Category: finance

Banking Regulators Publish Proposed Rule to Update Community Reinvestment Act Regulations

On May 5, 2022, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (collectively the agencies) issued a joint notice of proposed rulemaking (the Proposed CRA Rule) that proposes changes to the way the agencies evaluate a bank’s performance under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The team at Bradley is conducting an in-depth review of the Proposed CRA Rule and expects to release a detailed blog post on the significant number of proposed changes to the CRA regulations in the coming days. Below are highlights of a few of the changes the agencies seek to make through the Proposed CRA Rule.

If implemented as written, the Proposed CRA Rule would:

  • Update the CRA evaluation framework, with performance standards tailored to a bank’s size and business model
  • Create four new performance tests to evaluate large bank CRA performance: the Retail Lending Test, Retail Services and Products Test, Community Development Financing Test, and Community Development Services Test
  • Establish specific performance tests for small and intermediate-sized banks
  • Update the requirements for the delineation of assessment areas
  • Create updated record-keeping, data collection, reporting, and disclosure requirements for large banks

These highlights are only a partial selection of the changes proposed by the agencies. Stay tuned for a more expansive description of the details of the Proposed CRA Rule.

The agencies are accepting comments on the Proposed CRA Rule through August 5, 2022. If your organization is considering submitting a public comment on the proposed changes to the CRA regulations, we suggest that you begin reviewing the Proposed CRA Rule soon.

© 2022 Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
For more articles about banking regulations, visit the NLR Financial, Securities & Banking section.

When Your Business Partner Uses Company Money to Purchase Assets for Himself, You Have a Remedy – If You Don’t Wait Too Long

Minority owners of closely-held businesses are often shocked to learn what their business partner – usually the majority owner – has been doing with the company’s money.  In some cases, an investigation reveals that your worst suspicions are true, and your partner has actually started a competing company on the side.  But diverting assets and resources can often have results other than an active, competing business.  Sometimes embezzlement is as simple as company funds being used to purchase assets – such as real estate – in which you, of course, have no ownership interest.  This can be done by having the jointly-owned company purchase the land outright, or make the mortgage payments on property your business partner has cut you out of.  Either way, joint money is being used to subsidize your partner’s solo venture.

I have had clients come to me believing that because they do not have an ownership interest in an asset, they cannot possibly have any rights to it, or in it.  But that is not necessarily true.  For example, in New Jersey, if you are a 1/3 owner of a company, and the 2/3 majority owner uses company money to buy real property, you may have an excellent argument that you should be legally recognized as a 1/3 owner of the property, or at least be entitled to 1/3 of any profits or proceeds from it. Similarly, if company monies are used to start a competing company, you may be entitled to be awarded 1/3 ownership of that competing company, or at least damages equaling 1/3 of that company’s profits.

The logic is obvious – 1/3 of the money improperly used effectively belongs to you.  However, many business owners suspect something like this for years but fail to act, usually because they think it’s too late once the money is gone.  If you believe money is unaccounted for in your own company, you are entitled to answers.  If you can’t understand why your business partner is suddenly devoting time to other business ventures, but will not explain to you what he is doing, you are entitled to answers.  If you do a search and learn that your business partner owns real estate, and you can’t understand how he paid for it and want to know if any of your money was used, you are entitled to answers.  You can get those answers in court – but the fact that you are entitled to do so should help you get them without resorting to a disruptive and expensive judicial filing.

When, exactly, you learned of the embezzlement will impact how long you have to take action before it is legally too late.  So if you have suspicions, don’t wait to seek legal advice.  You just may have more rights than you realize.

©2022 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved
For more content on business law, please visit the NLR White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights section.

Community Banks and Overdrafts — Time for Reconsideration?

Bank consumer overdraft fees (together with nonsufficient funds (NSF) fees and returned check fees) have long been a target of attacks by consumer advocacy groups and progressive politicians who claim that such fees are disproportionately levied on the most vulnerable consumers. The Obama-era Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) initiated efforts to regulate overdraft programs, which were shelved during the Trump administration, and legislation to restrict overdraft fees has regularly been proposed and considered by Congress, but not enacted.

2022, however, may be the year that the US financial regulatory agencies finally move to impose formal restrictions on banks’ overdraft fee programs. In particular, the CFPB, increasingly assertive in President Biden’s second year in office, has clearly signaled its intent to take action in this area:

  • Rohit Chopra, the director of the CFPB, has spoken out on numerous occasions — in public appearances, opinion pieces, and blog posts — regarding the imperative of reining in so-called junk fees charged by banks and other financial companies.
  • On January 26, 2022, the CFPB published a request for public comment targeting “exploitative junk fees,” including overdraft and NSF fees. The CFPB stated that the goal of its information request was to assist the agency’s plan to “craft rules, issue industry guidance, and focus supervision and enforcement resources,” with the goals of reducing excessive fees and eliminating illegal practices.

The attack on overdraft fee programs has been echoed by other administration officials as well as by allied politicians. Acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael Hsu has called traditional bank overdraft programs “a significant part” of a “regressive system” that penalizes the poor and has stated that “banks that hesitate to adopt pro-consumer overdraft programs will soon be negative outliers.” On March 31, 2022, the House Financial Services Subcommittee held a hearing on possible government intervention to restrict overdraft programs, clearly showing coordination by the committee majority with the Biden administration’s initiatives. In March 2022, a group of US Senate Democrats (including Banking Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown) sent letters to seven large banks urging them to abolish or significantly reduce overdraft and other fees, and in early April, New York Attorney General Letitia James, in recent letters signed by numerous other state attorneys general, asked the country’s four largest banks to eliminate consumer overdraft fees altogether by summer 2022.

Adding to the chorus of Biden administration and other political voices critical of overdraft fees has been a steady stream of announcements over the past year by many large banks regarding plans to eliminate or greatly restrict their overdraft and related fees. In January 2022 alone, five of the country’s largest banks announced the planned elimination of NSF fees and certain overdraft charges. These announcements add weight to the CFPB’s attacks on overdraft fee programs and will inevitably result in additional pressure on other large banks to follow suit.

The bottom line is that federal regulation of this area may finally be on the horizon, if not imminent, although it is anyone’s guess what form regulatory action will take. The initial targets of any action taken by the CFPB — whether formal rulemaking, statements of policy, or increased enforcement activity — are likely to be banking companies that have total assets in excess of $10 billion and that are thus subject to direct supervision by the CFPB. However, whatever new policy is implemented by the CFPB in this area will inevitably be applied by the three principal federal banking agencies to financial institutions of all sizes, and community banks should prepare themselves for increased examination scrutiny of their overdraft fee programs and the potential for enforcement actions.

Accordingly, community banks — especially those heavily reliant on overdraft fee income — should review their overdraft programs, ensure that they are compliant with existing regulations and best practices, and consider changes to respond to possible regulatory concerns. While it is impossible to react effectively to a regulatory regime that has not been proposed, much less implemented, reports and statements by the CFPB and other banking agencies provide some guidance. First, the CFPB has indicated that it will demand transparent and fully disclosed pricing of overdraft solutions that allow consumers to make an informed choice. In addition, Acting Comptroller Hsu stated in a December 2021 speech — in which he notably did not call for banks to eliminate overdraft fees — that the OCC had identified several features of bank overdraft programs that could be modified or recalibrated to help achieve the goal of improving the financial health of vulnerable consumers. He stated that these changes included:

  • Requiring consumer opt-in to the overdraft program.
  • Providing a grace period before charging an overdraft fee.
  • Allowing negative balances without triggering an overdraft fee.
  • Offering consumers balance-related alerts.
  • Providing consumers with access to real-time balance information.
  • Linking a consumer’s checking account to another account for overdraft protection.
  • Collecting overdraft or NSF fees from a consumer’s next deposit only after other items have been posted or cleared.
  • Not charging separate and multiple overdraft fees for multiple items in a single day and not charging additional fees when an item is re-presented.

Finally, community banks should closely monitor CFPB and other bank regulators’ overdraft fee initiatives, through state and national bankers associations and otherwise, and continue to explore potential methods of managing their overdraft programs in line with stated and possible future regulatory concerns.

© 2022 Jones Walker LLP
For more about banking institutions, visit the NLR Financial, Securities & Banking section.

The Biden Administration Proposes Mark-to-Market Minimum Tax on Individuals With More than $100 Million in Assets

Summary and Background.  On March 28, 2022, the Biden Administration proposed a 20% minimum tax on individuals who have more than $100 million in assets.  The minimum tax would be based on all economic income (which the proposal refers to as “total income”), including unrealized gain.  The tax would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2022.  The minimum tax would be fully phased in for taxpayers with assets of $200 million or more.

Under the proposal, an individual’s 2023 minimum tax liability would be payable in nine equal annual installments (e.g., in 2024-2032).  For 2024 and thereafter, the minimum tax liability would be payable in five annual installments.  The tax may be avoided by giving away assets to section 501(c)(3) organizations (including private foundations or donor-advised funds) or 501(c)(4) organizations before the effective date of the legislation so as to avoid the $100 million threshold.

The Biden proposal is an attempt to appeal to Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and address some criticisms of Senator Ron Wyden’s (D-Or.) mark-to-market proposal.  Senator Manchin has expressed support for a minimum 15% tax on individuals, and this support was apparently an impetus for the proposal.  Senator Manchin has not, however, expressed support for a mark-to-market minimum tax, and the Biden Administration does not appear to have received any support from Senator Manchin before releasing its proposal.

The five-year payment period is an attempt to address concerns that Wyden’s proposal might overtax volatile assets, and to “smooth” taxpayers’ cash flows without the need for the IRS to issue refunds.  Under the Biden Administration’s proposal, installment payments of the minimum tax may be reduced to the extent of unrealized losses.

The minimum tax is being described as a “prepayment” that may be credited against subsequent taxes on realized income.  This description provides a backup argument on constitutionality: the minimum tax isn’t a tax on unrealized income but is merely a prepayment of tax on realized income.

Operation of the Minimum Tax.  The minimum tax would apply to taxpayers with wealth (assets less liabilities) in excess of $100 million.  The proposal does not define liabilities, and does not indicate whether a taxpayer would be deemed to own the assets of his or her children, or trusts.  Therefore it is unclear as to whether a taxpayer who is close to the $100 million threshold may avoid the tax by giving away assets to children.  As mentioned above, a taxpayer can give assets to section 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) organizations to avoid the threshold, and so, if the minimum tax is enacted, donations to charity would be expected to dramatically increase.

The proposal phases in for taxpayers with wealth between $100 million and $200 million.  The phase in is achieved mechanically by reducing the tax liability to the extent that the sum of (w) the minimum tax liability, and (x) the uncredited prepayments exceeds two times (y) the minimum tax rate, times (z) the amount by which the taxpayer’s wealth exceeds $100 million.  Thus, for a taxpayer with $150 million of wealth and a zero basis and no prior prepayments, the $30 million of minimum tax liability would be reduced by $10 million to equal $20 million.  ($10 million is amount by which (x) $30 million exceeds (y) $20 million, which is 40% [two times the minimum tax rate] times $50 million [the amount by which the taxpayer’s wealth exceeds $100 million].)

A taxpayer subject to the minimum tax would make two calculations:  Their “normal” tax liability under our current realization system, and the “minimum” tax under the proposal. Tax would be paid on the greater of the two.

For purposes of the 20% minimum tax, the taxpayer would include all unrealized gain on “tradeable assets.”  The proposal does not define tradeable assets.  Tradeable assets would be valued using end-of-year market prices.  The taxpayer would also include all unrealized gain on “non-tradeable assets.”  Non-tradeable assets would be valued using the greater of (i) the original or adjusted cost basis, (ii) the last valuation event from investment (i.e., a round of equity financing), (iii) borrowing (i.e., a lender’s appraisal), (iv) financial statements, or (v) other methods approved by the IRS.  Original or adjusted cost basis would be deemed to increase at a rate equal to the five-year Treasury rate plus two percentage points.  The five-year Treasury rate is currently 2.76% and so, at today’s rates, non-traded assets without a valuation event would deemed to increase in value at a 4.76% annual rate.  The proposal would not require valuations of non-tradeable assets.

While a taxpayer would be subject to the minimum tax if it exceeds the normal tax, as mentioned above, payment of the minimum tax would be made in equal annual installments (nine for the first year of minimum tax liability and five thereafter).

So, assume that a taxpayer purchases an equity interest in a non-traded C corporation on January 1, 2023 for $200 million.  The taxpayer has no realized income and no other assets.  The taxpayer would have zero “normal” tax.  Assume that the five-year Treasury rate is 2.76%.  The investment would be deemed to increase in value by 4.76% (to $209.5 million).  The minimum tax would be 20% of $9.5 million, or $1.9 million.  If this was the taxpayer’s first year subject to the minimum tax, the minimum tax liability would be $211,111 in each of years 2024-32, subject to the “illiquid exception” described below.  If the taxpayer subsequently sells the C corporation, it would credit the minimum tax prepayments against his or her income tax liability.

Payments of the minimum tax would be treated as a prepayment available to be credited against subsequent taxes on realized gains.

The Biden Administration has separately proposed that death would give rise to a realization event.  If a taxpayer’s prepayments in excess of tax liability exceed gains at death, the taxpayer would be entitled to a refund.  The refund would be included in a single decedent’s gross estate for estate tax purposes.  Net uncredited used prepayments of a married decedent would be transferred to the surviving spouse (or as otherwise provided in regulations).

In contrast to Senator Wyden’s proposal, which does not require that tax be paid on unrealized gain for non-traded assets, and instead imposes a deferral charge upon realization, the Biden Administration’s proposal generally requires that minimum tax be calculated with respect to all unrealized gain, including deemed appreciation on non-traded assets, subject to an “illiquid exception.”  If tradeable assets held directly or indirectly make up less than 20% of a taxpayer’s wealth, the taxpayer may elect to include only unrealized gain in tradeable assets in the calculation of their minimum tax liability.  A taxpayer that makes this election would be subject to a deferral charge upon realization to the extent of gain, but the deferral charge would not exceed 10% of unrealized gain.  The proposal does not indicate the rate of the deferral charge.

This aspect of the Biden Administration’s proposal provides a meaningful benefit to “illiquid” taxpayers and encourages taxpayers to become “illiquid” to qualify for the exception.  The proposal provides that tradeable assets held “indirectly” are treated as owned by the taxpayer for this purpose and therefore it is unclear whether and to what extent taxpayers can contribute tradeable assets into nontradeable vehicles to qualify for the illiquid exception.  The proposal would provide the IRS with specific authority to issue rules to prevent taxpayers from inappropriately converting tradeable assets to non-tradeable assets.

Estimated tax payments would not be required for minimum tax liability, and the minimum tax payments would be excluded from the prior year’s tax liability for purposes of computing estimated tax required to avoid the penalty for underpayment of estimated taxes.

The tax is expected to affect 20,000 taxpayers (in contrast to roughly 700 under Wyden’s plan) but to generate approximately the same amount of revenue as Wyden’s proposal: $360 billion over ten years as estimated by the Treasury Department (which is expected to be around $550 billion over 10 years under the Joint Committee on Taxation’s “scoring” methodology).

Article By Robert Gaut, Martin T Hamilton, and Colleen Hart at Proskauer Rose LLP

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

© 2022 Proskauer Rose LLP.

Cryptocurrency As Compensation: Beware Of The Risks

A small but growing number of employees are asking for cryptocurrency as a form of compensation.  Whether a substitute for wages or as part of an incentive package, offering cryptocurrency as compensation has become a way for some companies to differentiate themselves from others.  In a competitive labor market, this desire to provide innovative forms of compensation is understandable.  But any company thinking about cryptocurrency needs to be aware of the risks involved, including regulatory uncertainties and market volatility.

Form of Payment – Cash or Negotiable Instrument

The federal Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to pay minimum and overtime wages in “cash or negotiable instrument payable at par.”  This has long been interpreted to include only fiat currencies—monies backed by a governmental authority.  As non-fiat currencies, cryptocurrencies therefore fall outside the FLSA’s definition of “cash or negotiable instrument.”  As a result, an employer who chooses to pay minimum and/or overtime wages in cryptocurrency may violate the FLSA by failing to pay workers with an accepted form of compensation.

In addition, various state laws make the form of wage payment question even more difficult.  For example, Maryland requires payment in United States currency or by check that “on demand is convertible at face value into United States currency.”  Pennsylvania requires that wages shall be made in “lawful money of the United States or check.”  And California prohibits compensation that is made through “coupon, cards or other thing[s] redeemable…otherwise than in money.”  It is largely unclear whether payment in cryptocurrency runs afoul of these state requirements.

Of note, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) allows employers to satisfy FLSA minimum wage and overtime regulations with foreign currencies as long as the conversion to U.S. dollars meets the required wage thresholds.  But neither the DOL nor courts have weighed in on whether certain cryptocurrencies (e.g., Bitcoin) are the equivalent, for FLSA purposes, of a foreign currency.

Volatility Concerns

When compared to the rather stable value of the U.S. dollar, the value of cryptocurrencies is subject to large fluctuations.  Bitcoin, for example, lost nearly 83% of its value in May 2013, approximately 50% of its value in March 2020, and recently lost and then gained 16% of its value in the span of approximately 15 minutes one day in February 2021.

Such volatility can give payroll vendors a nightmare and can, in some instances, lead to the under-payment of wages or violation of minimum wage or overtime requirements under the FLSA.

Tax and Benefits Considerations

Aside from wage and hour issues, the payment of cryptocurrency implicates a host of tax and benefits-related issues.  The IRS considers virtual currencies to be “property,” subject to capital gains tax rates.  It has also confirmed in guidance materials that any payment to employees in a virtual currency must be reported on a W-2 based upon the value of the currency in U.S. dollars at the time it was delivered to the employee.  This means that cryptocurrency wage payments are subject to Federal income tax withholding, Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax, and Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) tax.

For 401k plan fiduciaries, the Department of Labor recently issued guidance that should serve as a stern warning to any fiduciary looking to invest 401k funds into cryptocurrencies.  Specifically, the DOL wrote: “[a]t this early stage in the history of cryptocurrencies, the Department has serious concerns about the prudence of a fiduciary’s decision to expose a 401(k) plan’s participants to direct investments in cryptocurrencies, or other products whose value is tied to cryptocurrencies.”  Given the risks inherent in cryptocurrency speculation, the DOL stated that any fiduciary allowing such investment options “should expect to be questioned [by the DOL] about how they can square their actions with their duties of prudence and loyalty in light of the risks.”

Considerations for Employers

Given the combination of uncertain and untested legal risks, employers should consider limiting cryptocurrency compensation models to payments that do not implicate the FLSA or applicable state wage and hour laws.  For example, an employer might provide an exempt employee’s base salary in U.S. dollars and any annual discretionary bonus in cryptocurrency.

Whether investing in cryptocurrencies themselves to pay employees or utilizing a third-party to convert US dollars into cryptocurrency, employers should also stay abreast of the evolving tax and benefits guidance in this area.

Ultimately, the only thing that is clear about cryptocurrency compensation is that any decision to provide such compensation to employees should be made with a careful eye towards the unique wage, tax, and benefits-related issues implicated by these transactions.

Article By Daniel J. Butler and Kevin J. White of Hunton Andrews Kurth

For more cryptocurrency and finance legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.

The DOJ Throws Cold Water on the Frosties NFT Founders

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York recently charged two individuals for allegedly participating in a scheme to defraud purchasers of “Frosties” non-fungible tokens (or “NFTs”) out of over $1 million. The two-count complaint charges Ethan Nguyen (aka “Frostie”) and Andre Llacuna (aka “heyandre”) with conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 and conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956.   Each charge carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

The Defendants marketed “Frosties” as the entry point to a broader online community consisting of games, reward programs, and other benefits.  In January 2022, their “Frosties” pre-sale raised approximately $1.1 million.

In a so-called “rug pull,” Frostie and heyandre transferred the funds raised through the pre-sale to a series of separate cryptocurrency wallets, eliminated Frosties’ online presence, and took down its website.  The transaction, which was publicly recorded and viewable on the blockchain, triggered investors to sell Frosties at a considerable discount.  Frostie and heyandre then allegedly proceeded to move the funds through a series of transactions intended to obfuscate the source and increase anonymity.  The charges came as the Defendants were preparing for the March 26 pre-sale of their next NFT project, “Embers,” which law enforcement alleges would likely have followed the same course as “Frosties.”

In a public statement announcing the arrests, the DOJ explained how the emerging NFT market is a risk-laden environment that has attracted the attention of scam artists.  Representatives from each of the federal agencies that participated in the investigation cautioned the public and put other potential fraudsters on notice of the government’s watchful eye towards cryptocurrency malfeasance.

This investigation comes on the heels of the FBI’s announcement last month of the Virtual Asset Exploitation Unit, a special task force dedicated to blockchain analysis and virtual asset seizure.  The prosecution of the Defendants in this matter continues aggressive efforts by federal agencies to reign in bad actors participating in the cryptocurrency/digital assets/blockchain space.

Article By Matthew G. Lindenbaum, Robert L. Lindholm, and Daniel Curran of Nelson Mullins

For more crypto and cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright ©2022 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

Vehicle Sales Continue Their Depression

Anyone want to buy a vehicle? A better question might be: anyone got a vehicle for sale? Whether because of supply side issues, demand side issues, other issues, or all of the above, the fact remains that the first quarter of 2022 was not a good quarter for vehicle sales.  Just ask the manufactures who saw double digit drops in new light-vehicle sales: 23% for Honda; 20% for GM; 17% for Ford; 15% for Toyota; and 14% for Stellantis. While the numbers sound like doom and gloom, the manufacturers were not dour. Honda was quite positive about its numbers, noting that demand was strong and they just could not make enough vehicles to sell more, “we’re riding a bit of a roller coaster due to fluctuating parts supply issues, but strong March sales for Honda and Acura speak to the fact that demand remains strong and our retail deliveries are based primarily on what we can supply to our dealers.”

Some other interesting tidbits from sales data:

As a result, LMC Automotive and Cox Automotive each reduced their full-year U.S. light-vehicle sales forecast to 15.3 million units, citing a slower pace to recovery from market constraints. LMC referred to inventory levels as “critically low.”  Cox led its report by noting that not only are inventories low, but prices are high and sales incentives have vanished (note – this is how that entire supply/demand thing works).  Cox laid it all at the feet of supply: “Auto sales will basically be stuck at the current level until more supply arrives.”

Globally, the pandemic is not over. This continues to have the potential to drastically impact global vehicle volumes, especially in China. Global vehicle production could lose up to 1.5 million units this year if China’s COVID-Zero policy is maintained, according to estimates from Fitch Solutions quoted in Bloomberg. Most recently, phased lockdowns in Shanghai in response to COVID-19 outbreaks disrupted production for several major automakers and suppliers.

Add to that, the ongoing microchip shortage (for which no end appears in sight) is causing production downtime at various plants: Jeep production at Stellantis’ Mack Assembly plant in Detroit and Belvidere Assembly plant in Illinois; Chevrolet Silverado 1500 and GMC Sierra 1500 production at GM’s Fort Wayne Assembly plant; and Mustang production at Ford’s Flat Rock Assembly plant. Let’s not forget the war in Ukraine, leading to German automakers potentially losing up to 150,000 units of production in March due to supply disruptions.

Oddly, the industry feels both healthy (revenue, profits, margins, etc.) and stressed with an unceratin future (see above) all at the same time.  Also oddly, but strangely not so oddly, nothing about this situation feels new.  Is this the new normal?

Article By Jeffrey A. Soble of Foley & Lardner LLP

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

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

President Biden’s FY 2023 Budget Request Would Strengthen TSCA and Tackle PFAS Pollution

On March 28, 2022, the Biden Administration submitted to Congress President Biden’s budget for fiscal year (FY) 2023. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) March 28, 2022, press release, the budget makes critical investments, including:

  • Strengthening EPA’s Commitment and Ability to Implement Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Successfully: The budget provides $124 million and 449 full time equivalents (FTE) for TSCA efforts “to deliver on the promises made to the American people by the bipartisan Lautenberg Act.” According to the budget, “[t]hese resources will support EPA-initiated chemical risk evaluations and protective regulations in accordance with statutory timelines.”
  • Tackling Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Pollution: PFAS are a group of man-made chemicals that threaten the health and safety of communities across the United States. As part of the President’s commitment to tackling PFAS pollution, the budget provides approximately $126 million in FY 2023 for EPA to increase its understanding of human health and ecological effects of PFAS, restrict uses to prevent PFAS from entering the air, land, and water, and remediate PFAS that have been released into the environment. EPA states that it will continue to act on its PFAS Strategic Roadmap to safeguard communities from PFAS contamination.

Article By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

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

©2022 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

French Insider Episode 12: Navigating the Metaverse with Jim Gatto [PODCAST]

Joining host Sarah Aberg is Jim Gatto. Jim joins us today to discuss the metaverse, the technology and business models involved in these virtual worlds, the role of NFTs and cryptocurrency in the digital economy, and the legal, regulatory, and governance issues that can arise when companies seek to enter that space.

Jim Gatto is a partner in Sheppard Mullin’s Washington, D.C. office, where he leads the  Blockchain & Fintech Team, Social Media & Games Team, and Open Source Team. Jim’s practice focuses on blockchain, interactive entertainment, digital art, AI, and online gambling. He advises clients on IP strategies, development and publishing agreements, licensing and technology transaction agreements, and tech regulatory issues. Jim has been involved with blockchain since 2012 and has been recognized as a thought leader by leading organizations including as a Cryptocurrency, Blockchain and Fintech Trailblazer by the National Law Journal.

Sarah Aberg is special counsel in the White Collar Defense and Corporate Investigations Group in Sheppard Mullin’s New York office. Sarah’s practice encompasses litigation, internal investigations and white collar defense.  Her areas of focus include financial services and securities, as well as corporate fraud in a variety of industries, including technology, construction, and non-profits.  Sarah’s regulatory practice encompasses market regulation, foreign registration and disclosure requirements, supervisory procedures, and sales practices.  Sarah represents corporations, financial services companies, and associated individuals in connection with investigations and regulatory matters before the U.S. Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, FINRA, the New York Stock Exchange, the New York State Department of Financial Services, and the New York Attorney General’s Office.

What We Discussed in This Episode:

  1. What is the Metaverse?
  2. How Do Metaverses Differ from Earlier Virtual Worlds?
  3. What Role Do NFTs Play in the Digital Economy?
  4. Investing in a Metaverse: What are the Risks?
  5. What are Legal, Regulatory, and Tax Considerations?
  6. What Governance Issues Exist for Brands Operating in a Metaverse?
  7. What are the Inflationary and Deflationary Aspects of the Virtual Economy?
  8. How Might Blockchain and Cryptocurrency Alter International Financial Transactions?
  9. Is the World Moving into a Virtual/Digital Economy?

Article By Sarah E. Aberg and James G. Gatto of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

For more technology and internet legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Russian Sanctions Create Patent Risks

While multi-national sanctions recently imposed on Russia were intended to punish Russia for its aggression in Ukraine, the effects of the sanctions have led to a need for tough decisions for U.S. entities with patent interests in Russia.  The prohibitions on financial exchanges with certain Russian banks will essentially prevent any payment of fees to Rospatent (the Russian patent office), and although a general license from the Department of the Treasury provides a short window for winding down certain administrative transactions, U.S. entities engaged in patent transactions with Rospatent only have a short time to make decisions about current and future patent activities in Russia.

Prohibited Activities

On February 28, 2022, the Department of the Treasury initiated prohibitions related to transactions involving certain financial institutions in Russia, including the Central Bank of the Russian Federation.1 The directive specifically prohibits a United States person (unless otherwise excepted or licensed) from engaging in any transaction involving the listed financial institutions, including any transfer of assets to such entities or any foreign exchange transaction for or on behalf of such entities.  Under the directive, the prohibitions are specifically worded to include: (1) any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions of the directive; and (2) any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions of the directive.

Notably, the prohibited activities do not expressly prevent any transactions of a U.S. person with Rospatent.  And although the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has cut off direct engagement with Rospatent for carrying out activities such as use of the Global Patent Prosecution Highway (GPPH) program2, Rospatent is not currently a sanctioned entity under the directive.  This, however, is essentially a distinction without a difference.  Moreover, since the USPTO (and also the European Patent Office) has already cut ties with Rospatent, there still remains the possibility that Rospatent itself will be added to the sanctions at a future date and thus completely eliminate any pursuits by U.S. persons with Rospatent.

The current sanctions directly affect entities seeking patent protection in Russia since payments of required fees related to patent applications and granted patents in Russia are processed through the Central Bank of the Russian Federation.  This includes a number of financial transactions, such as payment of government filings fees for directly filing a patent application in Russia or filing a national phase of an international PCT application in Russia, as well as incidental fees incurred during prosecution of pending Russian patent applications and payment of yearly maintenance fees for issued Russian patents.  This would also include payment of yearly maintenance fees for patents obtained through the Eurasian Patent Organization (EAPO) and maintained in Russia since such fees paid to the EAPO must be forwarded to Rospatent.  Because of the intertwining of Rospatent with the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, any fees paid to Rospatent must be considered equivalent to making a transaction through said bank.

Patent prosecution in Rospatent requires engagement with a Russian patent practitioner.  While U.S. entities pursuing patent interests in Russia are unlikely to directly engage Rospatent and pay fees that are ultimately processed through the prohibited bank, it is clear from the directive that strategies, such as routing payments through countries that are neutral in relation to sanctions, are prohibited.  As noted above, the directive prohibits any transaction that actually “evades or avoids” the other prohibitions of the directive, as wells as any transaction that “has the purpose of evading or avoiding” the other prohibitions.  This language appears to have the potential to ensnare purposeful non-adherence as well as actions that unwittingly end in non-adherence (e.g., forgetting to discontinue an automated payment of a patent maintenance fee to Rospatent).

Deadline for Administrative Transactions

U.S. entities still have time to complete administrative transactions with Rospatent despite the February implementation of the directive.  On March 2, 2022, the Department of the Treasury issued a general license authorizing certain transactions that are otherwise prohibited by the directive.3  The license authorizes U.S. persons to pay taxes, fees, or import duties, and purchase or receive permits, licenses, registrations or certifications to the extent such transactions are prohibited under the directive, provided such transactions are ordinarily incident and necessary to such persons’ day-to-day operations in the Russian Federation.  For at least U.S. entities whose day-to-day operations include securing and maintaining intellectual property, including in Russia, this license provides a window to complete activities and avoid violation of the directive.  Currently, the transaction window provided under the license runs through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on June 24, 2022.

Forming a Russian Patent Strategy

The incursion of Russia into Ukraine has been underway for shortly more than one month, but there is no way to know when hostilities may cease.  Moreover, even when peace is achieved, it is impossible to know how long the current sanctions against Russia may continue.  Those familiar with patent law know that the business of obtaining patents is a deadline-driven venture, and uncertainty of time quickly breaks apart the paradigm.  A “wait and see” approach thus has the potential to result in a loss of patent rights as well as possible liability for knowingly or unknowingly engaging in activities that are prohibited under the directive.  Anyone engaged in patent activities in Russia thus would be advised to undertake a portfolio review and utilize the time remaining under the General License to form a plan that ensures compliance with the current sanctions.  This can include at least the following items.

Anyone engaged in patent activities in Russia thus would be advised to undertake a portfolio review and utilize the time remaining under the General License to form a plan that ensures compliance with the current sanctions.

  • Proceeding with Grant of Presently Allowed Applications – For Applicants that have received a Notice of Allowance with a due date after expiration of the General License, one may consider early payment of the fees.  This should only be done, however, to the extent that it is possible to confirm that payment will be processed through Rospatent and the Central Bank of the Russian Federation prior to the expiration of the General License on June 24, 2022.
  • Annuities on Granted Patents – Any patent annuity paid to Rospatent after the General License expires should be assumed to be in violation of the current sanctions.  Patent holders that engage a patent annuity service should contact their provider to confirm that they have a plan in place for compliance with the sanctions.  Some annuity services have, in fact, already announced that they will no longer make payments to the Rospatent until further notice.  Presumably, for Russian patents with annuities due in 2022, early payment could be made in the hope that normalcy will ensure prior to the deadline in 2023, but such action should only be taken to the extent one can ensure that payment is processed through Rospatent and the Central Bank of the Russian Federation before the deadline.  Even then, it may be advisable to consider whether “early” payment of patent annuities would be considered to be “ordinarily incident” to day-to-day operations of a person’s patent pursuits.  In the alternative, a patent owner should confirm that any Russian patents are under a “do not pay” order with their annuity provider to avoid an unintentional, automated payment in violation of the sanctions.
  • Filing a Direct or National Phase Patent Application – If a new patent application in Russia is planned, or if the deadline for national phase entry of a PCT application is approaching, one may consider early filing prior to the expiration of the General License.  This could be done in the hope that a deadline for payment of future fees to Rospatent do not arise before the time that sanctions are lifted.  This is seen to be a risky proposition since it is unknown how quickly Rospatent processes paid fees through the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, and it is likewise unknown to what extent a fee paid to Rospatent before expiration of the General License but only processed through the Central Bank of the Russian Federation after expiration would be viewed as being in violation of the sanctions.  Moreover, if Rospatent itself is later added to the sanctions, any early filings would be at significant risk for abandonment due to an inability to continue transactions with Rospatent.
  • Filing Through EAPO as an Alternative to Russia – Russia is one of several countries where patent protection can be secured based on a granted patent from the EAPO.  As of this writing, the banks utilized for processing financial transactions for the EAPO (AO UniCredit Bank and AO Raiffeisenbank) are not included in the U.S. sanctions.  As such, direct filing or national stage entry with the EAPO can provide an alternate pathway for patent protection in Russia.  The cessation of interaction between the USPTO and the EAPO would not have a bearing on this option, but care would need to be taken to ensure that all documents otherwise transferrable directly between the offices are handled by other routes.  Once a patent is granted by the EAPO and Russia is elected as a country for maintenance of the patent, annuities paid to the EAPO are forwarded to Rospatent.  As such, this alternative pathway is only effective for patents where annuities in Russia would not become due until after lifting of sanctions.  As the average length of time for completion of patent prosecution with the EAPO is generally two or more years, one would hope that the current situation in Russia would be resolved within that timeframe.  Again, however, uncertainty remains.
  • Using Russia as an International Search Authority – Rospatent is one of the limited number of patent offices available for use as the ISA in a PCT application, and Rospatent may be preferred because of the relatively low cost relative to other ISA options.  Search fees paid to the World Intellectual Proper Organization (WIPO) are forwarded to Rospatent when chosen as the ISA, and it is not possible to ensure that such fees paid to WIPO will be forwarded to Rospatent, and then to the Central Bank of the Russian Federation before the expiration of the General License deadline.  As such, it is recommended to not use Rospatent as the ISA in any PCT application from now until sanctions are lifted.
  • Enforcement of Granted Russian Patents – A comprehensive patent strategy in Russia must now also consider the relative value of any Russian patents in light of the recent decree on patent enforceability in Russia.4   Therein, any holder of a Russian Patent from a so-called “unfriendly” foreign state is required to give a mandatory license with no compensation to anyone in Russia wishing to exercise the right of use without consent of the patent owner.  As with the entire situation, uncertainty reigns with this decree, and it is impossible to know when (if ever) rights of Russian patent holders from “unfriendly” states will be returned.  Accordingly, a Russian patent strategy must consider not only options for proceeding in the near term to secure rights to the extent possible but must also consider the reality that any “rights” that are secured with a Russian patent are of no effect and will be for the foreseeable future.

Next Steps

For anyone with significant patent interests in Russia, time is of the essence for cementing a strategy for moving forward.  For some, the most expeditious approach could be to simply close your file on any Russian patents and patent applications.  If such approach is taken, careful attention must be made, as noted above, to ensure that any possibility of a fee being paid to Rospatent after June 24, 2022, is eliminated.  For others, investments in Russia may not allow for a complete abandonment of possible future patent enforcement rights in Russia.  If actions as noted above are taken to “batten down the hatches” of the Russian patent portfolio prior to the deadline in order to weather this storm, timing is again crucial in order to avoid unintentional engagement in sanctioned activities.  Also, moving to patent filings through the EAPO as a starting point for Russia can be an effective workaround so long as Russian sanctions get lifted before any patent annuities through an EAPO patent would become due in Russia.  Finally, in forming a strategy, one also must consider that even before its recent decree on patent enforceability, Russia was already one of nine countries on the United States Trade Representative (USTR) “Special 301 Report”  of trading partners presenting the most significant concerns regarding insufficient IP protection or enforcement or actions that otherwise limited market access for persons relying on intellectual property protection.

1  Directive 4 Under Executive Order 14024, “Prohibitions Related to Transactions Involving the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, the National Wealth Fund of the Russian Federation, and the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation,” February 28, 2022, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury.  See, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/eo14024_directive_4_02282022….
2  USPTO Statement on Engagement with Russia, the Eurasian Patent Organization, and Belarus, March 22, 2022.  See, https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-statement-engagement-r….
3  General License No. 13, “Authorizing Certain Administrative Transactions Prohibited by Directive 4 Under Executive Order 14024, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, March 2, 2022.  See, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/russia_gl13.pdf. 
4  Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 06.03.2022 No. 299 “On Amendments to Clause 2 of the Methodology for Determining the Amount of Compensation Paid to a Patent Owner When Deciding to Use an Invention, Utility Model or Industrial Design without His Consent, and the Procedure for its Payment.” See, http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001202203070005?index=0&r…

Article By Ryan Cagle of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP

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

Copyright © 2022 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP All Rights Reserved.