finance Archives - The National Law Forum

States Sue the Biden Administration to Stop Loan Relief Plan

On April 9, 2024, seven states filed suit against the Biden administration in an attempt to block its new “SAVE” plan, an income-driven repayment plan that leads to eventual loan forgiveness. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Plaintiff states claim that the plan is unlawful because it evades limits Congress imposed for income-based repayment plans and sets arbitrarily high thresholds that would effectively create a grant program for student borrowers. Plaintiffs allege that the US Supreme Court struck down a similar plan last year proposed by the Biden administration which would have cost taxpayers $430 billion. See Biden v. Nebraska, 143 S. Ct. 2355, 2362 (2023). The states allege that the plan violates the Higher Education Act of 1965 and subsequent amendments, which allows student-loan cancelation to occur only after a borrower pays 15% of their disposable income (which is defined as 150% above the poverty line) after 25 years.

The states further allege that the disposable income threshold would increase from 150% to 225% above the poverty line and that the plan would only require borrowers to pay 5% of their income for 10 years before loans are cancelled, “gut[ting] the statutory purpose of providing loans.”

Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the relief plan is unlawful and injunctive relief.

Putting It Into Practice: State attorneys general continue to challenge Biden regulatory actions through litigation (previously discussed here and here). Given the success they have achieved thus far, it will be interesting to see how this litigation develops. We will continue to monitor the case for developments.

Regulation Round Up March 2024

Welcome to the UK Regulation Round Up, a regular bulletin highlighting the latest developments in UK and EU financial services regulation.

Key developments in March 2024:

28 March

FCA Regulation Round-up: The FCA published its regulation round-up for March 2024.

26 March

AIFMD II: Directive (EU) 2024/927 amending the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (2011/61/EU) (“AIFMD”) and the UCITS Directive (2009/65/EC) (“UCITS Directive”) relating to delegation arrangements, liquidity risk management, supervisory reporting, provision of depositary and custody services, and loan origination by alternative investment funds has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (“EU”). Please refer to our dedicated article on this topic here.

ELTIFs: The European Commission published a Communication to the Commission explaining that it intends to adopt, with amendments, ESMA’s proposed regulatory technical standards (“RTS”) under Regulations 9(3), 18(6), 19(5), 21(3) and 25(3) of the Regulation on European Long-Term Investment Funds ((EU) 2015/760) as amended by Regulation (EU) 2023/606.

Financial Promotions: The FCA published finalised guidance (FG24/1) on financial promotions on social media.

Cryptoassets: The Investment Association (“IA”) published its second report on UK fund tokenisation written by the technology working group to HM Treasury’s asset management taskforce.

25 March

Cryptoassets: ESMA published a final report (ESMA75-453128700-949) on draft technical standards specifying requirements for co-operation, exchange of information and notification between competent authorities, European Supervisory Authorities and third countries under the Regulation on markets in cryptoassets ((EU) 2023/1114) (“MiCA”).PRIIPS Regulation: the European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (“ECON”) published the report (PE753.665v02-00) it has adopted on the European Commission’s legislative proposal for a Regulation making amendments to the Regulation on key information documents (“KIDs”) for packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (1286/2014) (“PRIIPs Regulation”) (2023/0166(COD)).

Alternative Investment Funds: The FCA published the findings from a review it carried out in 2023 of alternative investment fund managers that use the host model to manage alternative investment funds.

AIFMD: Four Delegated and Implementing Regulations concerning cross-border marketing and management notifications relating to the UCITS Directive and the AIFMD have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (here, here, here, and here).

22 March

Smarter Regulatory Framework: HM Treasury published a document on the next phase of the Smarter Regulatory Framework, its project to replace assimilated law relating to financial services.

21 March

Market Transparency: ESMA published a communication on the transition to the new rules under the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (600/2014) (“MiFIR”) to improve market access and transparency.

Retail Investment Package: ECON published a press release announcing it had adopted its draft report on the proposed Directive on retail investment protection (2023/0167(COD)). The proposed Directive will amend the MiFID II Directive (2014/65/EU) (“MiFID II”), the Insurance Distribution Directive ((EU) 2016/97), the Solvency II Directive (2009/138/EC), the UCITS Directive and the AIFMD.

19 March

ESG: The Council of the EU proposed a new compromise text for the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, on which political agreement had previously been reached in December 2023.

FCA Business Plan: The FCA published its 2024/25 Business Plan, which sets out its business priorities for the year ahead.

15 March

Customer Duty: The FCA announced that it is to conduct a review into firms’ treatment of customers in vulnerable circumstances.

PRIIPS Regulation: The Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities published an updated version of its Q&As (JC 2023 22) on the key information document requirements for packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (“PRIIPs”), as laid down in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/653.

14 March

FCA Regulatory Approach: The FCA published a speech given by Nikhil Rathi, FCA Chief Executive, on its regulatory approach to deliver for consumers, markets and competitiveness and its shift to outcomes-focused regulation.

11 March

AML: HM Treasury launched a consultation on improving the effectiveness of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (SI 2017/692). The consultation runs until 9 June 2024 and covers four distinct areas.

08 March

ESG: The IA published a report on insights and suggested actions for asset managers following the commencement of reporting obligations of climate-related disclosures under the ESG sourcebook.

ESG: The House of Commons Treasury Committee published a report on the findings from its “Sexism in the City” inquiry.

Cryptoassets: The EBA published a consultation paper (EBA/CP/2024/09) on draft guidelines on redemption plans under Articles 47 and 55 of the MiCA.

05 March

Financial Sanctions: The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office published Post-Legislative Scrutiny Memorandum: Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.

AML: The FCA published a Dear CEO letter sent to Annex I financial institutions concerning common control failings identified in anti-money laundering (AML) frameworks.

ESG: The European Commission adopted a delegated regulation supplementing the Securitisation Regulation ((EU) 2017/2402) with regard to regulatory technical standards specifying, for simple, transparent and standardised non-ABCP traditional securitisation, and for simple, transparent and standardised on-balance-sheet securitisation, the content, methodologies and presentation of information related to the principal adverse impacts of the assets financed by the underlying exposures on sustainability factors.

CRD IV: The European Commission adopted a Commission Implementing Regulation that amends Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 650/2014 containing ITS on supervisory disclosure under the CRD IV Directive (2013/36/EU) (“CRD IV”).

01 March

Alternative Investment Funds: The FCA published a portfolio letter providing an interim update on its supervisory strategy for the asset management and alternatives portfolios.

Corporate Transparency: The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Commencement No. 2 and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2024 (SI 2024/269) have been made and published.

Financial Sanctions: The Treasury Committee launched an inquiry into the effectiveness of financial sanctions on Russia.

EMIR: The FCA published a consultation paperin which it, together with the Bank of England, seeks feedback on draft guidance in the form of Q&As on the revised reporting requirements under Article 9 of UK EMIR (648/2012).

FCA Handbook: The FCA published Handbook Notice 116 (dated February 2024), which sets out changes to the FCA Handbook made by the FCA board on 29 February 2024.

FCA Handbook: the FCA published its 43rd quarterly consultation paper (CP24/3), inviting comments on proposed changes to a number of FCA Handbook provisions.

Amar Unadkat, Sulaiman Malik & Michael Singh also contributed to this article.

Federal Court Confirms Case Challenging Bank of America’s Fraudulent COVID Relief Program Can Proceed

In a significant step forward for consumer protection, the Northern District of California confirmed that claims that Bank of America’s (“BofA”) misled its customers with false promises to provide overdraft fee relief during the COVID-19 pandemic could proceed.

The litigation centers on allegations that BofA widely advertised a COVID-19 bank fee relief program to garner publicity and goodwill but, instead of honoring its promises, the Bank abruptly and quietly ended any relief just a few months into the raging pandemic. Instead of announcing the shutdown, BofA kept promoting the program when none existed. Plaintiffs and other Americans across the country, who were suffering significant financial hardship as a result of the pandemic, trusted the bank’s marketing, and incurred significant fees that the bank refused to waive.

Plaintiffs Anthony Ramirez, Mynor Villatoro Aldana, and Janet Hobson have lodged claims on behalf of a putative nationwide class and state subclasses. The Court’s denial of BofA’s motion to dismiss supports plaintiffs’ allegations that the bank’s continued advertisement of the defunct relief program was deceptive and unlawful, depriving consumers across the country of millions of dollars in promised fee refunds.

This decision bolsters consumer protection rights and reinforces the judiciary’s role in ensuring that big banks like BofA make good on their promises to financially struggling customers.

The case is Ramirez, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No.: 4:22-cv-00859-YGR in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

A copy of the order is available here.

Unlocking India’s Space Potential: India Liberalizes Foreign Direct Investment Regime

The foreign investment policy was ambiguous about space activities beyond satellites, leading to different interpretations.
Some companies made investments basis the view that investments in the activities not listed under the FDI policy in this sector could be made up to 100% without prior government approval.
The proposed FDI Space Policy addresses these concerns and allows 100% foreign investments under the automatic and governmental approval route.
Formal notification is awaited which will make this policy effective as law.

Background

India currently is home to more than 200 space start-ups, and the space sector in India has attracted USD 124.7 million investment in the year 2023. The existing foreign investment policy of India (“FDI Policy”) requires foreign investors to obtain prior government approvals for investing in the space sector, particularly for the establishment of satellites.

Considering the growth of this sector, the Indian government has been periodically releasing policies / notifications, establishing organizations, etc. with the intent to allow more private participation in this sector. This has led to the establishment of an organization to promote the sector called the Indian National Space Promotion and Authorization Centre in 2020, as well as the introduction of the National Geospatial Policy, 2022 followed by the Indian Space Policy, 2023.

On February 21, 2024, the Union Cabinet approved amendments to the Foreign Direct Investment (“FDI”) policy and communicated it in a press release (“FDI Space Policy”) which proposes to liberalize investments in the space sector. However, a formal notification from the relevant authorities is still awaited for the amendments to become enforceable as law.

Existing FDI Policy

Existing foreign investment limits in the space sector are provided under the Schedule I of Foreign Exchange Management Act (Non-Debt Instrument) Rules, 2019 (“NDI Rules”). The current norms do not recognize “space” as a sector in itself. Instead, the space related activities are primarily captured under the head – “satellites – establishment and operation”. 100% foreign investment is allowed in this sector but the same is subject to approval from the government along with compliance of sectoral guidelines from Department of Space / Indian Space Research Organisation. In essence, all foreign investments in companies undertaking the activities of satellites-establishment and operations require government approval.

Reforms – New FDI Space Policy

The proposed FDI Space Policy allows 100% foreign investment in the space sector and has also created sub-categories, entry route and investment thresholds for various space related activities, which are as follows:

S.no.	Activity	FDI Thresholds
1.	Satellites-manufacturing & operation, satellite data products and ground segment & user segment	Up to 74% under automatic route and beyond 74% (up to 100%) under government route
2.	Launch vehicles and associated systems or subsystems, creation of spaceports for launching and receiving spacecraft	Up to 49% under automatic route and beyond 49% (up to 100%) under government route
3.	Manufacturing of components and systems/ sub-systems for satellites, ground segment and user segment	Up to 100% under automatic route

Analysis

(i) Status of existing investments

The existing FDI policy did not include space sector related activities (other than satellites-establishment and operation) such as launch vehicle business, ground segment, user segment, sub-component / sub-systems manufacturing, data products etc.

Various stakeholders argued that since the existing FDI policy did not specify certain activities such as launch vehicles, data sets, manufacturing of space systems / components etc. under the head of “satellites-establishment and operation”, foreign investments in such cases should be permitted up to 100% under the automatic route. This was based on the interpretation under the FDI policy that sectors / activities not specifically listed or prohibited, are permissible for foreign investment up to 100% under the automatic route, subject to sectoral conditionalities. Relying on the same, foreign investors made investments in space start-ups whose activities were not explicitly listed or regulated under the current FDI regime without obtaining government approval.

Some stakeholders interpreted “satellites” very broadly and took a more conservative view that all space related activities required government approval. Similarly, there were overlaps in activities / interpretation of the FDI policy under the sectors of defence, telecom and manufacturing.

The space liberalization norms under the proposed FDI Space Policy may have actually de-liberalized this sector for certain companies who received investments in allied space activities based on the understanding that sectors / activities not specifically listed or prohibited, should be eligible for foreign investments up to 100% under the automatic route. In such cases where the investment thresholds under the proposed FDI Space Policy may be breached, it would be interesting to see the government’s approach including granting approvals on a post-facto basis.

(ii) Sub- categorizations of activities within the Space Sector

While the government has acknowledged the sub-categories of activities within the space sector, it hasn’t clarified its rationale for providing different foreign investment thresholds for such activities. Relaxed thresholds for satellites (i.e., 74% under the automatic route (up to 100% under government route)) and its sub-components (i.e., 100% under the automatic route) encourage foreign participation in commercial aspects of space activities. In contrast, the 49% cap on foreign investments under the automatic route (up to 100% under government route) on launch vehicles acknowledge their dual-use potential for both civilian and defence purposes. This sensitivity, combined with the launching state’s heightened liability under Article II of the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (“Liability Convention”), may be viewed as necessitating greater government oversight.

However, industry players have also criticized the differential treatment provided to launch vehicles vis-a-vis satellites. They believe, in essence, both industries have similar sensitivity issues and hence should be treated at par from a foreign investment perspective. Hence, the difference in foreign investment thresholds require more explanation from the government.

(iii) Satellite Data Products

The term ‘satellite data products’ has not been defined under the proposed FDI Space Policy but investments in such activities would be permitted up to 74% under the automatic route (up to 100% under government route). This may lead to some conflict from a satellite imagery / data perspective read along with the liberalized Geospatial Guidelines, 2021. (“Geospatial Guidelines”).

The Geospatial Guidelines largely permit foreign investments up to 100% under the automatic route with limited foreign investment restrictions especially if the activity is for (i) creation / ownership / storage of geospatial data of a certain accuracy (as defined under the Geospatial Guidelines); (ii) terrestrial mobile survey, street view survey and surveying activities in Indian territorial waters. There seems to be no specific restriction on satellite generated data (other than the above) under the Geospatial Guidelines. Thus, the proposed FDI Space Policy may end up limiting foreign investments for activities relating to Satellite Data Products (which would include geo-spatial data) in which otherwise is viewed to be permissible up to 100% under the automatic route.

The government should also define what constitutes satellite data products and to the extent possible it would be recommended that foreign investment up to 100% should be permitted under the automatic route.

Additionally, the rationale for capping investments for satellite data products under the proposed FDI Space Policy seems unclear as these are data sets which could be regulated under the Geospatial Guidelines and the new Indian privacy law.

(iv) Where are sub-components for launch vehicles covered?

The proposed FDI Space Policy explicitly covers the manufacturing of components and systems / sub-systems for the satellite sector, ground & user segment, and permits 100% FDI under automatic route for the same. With the absence of similar language for components in launch vehicles, it could imply its inclusion under the broader launch vehicle category, hence falling under the 49% automatic route (up to 100% under government route). Alternatively, it could also be argued since it is not expressly specified, the same could be covered under the 100% automatic route category. However, considering the critical role of such components in the sector’s development, clarification from the government would provide much-needed comfort especially if the components are dual use (satellite and launch vehicle usage).

(v) What about ground segment and user segment for launch vehicles?

Following the pattern observed with the satellite and ground segment categories, the absence of specific mention for the “ground segment & user segment” in the launch vehicle section raises further questions. This omission could be an oversight or intentional, but the lack of clarity hinders transparency and predictability for potential investors. Further clarity on the inclusion from an industry perspective in the official amendment notification would ensure a comprehensive and consistent policy framework for the entire launch vehicle sector.

(vi) Were any sub-categories / activities missed?

As space activities may expand to include space mining, exploration, international space station construction, space tourism etc., India needs to proactively address these areas. Especially, if these should be interpreted for foreign investments up to 100% under the automatic route, as this would have a bearing on India’s ability to attract foreign investment while safeguarding national interests, technological competitiveness, and responsible stewardship of India in space.

Conclusion

While the proposed FDI Space Policy provides substantial liberalization, further clarity is awaited based on the formal notification which will make this effective as law. Ideally, the Government should provide definitions / explanations for the proposed categorization and sub-categorizations, and further clarity on the inclusions and omissions of activities which may be related to most space sector functions such as user and ground segments.

While the move towards liberalization significantly reduces government control over the space sector, its inherent interconnectedness with other regulated domains like telecommunications / geospatial cannot be ignored. Despite these challenges, the government’s willingness to open the space sector to foreign investments is a positive step offering greater confidence to foreign investors. Relaxation in the existing norms also signifies a supportive stance towards the industry, encouraging both domestic and international participation. Notably, India successfully attracted substantial foreign investment even during the era of full government control. Therefore, with the current reforms, a significant increase in foreign investments is expected.

Footnotes
[1] Rajya Sabha Questions, Department of Space, available at
https://sansad.in/getFile/annex/262/AU621.pdf?source=pqars
[2] Notification, Department of Space, available at https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1988864
[3] Notification, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, available at
https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2007876
[4] Article II of the Liability Convention provides that a launching State shall be absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused by its space object on the surface of the earth or to aircraft flight.

Compliance Update — Insights and Highlights January 2024

On December 7, 2023, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) ordered Atlantic Union Bank, an approximately $20 billion bank headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, to pay $6.2 million for “illegal overdraft fee harvesting” and “illegally enrolling thousands of customers in checking account overdraft programs.” The bank was ordered to pay $5 million in refunds and $1.2 million to a victims’ relief fund.

Regulation E provides that a bank may not charge a fee for an ATM or one-time debit card transaction unless it completes four steps. First, the bank must provide the customer with a notice describing the bank’s overdraft services in writing. Then, the bank must provide the customer with a “reasonable opportunity” for that customer to “affirmatively consent” to the payment of the ATM or one-time debit card transaction fee. Third, the customer must provide that “affirmative consent” or opt-in to the bank. And finally, the bank must provide the customer with written confirmation of their consent, including a statement of the right to revoke the consent at any time.

The CFPB alleged that Atlantic Union Bank failed to obtain proper consent when an account was opened in person at a branch. Bank employees orally provided customers with options for opting in to the payment of one-time debit card and ATM transaction fees pursuant to Regulation E. Bank employees asked customers to opt in orallyand then input the option into the bank’s account-opening computer system before printing the written consent form. The consent form was printed at the end of the account-opening process and was pre-populated with the customer’s oral opt-in choice.

In instances in which a customer was given options for opting in to the payment of one-time debit card and ATM transaction fees over the phone, bank employees did not have a script and allegedly provided misinformation and misleading statements about the benefits, costs, and other aspects of opting in to the payment of one-time debit card and ATM transaction fees pursuant to Regulation E.

The CFPB has taken the logical approach that a bank must provide the customer with a written disclosure of its overdraft practices prior to having them opt in. Additionally, without providing the customer with a prior written disclosure, a bank should not pre-populate its Regulation E opt-in form. Now is the time to review the consent order and your bank’s Regulation E opt-in processes and procedures.

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

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

Continued Spotlight on Private Funds

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

SEC Commissioner Peirce, in dissent:

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

Additional Reporting by Large Hedge Fund Advisers on Qualifying Hedge Funds

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

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

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

Enhanced Reporting by All Hedge Funds

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

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

Other Amendments That Apply to All Form PF Filers

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

Final Thoughts

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

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

Robert Bourret also contributed to this article.

New Diligence Opportunity for Financial Institutions

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

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

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

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

Recent FinCEN FAQs Provide Additional Guidance on Compliance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by: Evgeny Magidenko of ArentFox Schiff LLP

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

2024: The Year of the Spot Bitcoin ETP

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is making 2024 a significant year for exchange-traded products (ETPs) by declaring effective the registration statements of ten Bitcoin ETPs, and approving their listing on one of the major stock exchanges. This is a monumental step to bringing access to Bitcoin to a broader retail market in the US For over a decade, the staff of the SEC (Staff) had denied or otherwise blocked applications to list spot Bitcoin ETPs, claiming, in part, that there were insufficient protections against market manipulation in the underlying Bitcoin market. The approvals issued this week unlock – although do not widely open – a previously dead bolted door to registered products offering direct exposure to Bitcoin, providing an opportunity for retail investors to have easier access to exposure to Bitcoin in a regulated product.

The approvals follow the US federal appeals court ruling in August 2023 that the SEC was “arbitrary and capricious” in its decision to reject an application by the NYSE Arca to list shares of the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust. In granting the approvals, Chair Gensler acknowledged that the law had changed following the Grayscale decision stating “we are now faced with a new set of filings similar to those we have disapproved in the past. Circumstances, however, have changed.” Rather than appeal the court ruling, the staff of the SEC chose to engage with the sponsors of proposed spot Bitcoin ETPs to discuss parameters necessary for approval, including the inclusion of additional disclosure and other requirements to provide for investor protection. In approving the listing of the ETPs, the SEC relied, in part, on its confirmation that the “CME bitcoin futures market has been consistently highly correlated with this subset [(Coinbase and Kraken)] of the spot [B]itcoin market throughout the past 2.5 years,”¹ a fact which was heavily leaned upon in the Grayscale decision. Among the requirements insisted upon by the Staff were requirements that the ETPs effect sales and redemptions of ETP creation units solely in cash (rather than in-kind) and hardcoding of key service providers (including Bitcoin custodians) into the listing rule. The SEC’s approved all listing rule applications simultaneously, in an effort to prevent a single ETP from having a first mover advantage.

While this initial round of approvals is promising for the ETP and cryptocurrency industries, it does not signal a general acceptance of all spot cryptocurrency ETPs. Rather, the SEC granted approval only to ETPs investing in Bitcoin, and it is unclear whether it will be receptive to products investing in other crypto assets. Chair Gensler’s statement in announcing the approvals indicated that he and the staff remain skeptical of digital assets generally, including Bitcoin, stating that the approval is not an endorsement of Bitcoin and that investors should remain cautious and aware of the risks. Issuers wishing to offer similar products with other digital asset investments may now have examples to follow, but will still need to undergo a comprehensive review process, and ultimate approval is not guaranteed. Moreover, future exchange-traded products seeking to directly invest other cryptocurrencies or digital assets may have to satisfy a correlation test similar to that which was relied on by the SEC in approving the current products and may not be able to do so.

¹ SEC Release, Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by Amendments Thereto, to List and Trade Bitcoin-Based Commodity-Based Trust Shares and Trust Units, No. 34-99306 (10 January 2024).

2024 Regulatory Update for Investment Advisers

In 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued various proposed rules on regulatory changes that will affect SEC-registered investment advisers (RIAs). Since these rules are likely to be put into effect, RIAs should consider taking preliminary steps to start integrating the new requirements into their compliance policies and procedures.

1. Updates to the Custody Rule

The purpose of the custody rule, rule 206(4)-2 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act), is to protect client funds and securities from potential loss and misappropriation by custodians. The SEC’s recommended updates to the custody rule would:

Expand the scope of the rule to not only include client funds and securities but all of a client’s assets over which an RIA has custody
Expand the definition of custody to include discretionary authority
Require RIAs to enter into written agreements with qualified custodians, including certain reasonable assurances regarding protections of client assets

2. Internet Adviser Exemption

The SEC also proposed to modernize rule 203A-2(e) of the Advisers Act, whose purpose is to permit internet investment advisers to register with the SEC even if such advisers do not meet the other statutory requirements for SEC registration. Under the proposed rule:

Advisers relying on this exemption would at all times be required to have an operational interactive website through which the adviser provides investment advisory services
The de minimis exception would be eliminated, hence requiring advisers relying on rule 203A-2(e) to provide advice to all of their clients exclusively through an operational interactive website

3. Conflicts of Interest Related to Predictive Data Analytics and Similar Technologies

The SEC proposes new rules under the Adviser’s Act to regulate RIAs’ use of technologies that optimize for, predict, guide, forecast or direct investment-related behaviors or outcomes. Specifically, the new rules aim to minimize the risk that RIAs could prioritize their own interest over the interests of their clients when designing or using such technology. The new rules would require RIAs:

To evaluate their use of such technologies and identify and eliminate, or neutralize the effect of, any potential conflicts of interest
To adopt written policies and procedures to prevent violations of the rule and maintain books and records relating to their compliance with the new rules

4. Cybersecurity Risk Management and Outsourcing to Third Parties

The SEC has yet to issue a final rule on the 2022 proposed new rule 206(4)-9 to the Adviser’s Act which would require RIAs to adequately address cybersecurity risks and incidents. Similarly, the SEC still has to issue the final language for new rule 206(4)-11 that would establish oversight obligations for RIAs that outsource certain functions to third parties. A summary of the proposed rules can be found here: 2023 Regulatory Update for Investment Advisers: Miller Canfield

Category: finance

States Sue the Biden Administration to Stop Loan Relief Plan

Like this: