case settlement trends.

1 “What You Need to Know About SPACs – Updated Investor Bulletin,” U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, May 25, 2021, https://www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alerts-and-bulletins/what-you-need-know-about-spacs-investor-bulletin.

2 Jay R. Ritter, “Initial Public Offerings: Updated Statistics,” Warrington College of Business, University of Florida, p. 48, https://site.warrington.ufl.edu/ritter/files/IPO-Statistics.pdf, accessed April 8, 2022.

3 “What You Need to Know About SPACs – Updated Investor Bulletin,” U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, May 25, 2021, https://www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alerts-and-bulletins/what-you-need-know-about-spacs-investor-bulletin.

4 SPACs still searching for a target are those that have completed their IPO but not yet announced a De-SPAC transaction target. See SPAC Insider.

5 Paul Munter, Acting Chief Accountant, “Financial Reporting and Auditing Considerations of Companies Merging with SPACs,” U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, March 31, 2021, https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/munter-spac-20200331.

6 John Coates, Acting Director, Division of Corporation Finance, and Paul Munter, Acting Chief Accountant, “Staff Statement on Accounting and Reporting Considerations for Warrants Issued by Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (‘SPACs’),” U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, April 12, 2021, https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/accounting-reporting-warrants-issued-spacs.

7 See Will SPAC Restatement Wave Trigger Shareholder Litigation?, Cornerstone Research (2021), for further discussion.

8 See Securities Class Action Filings—2021 Year in Review, Cornerstone Research (2022), for further discussion.

Article By Elaine M. Harwood, Laura E. Simmons, Frank T. Mascari, and Sally Bai of Cornerstone Research

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

Large Corporate Bankruptcy Filings Continue to Decrease through First Half of 2022

Most industry groups saw bankruptcy filings decline from mid-2020 pandemic highs.

New York—Following the spike in large corporate bankruptcy filings triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, filings in 2021 and the first half of 2022 fell to levels below historical averages, according to a Cornerstone Research report released today.

The report, Trends in Large Corporate Bankruptcy and Financial Distress—Midyear 2022 Update, examines trends in Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings by companies with assets of $100 million or higher. It finds that 70 large companies filed for bankruptcy in 2021, down significantly from 155 in 2020 and below the annual average of 78 filings since 2005. In the first half of 2022, only 20 large companies filed for bankruptcy, compared to midyear totals of 43 in 1H 2021 and 89 in 1H 2020. The 20 bankruptcies in 1H 2022 were the lowest midyear total since the second half of 2014.

“U.S. government stimulus programs, low borrowing rates, and high debt forbearance helped disrupt predictions of continued growth in the number of bankruptcy filings,” said Nick Yavorsky, a report coauthor and Cornerstone Research principal. “Looking ahead, however, there are some concerns that increased corporate debt levels, rising interest rates and inflation, and a potential global recession may contribute to an increase in bankruptcy filings.”

In 2021, there were 20 “mega bankruptcies”—bankruptcy filings among companies with over $1 billion in reported assets—a substantial decline from the 60 mega bankruptcy filings in 2020. The first half of 2022 saw four Chapter 11 mega bankruptcy filings, compared to nine in the first half of 2021 and at a pace significantly lower than the annual average of 22 filings in 2005–2021.

Most industry groups saw bankruptcy filings decrease in 2021 and the first half of 2022, including those industries with the highest number of filings following the pandemic’s onset: Mining, Oil, and Gas; Retail Trade; Manufacturing; and Services.

Read the full report here.

Article By Allie Schwartz, Joseph B. “J.B.” Doyle, Nicholas D. Yavorsky, and Diego Vega San Martin of Cornerstone Research

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

The SEC Remains in Search of and Is Looking for Finders

Much has been written on the topic of finders and arrangers of securities transactions, including when a person or entity acting as a finder (i.e., someone who merely makes an introduction) has crossed the line and engaged in activities or conduct that requires registration as a broker-dealer. Shortly before the end of Jay Clayton’s term as Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), he issued a proposed order providing an exemption from broker-dealer registration requirements for certain “finders” who limit their activities in accordance with the conditions set forth in the proposed order.¹ Ultimately, the proposal was not adopted. Today, finders and unregistered securities transaction activity continue to be on the SEC’s radar. The states also closely regulate unregistered securities activities.

Recently, the SEC brought several actions in the federal courts against unregistered finders, confirming that the activity of unregistered persons and entities participating in capital raising remains squarely on the SEC agenda. In SEC v. Sky Group USA, LLC, et al.,² the SEC brought suit against Sky Group, a payday loan firm, and four of its employees in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging numerous violations of the federal securities laws arising out of a Ponzi scheme in which sales agents sold Sky Group securities to retail investors, collecting millions of dollars in commissions on their sales, even though the sales agents were not registered as broker-dealers. The SEC found indicia of activities requiring registration because, among other actions, the sales agents engaged in the sale of securities in the form of unregistered promissory notes and “earned a commission of one percent of each dollar the investors they recruited invested in the [promissory notes].” Many of the more than 500 alleged victims were low-income members of the South Florida Venezuelan-American community.

The allegations in the complaint are salacious and include charges of fraudulently selling $25 million of unregistered promissory notes and misappropriating at least $2.9 million of investor funds for personal use, “several hundred thousand dollars” of which were used to pay for a wedding of one of the defendants at a chateau on the French Riviera. The complaint alleges that additional amounts were used to pay personal credit card debt of one of the principals and diverted to friends and relatives for “no apparent legitimate business purpose.” The relief requested in the SEC’s complaint includes permanent injunctions, disgorgement plus prejudgment interest, civil penalties and an officer and director bar against one of the defendants. Although it appears that there was a flurry of early motion practice after the complaint was filed, the defendants consented to entry of a final judgment on June 29, 2022, which includes disgorgement, interest and civil penalties totaling $39,288,990. The other related defendants also consented to entries of final judgement resulting in disgorgement, interest and civil penalties totaling $8,391,676, and a permanent injunction and officer and director bar against one of the defendants.

In SEC v. Richard Eden, et al.,³ the SEC brought suit against Richard Eden and an affiliated company in the US District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that Eden violated the federal securities laws by engaging in conduct that requires registration with a qualified broker-dealer. The complaint alleges that Eden is a recidivist and the conduct at issue in the present lawsuit occurred while Eden was subject to a previously imposed associational bar arising from his participation in multiple unregistered securities offerings. According to the complaint, Eden started as an “opener” and eventually morphed into a “finder/closer” role. The SEC alleges that Eden engaged in broker-dealer activity requiring registration because he was “responsible for both identifying potential investors and attempting to secure their investments in the [offering],” and was paid on a success fee basis. The relief requested includes a permanent injunction restraining Eden and his affiliated company from soliciting any person or entity to purchase or sell any security, disgorgement and civil penalties. As of this writing, the defendants have yet to file answers to the complaint.

It is not surprising that the factual allegations in these cases would attract regulatory attention. The fact that the SEC remains vigilant in its monitoring of firms and individuals engaged in capital raising requires firms and agents to learn the rules and stay within the permissible boundaries. In addition, they must be mindful of the less-than-crystal clear regulatory guidance on unregistered finders, and more specifically, at what point is a person or entity “engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities for the account of others.” Persons in this business must understand that no-action letters in this subject area are fact-specific and often tailored to narrow and unique fact patterns. Finders in violation of broker-dealer registration requirements may be subject to severe penalties under federal securities laws. Courts and the SEC have looked to certain factors when determining whether a finder has violated the federal securities laws by failing to register as a broker-dealer. Each determination is very fact-specific, but in general, the SEC will consider:

Does the person’s compensation depend on the outcome or size of the transaction (i.e., transaction-based compensation)?
Does the person participate in important parts of a securities transaction, including solicitation, negotiation or execution of the transaction or assistance in structuring payments?
Does the person actively engage in the marketing of the securities?
Does the person give advice on the investment’s structure or suitability?

1 Notice of Proposed Exemptive Order Granting Conditional Exemption from the Broker Registration Requirements of Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for Certain Activities of Finders, Exchange Act Release No. 34-90112 (Oct. 7, 2020) (available here).

2 SEC v. Sky Group USA, LLC, et al., SEC Docket No. 21-cv-23443 (Sept. 27, 2021), https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2021/comp25234.pdf.

3 SEC v. Richard Eden, et al., SEC Docket No. 22-cv-04833 (July 14, 2022), https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2022/comp25444.pdf.

Article By Paul McCurdy, Susan Light, and Aileen Z. Tan of Katten

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

Practical and Legal Considerations for Extending Cash Runway in a Changing Economy

The funding environment for emerging companies has fundamentally shifted in 2022 for both venture capital and IPOs, particularly after a banner year in 2021. Whether these headwinds suggest significant economic changes or a return to previous valuation levels, companies need to be realistic about adapting their business processes to ensure they have sufficient cash runway to succeed through the next 2-3 years.

This article provides a comprehensive set of tactics that can be used to extend cash runway, both on the revenue/funding and cost side. It also addresses areas of liability for companies and their directors that can emerge as companies change business behaviors during periods of reduced liquidity.

Ways to Improve and Extend Cash Runway

Understanding Your Cash Runway

Cash runway refers to the number of months a company can continue operations before it runs out of money. The runway can be extended by increasing revenue or raising capital, but in a down economy, people have less disposable income and corporations are more conservative with their funds. Therefore companies should instead focus on cutting operating costs to ensure their cash can sustain over longer periods.

As a starting point, companies can evaluate their business models to determine expected cash runway based on factors such as how valuations are currently being determined, total cash available, burn rate, and revenue projections. This will help guide the actions to pursue by answering questions such as:

Is the company currently profitable?
Will the company be profitable with expected revenue growth even if no more outside funding is brought in?
Is there enough cash runway to demonstrate results sufficient to raise the next round at an appropriate valuation?

Even if companies expect to have sufficient cash runway to make it through a potential economic downturn, tactics such as reducing or minimizing growth in headcount, advertising spend, etc. can be implemented as part of a holistic strategy to stay lean while focusing on the fundamentals of business model/product-market fit.

Examining Alternative Sources of Financing

Even though traditional venture capital and IPO financing options have become more difficult to achieve with desired valuations, companies still have various other options to increase funding and extend runway. Our colleagues provided an excellent analysis of many of these options, which are highlighted in the discussion below.

Expanding Your Investor Base to Fund Cash Flow Needs

The goal is to survive now, excel later; and companies should be open to lower valuations in the short term. This can create flexibility to circle back with investors who may have been open to an earlier round but not at the specific terms at that time. Of course, to have a more productive discussion, it will be helpful to explain to these investors how the business model has been adapted for the current environment in order to demonstrate that the new valuation is tied to clear milestones and future success.

Strategic investors and other corporate investors can also be helpful, acting as untapped resources or collaborators to help drive forward milestone achievements. Companies should understand how their business model fits with the investor’s customer base, and use the relationship to improve their overall position with investors and customers to increase both funding and revenue to extend runway.¹

If the next step for a company is to IPO, consider crossover or other hybrid investors, understanding that much of the cash deployment in 2022 is slowing down.

Exploring Venture Debt

If a company has previously received venture funding, venture debt can be a useful tool to bridge forward to future funding or milestones. Venture debt is essentially a loan designed for early stage, high growth startups who have already secured venture financing. It is effective for targeting growth over profitability, and should be used in a deliberate manner to achieve specific goals. The typical 3-5 year timeline for venture debt can fit well with the goal of extending cash runway beyond a currently expected downturn.

Receivables/Revenue-Based Financing and Cash Up Front on Multi-Year Contracts

Where companies have revenue streams from customers — especially consistent, recurring revenue — this can be used in various ways to increase short-term funds, such as through receivables financing or cash up front on long-term contracts. However, companies should take such actions with the understanding that future investors may perceive the business model differently when the recurring revenue is being used for these purposes rather than typical investment in growth.

Receivable/revenue-based financing allows for borrowing against the asset value represented by revenue streams and takes multiple forms, including invoice discounting and factoring. When evaluating these options, companies should make sure that the terms of the deal make sense with runway extension goals and consider how consistent current revenue streams are expected to be over the deal term. In addition, companies should be aware of how customers may perceive the idea of their invoices being used for financing and be prepared for any negative consequences from such perceptions.

Revenue-based financing is a relatively new financing model, so companies should be more proactive in structuring deals. These financings can be particularly useful for Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) and other recurring revenue companies because they can “securitize the revenue being generated by a company and then lend capital against that theoretical security.”²

Cash up front on multi-year contracts improves the company’s cash position, and can help expand the base where customers have sufficient capital to deliver up front with more favorable pricing. As a practical matter, these arrangements may result in more resources devoted to servicing customers and reduce the stability represented by recurring revenue, and so should be implemented in a manner that remains aligned with overall goal of improving product-market fit over the course of the extended runway.

Shared Earning Agreements

A shared earning agreement is an agreement between investors and founders that entitles investors to future earnings of the company, and often allow investors to capture a share of founders’ earnings. These may be well suited for relatively early stage companies that plan to focus on profitability rather than growth, due to the nature of prioritizing growth in the latter.

Government Loans, Grants, and Tax Credits

U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) loans and grants can be helpful, particularly in the short term. SBA loans generally have favorable financing terms, and together with grants can help companies direct resources to specific business goals including capital expenditures that may be needed to reach the next milestone. Similarly, tax credits, including R&D tax credits, should be considered whenever applicable as an easy way to offset the costs.

Customer Payments

Customers can be a lifeline for companies during an economic downturn, with the prioritization of current customers one way companies can maintain control over their cash flow. Regular checks of Accounts Receivable will ensure that customers are making their payments promptly according to their contracts. While this can be time-consuming and repetitive, automating Accounts Receivable can streamline tasks such as approving invoices and receiving payments from customers to create a quicker process. Maintenance of Accounts Receivable provides a consistent flow of cash, which in turn extends runway.

To increase immediate cash flow companies should consider requiring longer contracts to be paid in full upon delivery, allowing the company to collect cash up front and add certainty to revenue over time. This may be hard to come by as customers are also affected by the economic downturn, but incentivizing payments by offering discounts can offset reluctance. Customers are often concerned with locking in a company’s services or product and saving on cost, with discounts serving as an easy solution. While they can create a steady cash flow, it may not be sustainable for longer cash runways. Despite their attractive value, companies should use care when offering discounts for early payments. Discounts result in lower payments than initially agreed upon, so companies should consider how long of a runway they require and whether the discounted price can sustain a runway of such length.

Vendor Payments

One area where companies can strategize and cut costs is vendor payments. By delaying payments to vendors, companies can temporarily preserve cash balance and extend cash runway. Companies must review their vendor agreements to evaluate the potential practical and legal ramifications of this strategy. If the vendor agreements contain incentives for early payments or penalties for late payments, then such strategy should not be employed. Rather, companies can try to negotiate with vendors for an updated, extended repayment schedule that permits the company to hold on to their cash for longer. Alternatively, companies can negotiate with vendors for delayed payments without penalty. Often vendors would prefer to compromise rather than lose out on customers, especially in a down economy.

Lastly, companies can seek out vendors who are willing to accept products and services as the form of payment as opposed to cash. Because the calculation for cash runway only takes into account actual cash that companies have on hand, products and services they provide do not factor into the calculation. As such, companies can exchange products and services for the products and services that their vendors provide, thereby reserving their cash and extending their cash runway.

Bank Covenants

In exercising the various strategies above, it is important to be mindful of your existing bank covenants if your company has a lending facility in place. There are often covenants restricting the amount of debt a borrower can carry, requiring the maintenance of a certain level of cash flow, and cross default provisions automatically defaulting a borrower if it defaults under separate agreements with third parties. Understanding your bank covenants and default provisions will help you to stay out of default with your lender and avoid an early call on your loan and resulting drain on you cash position.

Employee Considerations

As discussed extensively in our first article Employment Dos and Don’ts When Implementing Workforce Reductions, the possibility of an economic downturn not only will have an impact on your customer base, but your workforce as well. Employees desire stability, and the below options can help keep your employees engaged.

Providing Equity as a Substitute for Additional Compensation.

Employees might come to expect cash bonuses and pay raises throughout their tenure with an employer; in a more difficult economic period this may further strain a business’s cash flow. One alternative to such cash-based payments is the granting of equity, such as options or restricted stock. This type of compensation affords employees the prospect of long-term appreciation in value and promotes talent retention, while preserving capital in the immediate term. Further, to the employee holding equity is to have “skin in the game” – the employee now has an ownership stake in the company and their work takes on increasing importance to the success of the company.

To be sure, the company’s management and principal owners should consider how much control they are ceding to these new minority equity holders. The company must also ensure such equity issuances comply with securities laws – including by structuring the offering to fit within an exemption from registration of the offering. Additionally, if a downturn in the company’s business results in a drop in the value of the equity being offered, the company should consider conducting a new 409A valuation. Doing so may set a lower exercise price for existing options, thus reducing the eventual cost to employees to exercise their options and furnishing additional, material compensation to employees without further burdening cash flow.

Transitioning Select Employees to Part-Time.

Paying the salaries of employees can be a major burden on a business’s cash flow, and yet one should be wary of resorting to laying off employees to conserve cash flow in a downturn. On the other hand, if a business were to miss a payroll its officers and directors could face personal liability for unpaid wages. One means of reducing a business’s wage commitments while retaining (and paying) existing employees is to transition certain employees to part-time status. In addition to producing immediate cash flow benefits, this strategy enables a business to retain key talent and avoid the cost of replacing the employees in the future. However, this transition to part-time employees comes with important considerations.

Part-time employees are often eligible for overtime pay and must receive the higher of the federal or state minimum hourly wage. And if transitioned employees are subject to restrictive covenants, such as a non-competition agreement, they might argue their change in status should release them from such restrictions. Particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic, courts have shown reluctance to enforce non-competes in the context of similar changes in work status when the provision is unreasonable or enforcement is against the public interest.

Director Liability in Insolvency

Insolvency and Duties to Creditors

There may be circumstances where insolvency is the only plausible result. A corporation has fiduciary duties to stockholders when solvent, but when a corporation becomes insolvent it additionally owes such duties to creditors. When insolvent, a corporation’s fiduciary duties do not shift from stockholders to creditors, but expand to encompass all of the corporation’s residual claimants, which include creditors. Courts define “insolvency” as the point at which a corporation is unable to pay its debts as they become due in the ordinary course of business, but the “zone of insolvency” occurs some time before then. There is no clear line delineating when a solvent company enters the zone of insolvency, but fiduciaries should assume they are in this zone if (1) the corporation’s liabilities exceed its assets, (2) the corporation is unable to pay its debts as they become due, or (3) the corporation faces an unreasonable risk of insolvency.

Multiple courts have held that upon reaching the “zone of insolvency,” a corporation has fiduciary duties to creditors. However, in 2007 the Delaware Supreme Court held that there is no change in fiduciary duties for a corporation upon transitioning from “solvent” to the “zone of insolvency.” Under this precedent, creditors do not have standing to pursue derivative breach of fiduciary duty claims against the corporation until it is actually insolvent. Once the corporation is insolvent, however, creditors can bring claims such as for fraudulent transfers of assets and for failure to pursue valid claims, including those against a corporation’s own directors and officers. To be sure, the Delaware Court of Chancery clarified that a corporation’s directors cannot be held liable for “continuing to operate [an] insolvent entity in the good faith belief that they may achieve profitability, even if their decisions ultimately lead to greater losses for creditors,” along with other caveats to the general fiduciary duty rule. Still, in light of the ambiguity in case law on the subject, a corporation ought to proceed carefully and understand its potential duties when approaching and reaching insolvency.

¹ Diamond, Brandee and Lehot, Louis, Is it Time to Consider Alternative Financing Strategies?, Foley & Lardner LLP (July 18, 2022)

² Rush, Thomas, Revenue-based financing: The next step for private equity and early-stage investment, TechCrunch (January 6, 2021)

Article By Natasha Allen, David W. Kantaros, Nikhil T. Pradhan, and Graham P. MacEwan of Foley & Lardner LLP

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

What is the Intent and Significance of the EPA’s New Office?

What Does the New EPA Office Mean for Companies?

What Does the New EPA Office Mean for ESG Considerations?

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

The Revelation

The SEC’s Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Program

The Future Role of Defense Firms in Dodd-Frank Cases

Conclusion: The Iron Curtain has Fallen

Sources:

Share this:

Like this:

“Substantially assist or replace discretionary decision making”

“Bias Audit”

Required Notices

Share this:

Like this:

Corporate Whistleblower Protections

What is Whistleblower Retaliation?

What Damages Can a Whistleblower Recover in a Whistleblower Retaliation Case?

Combating Whistleblower Retaliation: How to Maximize Your Recovery

Scope of Protected Whistleblowing

Burden of Proof

Damages and Remedies in Whistleblower Retaliation Cases

Forum Selection and Administrative Exhaustion

Impact of Whistleblower Retaliation Claim on Whistleblower Rewards Claim

Share this:

Like this:

The Accounting Class Action Filings and Settlements—2021 Review and Analysis report features a spotlight section on accounting-related SPAC cases.

SEC Statements Regarding Financial Accounting and Reporting

Recent Trends in SPACs Involving Accounting Issues

Share this:

Like this:

Most industry groups saw bankruptcy filings decline from mid-2020 pandemic highs.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Ways to Improve and Extend Cash Runway

Understanding Your Cash Runway

Examining Alternative Sources of Financing

Expanding Your Investor Base to Fund Cash Flow Needs

Exploring Venture Debt

Receivables/Revenue-Based Financing and Cash Up Front on Multi-Year Contracts

Shared Earning Agreements

Government Loans, Grants, and Tax Credits

Customer Payments

Vendor Payments

Bank Covenants

Employee Considerations

Providing Equity as a Substitute for Additional Compensation.

Transitioning Select Employees to Part-Time.

Director Liability in Insolvency

Insolvency and Duties to Creditors

Share this:

Like this: