Category: finance

CFPB to Examine College Lending Practices

On January 20, the CFPB announced that it would begin examining the operations of post-secondary schools that offer private loans directly to students and update its exam procedures to include a new section on institutional student loans.  The CFPB highlights its concern about the student borrower experience in light of alleged past abuses at schools that were previously sued by the CFPB for unfair and abusive practices in connection with their in-house private loan programs.

When examining institutions offering private education loans, in addition to looking at general lending issues, CFPB examiners will be looking at the following areas:

  • Placing enrollment or attendance restrictions on students with loan delinquencies;
  • Withholding transcripts;
  • Accelerating payments;
  • Failing to issue refunds; and
  • Maintaining improper lending relationships

This announcement was accompanied by a brief remark from CFPB Director Chopra:  “Schools that offer students loans to attend their classes have a lot of power over their students’ education and financial future.  It’s time to open up the books on institutional student lending to ensure all students with private student loans are not harmed by illegal practices.”

Putting it Into Practice:  The CFPB’s concern with the experience of student borrowers is in line with a number of enforcement actions pursued by the Bureau against post-secondary schools.  The education loan exam procedures manual is intended for use by Bureau examiners, and is available as a resource to those subject to its exams. These procedures will be incorporated into the Bureau’s general supervision and examination manual.

Article By Moorari Shah, A.J. S. Dhaliwal, and Pouneh Almasi of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

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

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

SEC Rejects Listing of Two Bitcoin ETFs

The SEC rejected two proposals to list and trade shares in two Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”).

The SEC rejected a proposal from NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Arca”) to list and trade shares of the Valkyrie Bitcoin Fund. The SEC also rejected a proposal from CBOE BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”) to list and trade shares of the Kryptoin Bitcoin ETF Trust.

The SEC assessed whether the exchanges (i) had a comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement with a significant, regulated market, and (ii) could effectively prevent fraudulent and manipulative activity. In the rejected proposals, the SEC noted its concerns over the abilities of the exchanges to adequately meet the requirements under SEA Section 6(b)(5) (“Determination by Commission Requisite to Registration of Applicant as a National Securities Exchange”) in protecting investors and the public interest by preventing fraudulent and manipulative practices.

The SEC rejected Arca’s argument that (i) liquidity, (ii) price arbitrage, and (iii) frameworks to value assets would be sufficient to mitigate potential manipulation.

Similarly, the SEC rejected BZX’s proposal, concluding “that BZX has not established that it has a comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement with a regulated market of significant size related to bitcoin,” and “that BZX has not established that other means to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices are sufficient to justify dispensing with the requisite surveillance-sharing agreement.”

As a result, the SEC found that both exchanges had failed to prove that they could meet their burdens under SEA Section 6(b)(5).

© Copyright 2021 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
For more articles on cryptocurrency exchanges, visit the NLR Financial Securities & Banking.

CFPB Solicits Whistleblowers to Strengthen Enforcement of Consumer Financial Protection Laws

In its revamped whistleblower webpage, the CFPB is enlisting the help of whistleblowers to provide tips about the following issues:

  • Any discrimination related to consumer financial products or services or small businesses
  • Any use of artificial intelligence/machine learning models that is based on flawed or incomplete data sets, that uses proxies for race, gender, or other group characteristics, or that impacts particular groups or classes of people more than others;
  • Misleading or deceptive advertising of consumer financial products or services, including mortgages
  • Failure to collect, maintain, and report accurate mortgage loan application and origination data
  • Failure to provide or use accurate consumer reporting information
  • Failure to review mortgage borrowers’ loss mitigation applications in a timely manner
  • Any unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice with respect to any consumer financial product or service.

The CFPB has also announced that it seeks tips to help it combat the role of Artificial Intelligence in enabling intentional and unintentional discrimination in decision-making systems.  For example, a recent study of algorithmic mortgage underwriting revealed that Black and Hispanic families have been more likely to be denied a mortgage compared to similarly situated white families.

Proposed CFPB Whistleblower Reward Program

Currently, there is no whistleblower reward program at the CFPB and sanctions collected in CFPB enforcement actions do not qualify for SEC related action whistleblower awards.  In light of the success of the SEC’s Whistleblower Program as an effective tool to protect investors and strengthen capital markets, the CFPB requested that Congress establish a rewards program to strengthen the CFPB’s enforcement of consumer financial protection laws.

In September 2021, Senator Catherine Cortez Masto introduced the Financial Compensation for Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Whistleblowers Act (S. 2775), which would establish a whistleblowers rewards program at the CFPB similar to the SEC Whistleblower Program.  It would authorize the CFPB to reward whistleblowers between 10% to 30% of collected monetary sanctions in a successful enforcement action where the penalty exceeds $1 million.  And in cases involving monetary penalties of less than $1 million, the CFPB would be able to award any single whistleblower 10% of the amount collected or $50,000, whichever is greater.

The Financial Compensation for CFPB Whistleblowers Act is cosponsored by Chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee Senator Sherrod Brown and Senators Dick Durbin, Elizabeth Warren, Jeff Merkley, Richard Blumenthal, and Tina Smith. In the House, Representative Al Green introduced a companion bill (H.R. 5484).

A whistleblower reward program at the CFPB could significantly augment enforcement of consumer financial protection laws, including laws barring unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices.  The CFPB has authority over a broad array of consumer financial products and services, including mortgages, deposit taking, credit cards, loan servicing, check guaranteeing, collection of consumer report data, debt collection associated with consumer financial products and services, real estate settlement, money transmitting, and financial data processing.  In addition, the CFPB is the primary consumer compliance supervisory, enforcement, and rulemaking authority over depository institutions with more than $10 billion in assets.

Hopefully, Congress will act swiftly to enact the Financial Compensation for CFPB Whistleblowers Act.

Protection for CFPB Whistleblowers

Although Congress did not establish a whistleblower reward program when it created the CFPB, it included a strong whistleblower protection provision in the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA).  The anti-retaliation provision of the Consumer Financial Protection Act provides a cause of action for corporate whistleblowers who suffer retaliation for raising concerns about potential violations of rules or regulations of the CFPC.

Workers Protected by the CFPA Anti-Retaliation Law

The term “covered employee” means “any individual performing tasks related to the offering or provision of a consumer financial product or service.”  The CFPA defines a “consumer financial product or service” to include “a wide variety of financial products or services offered or provided for use by consumers primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, and certain financial products or services that are delivered, offered, or provided in connection with a consumer financial product or service . . . Examples of these include . .. residential mortgage origination, lending, brokerage and servicing, and related products and services such as mortgage loan modification and foreclosure relief; student loans; payday loans; and other financial services such as debt collection, credit reporting, credit cards and related activities, money transmitting, check cashing and related activities, prepaid cards, and debt relief services.”

Scope of Protected Whistleblowing About Consumer Financial Protection Violations

The CFPA protects disclosures made to an employer, to the CFPB or any State, local, or Federal, government authority or law enforcement agency concerning any act or omission that the employee reasonably believes to be a violation of any CFPB regulation or any other consumer financial protection law that the Bureau enforces. This includes several federal laws regulating “unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices . . . related to the provision of consumer financial products or services.”

Some of the matters the CFPB regulates include:

  • kickbacks paid to mortgage issuers or insurers;
  • deceptive advertising;
  • discriminatory lending practices, including a violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”);
  • excessive fees;
  • any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt; and
  • debt collection activities that violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

Some of the consumer financial protection laws that the CFPB enforces include:

  • Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act;
  • Home Mortgage Disclosure Act;
  • Equal Credit Opportunity Act;
  • Truth in Lending Act;
  • Truth in Savings Act;
  • Fair Credit Billing Act;
  • Fair Credit Reporting Act;
  • Electronic Fund Transfer Act;
  • Consumer Leasing Act;
  • Fair Debt Collection Practices Act;
  • Home Owners Protection Act; and
  • Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act

Reasonable Belief Standard in Banking Whistleblower Retaliation Cases

The CFPA whistleblower protection law employs a reasonable belief standard.  As long as the plaintiff’s belief is reasonable, the whistleblower is protected, even if the whistleblower makes a mistake of law or fact about the underlying violation of a law or regulation under the CFPB’s jurisdiction.

Prohibited Retaliation

The CFPA anti-retaliation law proscribes a broad range of adverse employment actions, including terminating, “intimidating, threatening, restraining, coercing, blacklisting or disciplining, any covered employee or any authorized representative of covered employees” because of the employee’s protected whistleblowing.

Proving CFPA Whistleblower Retaliation

To prevail in a CFPA whistleblower retaliation claim, the whistleblower need only prove that his or her protected conduct was a contributing factor in the adverse employment action, i.e., that the protected activity, alone or in combination with other factors, affected in some way the outcome of the employer’s decision.

Where the employer takes the adverse employment action “shortly after” learning about the protected activity, courts may infer a causal connection between the two.  Van Asdale v. Int’l Game Tech., 577 F.3d 989, 1001 (9th Cir. 2009).

Filing a CFPA Financial Whistleblower Retaliation Claim

CFPA complaints are filed with OSHA, and the statute of limitations is 180 days from the date when the alleged violation occurs, which is the date on which the retaliatory decision has been both made and communicated to the whistleblower.

The complaint need not be in any particular form and can be filed orally with OSHA. A CFPA complaint need not meet the stringent pleading requirements that apply in federal court, and instead the administrative complaint “simply alerts OSHA to the existence of the alleged retaliation and the complainant’s desire that OSHA investigate the complaint.” If the complaint alleges each element of a CFPA whistleblower retaliation claim and the employer does not show by clear and convincing that it would have taken the same action in the absence of the alleged protected activity, OSHA will conduct an investigation.

OSHA investigates CFPA complaints to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that protected activity was a contributing factor in the alleged adverse action.  If OSHA finds a violation, it can order reinstatement of the whistleblower and other relief.

Article By Jason Zuckerman of Zuckerman Law

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

© 2021 Zuckerman Law

Biden Administration Issues New Government-Wide Anti-Corruption Strategy

On Dec. 7, 2021, the White House published a government-wide policy document entitled “United States Strategy on Countering Corruption” (“Strategy”). The Strategy implements President Biden’s National Security Memorandum from earlier in 2021, which declared international corruption a threat to U.S. national security.

The Strategy is notable for several reasons:

First, the Strategy focuses not just on the “supply side” of foreign bribery and corruption—that is, companies acting in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)—but also on the “demand side” of the equation, namely corrupt foreign officials and those who assist them. It promises to pair vigorous enforcement of the FCPA with efforts to hold corrupt leaders themselves accountable, via U.S. money laundering laws, economic sanctions, and visa restrictions.

Second, the Strategy specifically calls out the role of illicit finance in facilitating and perpetuating foreign corruption, promising “aggressive enforcement” against those who facilitate the laundering of corrupt proceeds through the U.S. economy. Professional gatekeepers such as lawyers, accountants, and trust and company service providers are specifically identified as targets of future scrutiny. The Strategy also promises to institute legislative and regulatory changes to address anti-money laundering (AML) vulnerabilities in the U.S. financial system. These promised changes include:

  • Finalizing beneficial ownership regulations, and building a national database of beneficial owners, as mandated by the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020.

  • Promulgating regulations designed to reveal when real estate is used to hide ill-gotten gains. Contemporaneously with the White House’s issuance of the Strategy, the Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), inviting public comment on its plan to apply additional scrutiny to all-cash real estate transactions.

  • Prescribing minimum reporting standards for investment advisors and other types of equity funds, which are currently not subject to same AML program requirements as other financial institutions.

Third, the Strategy calls for a coordinated, government-wide response to corruption, and it contemplates a role not only for law enforcement and regulatory agencies but also for agencies such as the Department of State and Department of Commerce, which is to establish its own new anti-corruption task force. It remains to be seen if the increased scope of anti-corruption efforts called for by the Strategy will result in new or additional penalties for persons and entities perceived as corrupt or as facilitating corruption, but the Strategy may place an additional premium on corporate anti-corruption compliance.

Individuals and entities operating in sectors traditionally associated with corruption and/or AML risk should consider taking the following steps in response to the Strategy. These considerations apply not only to U.S. persons and businesses but also to anyone who may fall within the broad purview of the FCPA, U.S. money laundering statutes, and other laws with extraterritorial reach:

  • Increase due diligence for any pending or future transactions in jurisdictions where potentially corrupt actors or their designees play a role in awarding government contracts. Ensure any payments are the result of arms-length transactions based on legitimate financial arrangements.

  • Professional gatekeepers should become familiar with the particular risks associated with the industries in which they operate. While AMLA made it clear that lawyers, accountants, and real estate professionals will come under increased scrutiny based on the risk profile of their clients, the Strategy increases the likelihood that law enforcement will devote additional resources in this sometimes-overlooked area.

  • Given the increased role the State Department will continue to play in the anticorruption space based on the National Defense Authorization Act and the Strategy, companies doing business in or with countries vital to U.S. foreign policy goals should remember that in addition to the individual leaders of these countries, government institutions and lower-level officials could create risk and will be closely watched. Though the U.S. government often talks about specific government officials, the Strategy appears to take a broader approach.

  • Businesses should continue to examine and reexamine third-party risk with an emphasis on preventing potential problems before they occur. Additional resources and increased cooperation between and among government agencies may lead to additional investigations and enforcement actions, so compliance programs should be updated where necessary.

Article By Kyle R. Freeny and Benjamin G. Greenberg of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

For more white collar crime and consumer rights legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2021 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

Ohio Votes to Legalize Sports Betting

Ohio lawmakers have reached an agreement that will legalize sports betting for those 21 and older. House Bill 29, which was passed by the Ohio House of Representatives and Senate on December 8 and is expected to be signed into law by Governor DeWine in the coming days, will allow licensed gaming operations to begin accepting wagers as soon as April 1, 2022.

Since the Supreme Court of the United States struck down federal law prohibiting state-sponsored sports betting in 2018, 33 states and Washington D.C. have passed legislation establishing regulated markets for wagering on sports. Ohio now becomes the 34th as it hopes to curb the flow of its residents’ entertainment and tourism dollars into neighboring Michigan, Pennsylvania, Indiana and West Virginia, all of whom have already legalized sports betting.

Oversight. The Ohio Casino Control Commission (“OCCC”) will be responsible for regulating and monitoring all sports gambling activity in the state. Once the bill is signed into law, the OCCC is required to establish a licensing process, consumer protections, advertising guidelines, and financial requirements for licensees. As an enforcement agency, it will also be given the authority to create other administrative rules it deems necessary to carry out its oversight duties.

Licenses. The OCCC will being accepting license applications on January 1, 2022 and can begin issuing a limited number of licenses on April 1, 2022. The law provides guidance as to how the OCCC will evaluate applicants, and establishes three classes of licenses: (1) Type A licenses for casinos, racinos and sportsbooks operating online and via mobile app; (2) Type B licenses for brick-and-mortar sportsbooks, which will be distributed throughout the state based on county population; and (3) Type C licenses for betting terminals to be placed in restaurants, bars and the like that possess D-1, D-2, or D-5 liquor permits.

Taxes.  A 10% tax will be placed on the new industry’s revenues. Combined with the fees and fines collected by the OCCC, most of this money will be earmarked for distribution by the Ohio General Assembly to public and nonpublic K-12 education programs and a state-sponsored Problem Sports Gaming and Addiction Fund. The bill also creates certain tax incentives for licensed operators beginning in 2027.

Be Ready. Businesses affected by legalization, whether pursuing a license, contracting with a license-holder or being indirectly impacted, need to stay vigilant as Ohio’s sports betting regulatory framework develops. From financial reporting to employment practices, failure to understand and implement processes to comply with the forthcoming regulations could result in significant fines or even criminal penalties.

©2021 Roetzel & Andress

Federal Regulators Issue New Cyber Incident Reporting Rule for Banks

On November 18, 2021, the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued a new rule regarding cyber incident reporting obligations for U.S. banks and service providers.

The final rule requires a banking organization to notify its primary federal regulator “as soon as possible and no later than 36 hours after the banking organization determines that a notification incident has occurred.” The rule defines a “notification incident” as a “computer-security incident that has materially disrupted or degraded, or is reasonably likely to materially disrupt or degrade, a banking organization’s—

  1. Ability to carry out banking operations, activities, or processes, or deliver banking products and services to a material portion of its customer base, in the ordinary course of business;
  2. Business line(s), including associated operations, services, functions, and support, that upon failure would result in a material loss of revenue, profit, or franchise value; or
  3. Operations, including associated services, functions and support, as applicable, the failure or discontinuance of which would pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States.”

Under the rule, a “computer-security incident” is “an occurrence that results in actual harm to the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of an information system or the information that the system processes, stores, or transmits.”

Separately, the rule requires a bank service provider to notify each affected banking organization “as soon as possible when the bank service provider determines it has experienced a computer-security incident that has materially disrupted or degraded or is reasonably likely to materially disrupt or degrade, covered services provided to such banking organization for four or more hours.” For purposes of the rule, a bank service provider is one that performs “covered services” (i.e., services subject to the Bank Service Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1861–1867)).

In response to comments received on the agencies’ December 2020 proposed rule, the new rule reflects changes to key definitions and notification provisions applicable to both banks and bank service providers. These changes include, among others, narrowing the definition of a “computer security incident,” replacing the “good faith belief” notification standard for banks with a determination standard, and adding a definition of “covered services” to the bank service provider provisions. With these revisions, the agencies intend to resolve some of the ambiguities in the proposed rule and address commenters’ concerns that the rule would create an undue regulatory burden.

The final rule becomes effective April 1, 2022, and compliance is required by May 1, 2022. The regulators hope this new rule will “help promote early awareness of emerging threats to banking organizations and the broader financial system,” as well as “help the agencies react to these threats before they become systemic.”

Copyright © 2021, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.
For more articles on banking regulations, visit the NLR Financial Securities & Banking section.

Don’t Use “Build Back Better” to Sabotage the False Claims Act

Congress is on the verge of setting a dangerous precedent.  As part of the Build Back Better Act, it has added two provisions equivalent to a “get out of jail free card” for Big Banks that violate federal law when they hand out billions in federal mortgage-related benefits.   The two provisions create exemptions to False Claims Act liability by creating blanket immunity from liability when banks fail to exercise due diligence, violate FHA housing regulations, or even directly violate federal laws such as the Truth in Lending Act.

It is obvious why banks want to have their federally sponsored mortgage practices immunized from exposure to the False Claims Act (“FCA”).  The FCA works remarkably well and is widely recognized as “the most powerful tool the American people have to protect the government from fraud.”   The law has directly recovered over $64.450 billion in sanctions from fraudsters since Congress modernized it in 1986.  During the debates on the massive trillion-dollar infrastructure laws enacted or debated this year, corporate lobbyists have been extremely active in successfully preventing Congress from adding any new anti-fraud measures to protect taxpayers from fraud.  As part of these efforts, they targeted the False Claims Act as enemy #1 and already have blocked one key amendment needed to close some weaknesses in that law.

With the Build Back Better Act, these corporate lobbyists have taken their opposition to effective anti-fraud laws to a higher level.  Instead of trying to repeal the FCA, they are simply exempting Big Banks from liability under that law in two new programs.  It is obvious why the Big Banks want the exemption from FCA liability.  As a result of illegal or irresponsible lending and foreclosure practices, such as those that fueled the 2008 financial collapse, banks have had to pay billions in sanctions to the United States.

Two words explain why the FCA is “the most powerful tool” protecting taxpayers from fraud:  Whistleblowers and sanctions.  If you accept federal taxpayer monies, you are required to spend that money according to your contractual agreement or the law.  The FCA’s first secret weapon is whistleblowers.  The law encourages whistleblowers, known as qui tam “relators,” to report violations of the FCA.  Whistleblowers disclosures trigger the overwhelming majority of FCA cases, and the law incentivizes employees to risk their careers to serve the public interest. The second secret weapon is how you prove liability.  Second, when an institution accepts federal monies (such as banks that operate various federally sponsored loan programs), liability can attach if the institution acts in “deliberate ignorance of the truth” when spending federal dollars.  Similarly, if payments are made with “reckless disregard of the truth,” liability can attach.  In other words, corporations (including banks) that accept federal money must ensure that these monies are spent as required by law, regulation, or contract.  Safeguards must be in place to prevent fraud.  If a bank does not have adequate compliance programs to protect against fraud, it cannot plead ignorance when the law is broken and taxpayers are ripped off.

These two key elements of the False Claims Act are precisely what the banking lobby is attempting to undermine through the Build Back Better Act.  The tactics employed by the Big Banks are somewhat devious.  They are doing an end-run around the False Claims Act by exempting themselves from having to engage in any due diligence when spending billions in federal dollars.  The banks are seeking to add language to the Build Back Better Act that will immunize themselves from liability under the False Claims Act when they make payments in “reckless disregard” to the legality of those payments.  The immunities they are seeking legalize “deliberate ignorance” in the use of taxpayer money, in complete defiance of the False Claims Act. Thus, whistleblowers who report these frauds will be stripped of protections they have under the False Claims Act, and the federal government will have no effective way to recover damages from these frauds.

What language in the Build Back Better Act creates an exemption to False Claims Act liability?

Two highly technical provisions are deeply buried within the 2135 pages of the Build Back Better Act’s legislative text. The provisions are sections 40201 and 40202 of the Build Back Better Act.  These two sections establish helpful programs that will provide needed financial support to first-generation homebuyers.  Section 40201(d)(5) would provide $10 billion in down payment assistance. Section 40202(f) would give an interest rate reduction on new FHA 20-year mortgage products to first-time homeowners with a potential value of $60 billion.  But the banking lobby has corrupted these otherwise well-meaning programs. The exemptions obtained by the banks are incubators for massive fraud.  It permits the Big Banks to escape any liability when they abuse the generosity of taxpayers and dole out billions to unqualified individuals.

How do the exemptions work?  To qualify for these taxpayer-financed benefits, an applicant simply has to “attest” that they are first-time/first-generation homebuyers.  That would be the end of the inquiry a bank would need to approve making a payment from the billions allocated in these two programs. Anyone could simply stroll into a bank and “attest” to being such a first-time homebuyer and would thereafter qualify for the federal benefits.  The banks would not be required to do any diligence of their own to confirm the borrower’s eligibility.  Willful ignorance would be legalized.  Reckless disregard in the handling of taxpayer monies would be permitted under this law.  Safeguards, such as requiring banks to adhere to the Truth in Lending Act, which requires verification of a borrower’s statements, would not apply.

Under Sections 40201(d)(5) and 40202(f), banks will not be held liable once they are lied to, even if the bank has reason to know that the borrower is not eligible for the federal payout.  Banks can spend taxpayer money even if the information on an applicant’s loan application directly contradicts the borrower’s attestation that they are a first-time homeowner.  Given the lack of any compliance standards, the temptation to engage in fraud in these programs will be overwhelming.

Permitting banks to escape liability under the False Claims Act opens the door to paying billions of dollars in benefits to unqualified persons.  Such payments rip off the taxpayers and severely hurt all honest first-generation homebuyers denied benefits.  For every fraudster who benefits from this program, an honest homebuyer will be left in the cold due to the reckless disregard of the banks.

Congress should never use a back-door procedure to undermine the False Claim Act, as it sets a dangerous precedent.  It is a devious way to undermine America’s “most effective” anti-fraud law.  Instead of undermining the False Claims Act by granting immunities to Big Banks, Congress should be strengthening anti-fraud laws to protect the taxpayers and ensure that the trillions of dollars spent on COVID-19 relief programs and infrastructure improvement are lawfully spent in the public interest.

Copyright Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP 2021. All Rights Reserved.
For more articles about banking and finance, visit the NLR Financial, Securities & Banking section.

The Confidentially Marketed Public Offering for the Smaller Reporting Company

What is it?

A Confidentially Marketed Public Offering (“CMPO”) is an offering of securities registered on a shelf registration statement on Form S-3 where securities are taken “off the shelf” and sold when favorable market opportunities arise, such as an increase in the issuer’s price and trading volume resulting from positive news pertaining to the issuer.  In a CMPO, an underwriter will confidentially contact a select group of institutional investors to gauge their interest in an offering by the issuer, without divulging the name of the issuer.  If an institutional investor indicates its firm interest in a potential offering and agrees not to trade in the issuer’s securities until either the CMPO is completed or abandoned, the institutional investor will be “brought over the wall” and informed on a confidential basis of the name of the issuer and provided with other offering materials.  The offering materials made available to investors are typically limited to the issuer’s public filings, and do not include material non-public information (“MNPI”).  By avoiding the disclosure of MNPI, the issuer mitigates the risk of being required to publicly disclose the MNPI in the event the offering is terminated.  Once brought over the wall, the issuer, underwriter and institutional investors will negotiate the terms of the offering, including the price (which is usually a discount to the market price) and size of the offering.  Once the offering terms are determined, the issuer turns the confidentially marketed offering into a public offering by filing a prospectus supplement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and issuing a press release informing the public of the offering.  Typically, this occurs after the close of markets.  Once public, the underwriters then market the offering broadly to other investors, typically overnight, which is necessary for the offering to be a “public” offering as defined by NASDAQ and the NYSE (as discussed further below).  Customarily, before markets open on the next trading day, the issuer informs the market of the final terms of the offering, including the sale price of the securities to the public, the underwriting discount per share and the proceeds of the offering to the issuer, by issuing a press release and filing a prospectus supplement and Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC.  The offering then closes and shares are delivered to investors and funds to the issuer, typically two or three trading days later.

What Type of Issuer Can Conduct a CMPO and How Much Can an Issuer Raise?

To be eligible to conduct a CMPO, an issuer needs to have an effective registration statement on Form S-3, and is therefore only available to companies that satisfy the criteria to use such form.  For issuers that have an aggregate market value of voting and non-voting common stock held by non-affiliates of the issuer (“public float”) of $75M or more, the issuer can offer the full amount of securities remaining available for issuance under the registration statement.  Issuers that have a public float of less than $75M will be subject to the “baby shelf rules”.   In a CMPO, issuers subject to the baby shelf rules can offer up to one-third of their public float, less amounts sold under the baby shelf rules in the trailing twelve month period prior to the offering.  To determine the public float, the issuer may look back sixty days from the date of the offering, and select the highest of the last sales prices or the average of the bid and ask prices on the exchange where the issuer’s stock is listed.  For an issuer subject to the baby shelf rules, the amount of capital that the issuer can raise will continually fluctuate based on the issuer’s trading price.

What Exchange Rules Does an Issuer Need to Consider?

The public offering period of a CMPO must be structured to satisfy the applicable NASDAQ or New York Stock Exchange criteria for a “public offering”.  In the event that the criteria are not satisfied, rules requiring advance shareholder approval for private placements where the offering could equal 20% or more of the pre-offering outstanding shares may be implicated.  Moreover, a sale of securities in a transaction other than a public offering at a discount to the market value of the stock to insiders of the issuer is considered a form of equity compensation and requires stockholder approval.  Nasdaq also requires issuers to file a “listing of additional shares” in connection with a CMPO.

Advantages and Disadvantages of CMPOs

There are a number of advantages of a CMPO compared to a traditional public offering, including the following:

  • A CMPO offers an issuer the ability to raise capital on an as needed basis as favorable market conditions arise through a process that is much faster than a traditional public offering.
  • The shares issued to investors in a CMPO are freely tradeable, resulting in more favorable pricing for the issuer.
  • In a CMPO, the issuer can determine the demand for its securities on a confidential basis without market knowledge.  If terms sought by investors are not agreeable to the issuer, the issuer can abandon the CMPO, generally without adverse consequences on its stock price.
  • If properly structured as a public offering, a CMPO will negate the requirement to obtain stockholder approval for the transaction under applicable Nasdaq and NYSE rules.

Disadvantages of conducting a CMPO include:

  • To conduct a CMPO, an issuer must be eligible to use Form S-3 and have an effective registration statement on file with the SEC.
  • Issuers subject to the baby shelf rules may be limited in the amount of capital they can raise in a CMPO.
  • In the event a CMPO is abandoned, investors that have been “brough over the wall” and received MNPI concerning the issuer may insist that the issuer publicly disclose such information to enable such investors to publicly trade the issuer’s securities.

This article is for general information only and may not be relied upon as legal advice.  Any company exploring the possibility of a CMPO should engage directly with legal counsel.

© Copyright 2021 Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP
For more articles on the NASDAQ and NYSE, visit the NLR Financial, Securities & Banking section.

OFAC Reaffirms Focus on Virtual Currency With Updated Sanctions Law Guidance

On October 15, 2021, the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) announced updated guidance for virtual currency companies in meeting their obligations under US sanctions laws. On the same day, OFAC also issued guidance clarifying various cryptocurrency-related definitions.

Coming on the heels of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020—and in the context of the Biden administration’s effort to crackdown on ransomware attacks—the recent guidance is the latest indication that regulators are increasingly focusing on virtual currency and blockchain. In light of these developments, virtual currency market participants and service providers should ensure they are meeting their respective sanctions obligations by employing a “risk-based” anti-money laundering and sanctions compliance program.

This update highlights the government’s continued movement toward subjecting the virtual currency industry to the same requirements, scrutiny and consequences in cases of noncompliance as applicable to traditional financial institutions.

IN DEPTH

The release of OFAC’s Sanctions Compliance Guidance for the Virtual Currency Industry indicates an increasing expectation for diligence as it has now made clear on several occasions that sanctions compliance “obligations are the same” for virtual currency companies who must employ an unspecified “risk-based” program (See: OFAC Consolidated Frequently asked Questions 560). OFAC published it with the stated goal of “help[ing] the virtual currency industry prevent exploitation by sanctioned persons and other illicit actors.”

With this release, OFAC also provided some answers and updates to two of its published sets of “Frequently Asked Questions.”

FAQ UPDATES (FAQ 559 AND 546)

All are required to comply with the US sanctions compliance program, including persons and entities in the virtual currency and blockchain community. OFAC has said time and again that a “risk-based” program is required but that “there is no single compliance program or solution suitable for all circumstances” (See: FAQ 560). While market participants and service providers in the virtual currency industry must all comply, the risk of violating US sanctions are most acute for certain key service providers, such as cryptocurrency exchanges and over-the-counter (OTC) desks that facilitate large volumes of virtual currency transactions.

OFAC previously used the term “digital currency” when it issued its first FAQ and guidance on the subject (FAQ 560), which stated that sanctions compliance is applicable to “digital currency” and that OFAC “may include as identifiers on the [Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons] SDN List specific digital currency addresses associated with blocked persons.” Subsequently, OFAC placed certain digital currency addresses on the SDN List as identifiers.

While OFAC previously used the term “digital currency,” in more recent FAQs and guidance, it has used a combination of the terms “digital currency” and “virtual currency” without defining those terms until it released FAQ 559.

In FAQ 559, OFAC defines “virtual currency” as “a digital representation of value that functions as (i) a medium of exchange; (ii) a unit of account; and/or (iii) a store of value; and is neither issued nor granted by any jurisdiction.” This is a broad definition but likely encompasses most assets, which are commonly referred to as “cryptocurrency” or “tokens,” as most of these assets may be considered as “mediums of exchange.”

OFAC also defines “digital currency” as “sovereign cryptocurrency, virtual currency (non-fiat), and a digital representation of fiat currency.” This definition appears to be an obvious effort by OFAC to make clear that its definitions include virtual currencies issued or backed by foreign governments and stablecoins.

The reference to “sovereign cryptocurrency” is focused on cryptocurrency issued by foreign governments, such as Venezuela. This is not the first time OFAC has focused on sovereign cryptocurrency. It ascribed the use of sovereign backed cryptocurrencies as a high-risk vector for US sanctions circumvention. Executive Order (EO) 13827, which was issued on March 19, 2018, explicitly stated:

In light of recent actions taken by the Maduro regime to attempt to circumvent U.S. sanctions by issuing a digital currency in a process that Venezuela’s democratically elected National Assembly has denounced as unlawful, hereby order as follows: Section 1. (a) All transactions related to, provision of financing for, and other dealings in, by a United States person or within the United States, and digital currency, digital coin, or digital token, that was issued by, for, or on behalf of the Government of Venezuela on or after January 9, 2018, are prohibited as of the effective date of this order.

On March 19, 2018, OFAC issued FAQs 564, 565 and 566, which were specifically focused on Venezuela issued cryptocurrencies, stating that “petro” and “petro gold” are considered a “digital currency, digital coin, or digital token” subject to EO 13827. While OFAC has not issued specific FAQs or guidance on other sovereign backed cryptocurrencies, it may be concerned that a series of countries have stated publicly that they plan to test and launch sovereign backed securities, including Russia, Iran, China, Japan, England, Sweden, Australia, the Netherlands, Singapore and India. With the release if its most recent FAQs, OFAC is reaffirming that it views sovereign cryptocurrencies as highly risky and well within the scope of US sanctions programs.

The reference to a “digital representation of fiat currency” appears to be a reference to “stablecoins.” In theory, stablecoins are each worth a specified value in fiat currency (usually one USD each). Most stablecoins were touted as being completely backed by fiat currency stored in segregated bank accounts. The viability and safety of stablecoins, however, has recently been called into question. One of the biggest players in the stablecoin industry is Tether, who was recently fined $41 million by the US Commodities Futures Trading Commission for failing to have the appropriate fiat reserves backing its highly popular stablecoin US Dollar Token (USDT). OFAC appears to have taken notice and states in its FAQ that “digital representations of fiat currency” are covered by its regulations and FAQs.

FAQ 646 provides some guidance on how cryptocurrency exchanges and other service providers should implement a “block” on virtual currency. Any US persons (or persons subject to US jurisdiction), including financial institutions, are required under US sanctions programs to “block” assets, which requires freezing assets and notifying OFAC within 10 days. (See: 31 C.F.R. § 501.603 (b)(1)(i).) FAQ 646 makes clear that “blocking” obligations applies to virtual currency and also indicates that OFAC expects cryptocurrency exchanges and other service providers be required to “block” the virtual currency at issue and freeze all other virtual currency wallets “in which a blocked person has an interest.”

Depending on the strength of the anti-money laundering/know-your-customer (AML/KYC) policies employed, it will likely prove difficult for cryptocurrency exchanges and other service providers to be sure that they have identified all associated virtual currency wallets in which a “blocked person has an interest.” It is possible that a cryptocurrency exchange could onboard a customer who complied with an appropriate risk-based AML/KYC policy and, unbeknownst to the cryptocurrency exchange, a blocked person “has an interest” in one of the virtual currency wallets. It remains to be seen how OFAC will employ this “has an interest” standard and whether it will take any cryptocurrency exchanges or other service providers to task for not blocking virtual currency wallets in which a blocked person “has an interest.” It is important for cryptocurrency exchanges or other service providers to implement an appropriate risk-based AML/KYC policy to defend any inquiries from OFAC as to whether it has complied with the various US sanctions programs, including by having the ability to identify other virtual currency wallets in which a blocked person “has an interest.”

UPDATED SANCTIONS COMPLIANCE GUIDANCE

OFAC’s recent framework for OFAC Compliance Commitments outlines five essential components for a virtual currency operator’s sanctions compliance program. These components generally track those applicable to more traditional financial institutions and include:

  1. Senior management should ensure that adequate resources are devoted to the support of compliance, that a competent sanctions compliance officer is appointed and that adequate independence is granted to the compliance unit to carry out their role.
  2. An operative risk assessment should be fashioned to reflect the unique exposure of the company. OFAC maintains both a public use sanctions list and a free search tool for that list which should be employed to identify and prevent sanctioned individuals and entities from accessing the company’s services.
  3. Internal controls must be put in place that address the unique risks recognized by the company’s risk assessment. OFAC does not have a specific software or hardware requirement regarding internal controls.
    1. Although OFAC does not specify required internal controls, it does provide recommended best practices. These include geolocation tools with IP address blocking controls, KYC procedures for both individuals and entities, transaction monitoring and investigation software that can review historically identified bad actors, the implementation of remedial measures upon internal discovery of weakness in sanction compliance, sanction screening and establishing risk indicators or red flags that require additional scrutiny when triggered.
    2. Additionally, information should be obtained upon the formation of each new customer relationship. A formal due diligence plan should be in place and operated sufficiently to alert the service provider to possible sanctions-related alarms. Customer data should be maintained and updated through the lifecycle of that customer relationship.
  4. To ensure an entity’s sanctions compliance program is effective and efficient, that entity should regularly test their compliance against independent objective testing and auditing functions.
  5. Proper training must be provided to a company’s workforce. For a company’s sanctions compliance program to be effective, its workforce must be properly outfitted with the hard and soft skills required to execute its compliance program. Although training programs may vary, OFAC training should be provided annually for all employees.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

As noted in OFAC’s press release issued simultaneously with the updated FAQ’s, “[t]hese actions are a part of the Biden Administration’s focused, integrated effort to counter the ransomware threat.” The Biden administration’s increased focus on regulatory and enforcement action in the virtual currency space highlights the importance for market participants and service providers to implement a robust compliance program. Cryptocurrency exchanges and other service providers must take special care in drafting and implementing their respective AML/KYC policies and in ensuring the existence of risk-based AML and sanctions compliance programs, which includes a periodic training program. When responding to inquiries from OFAC or other regulators, it will be critical to have documented evidence of the implementation of a risk-based AML/KYC program and proof that employees have been appropriately trained on all applicable policies, including a sanctions compliance policy.

Article By Joseph B. Evans, Edward B. Diskant, and Alexandra C. Scheibe of McDermott Will & Emery.

Ethan Heller, a law clerk in the firm’s New York office, also contributed to this article.

© 2021 McDermott Will & Emery
For the latest in Financial, Securities, and Banking legal news, read more at the National Law Review.

New Report Highlights Need for Coordinated and Consistent U.S. Policy to Address Possible Impacts to Financial Stability Due to Climate Change

“Climate change is an emerging threat to the financial stability of the United States.” So begins a recently issued Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) Report, identifying climate change as a financial risk and threat to U.S. financial stability and highlighting a need for coordinated, stable, and clearly communicated policy objectives and actions in order to avoid a disorderly transition to a net-zero economy.

The FSOC’s members are the top regulators of the financial system in the United States, including the heads of the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Their charge is to identify risks facing the country’s financial system and respond to them. This new Report supports steps being taken by various financial regulators in the U.S.

The Report suggests four steps necessary to facilitate an orderly transition to a net-zero economy.

  1. Regulators must develop and use better tools to help policymakers. “Council members recognize that the need for better data and tools cannot justify inaction, as climate-related financial risks will become more acute if not addressed promptly.” The FSOC Report highlights the tool of scenario analysis, “a forward-looking projection of risk outcomes that provides a structured approach for considering potential future risks associated with climate change.” The FSOC recommends the use of sector- and economy-wide scenario analysis as particularly important because of the interrelated and unpredictable development of climate impacts and technologies necessary to address them. Each of these technologies may have an unexpected impact on a part of the economy.
  2. Climate-related financial risk data and methodologies for filling gaps must be addressed.  The FSOC Report noted that its members lacked the ability to effectively access and use data that may be present in the financial system. The FSOC Report also noted potential risks to lenders, insurers, infrastructure, and fund managers caused by physical and transitional risks of climate change and the need to develop tools to better understand those risks.
  3. As has been highlighted by the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) movement, disclosure by companies of their climate-related risks is a key piece of data not only for investors but also for regulators and policymakers. Disclosure regimes that promote comparable, consistent, or decision-useful data and impacts of climate change are necessary, according to the Report, and also regimes that cover both public and private entities. The Report highlights various ongoing discussions on this topic, including possible regulations by the SEC.
  4. To assess and mitigate climate-related risks on the financial system, methods of analyzing the interrelated aspects of climate change are necessary. The Report details the developing thoughts around scenario analysis as a tool to help predict the many aspects of climate change on the financial system but notes that clearly defined objectives and planning are essential for decision-useful analysis.