Category: finance

Can I Secure a Loan with Bitcoin? Part I

Each day seems to bring another story about Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, or another virtual currency. If virtual currencies continue to grow in popularity, it’s only a matter of time before borrowers offer to pledge virtual currency as collateral for loans.  This article does not advise lenders on whether they should secure loans with virtual currency, but instead it focuses on whether a lender can use the familiar tools of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) to create and perfect a security interest in bitcoin.  (In this article, “bitcoin” is used as a generic term for all virtual currencies.)

Article 9 Basics

Article 9 allows a creditor to create a security interest in personal property. The owner of the property grants the creditor a security interest through a written security agreement. The security agreement creates the security interest between the secured party and the debtor. The secured party must then “perfect” the security interest to obtain lien priority over third parties and to protect its secured status should the debtor file bankruptcy.

Security interests are perfected in different ways depending on the type of collateral. Article 9 divides personal property into different categories, such as goods, equipment, inventory, accounts, money, and intangibles. The primary ways to perfect a security interest are (1) filing, with the appropriate filing agency, a UCC-1 financing statement containing a sufficient description of the collateral, (2) possession, or (3) control.

Bitcoin and Blockchain

Virtual currencies are electronic representations of value that may not have an equivalent value in a real government-backed currency. They can be used as a payment system, or digital currency, without an intermediary like a bank or credit card company. While virtual currencies can function like real currencies in certain transactions, and certain virtual currencies can be exchanged into real currencies, a virtual currency itself does not have legal tender status. Virtual currency is virtual—there is no bitcoin equivalent to a quarter or dollar bill.

Bitcoin operates on a protocol that uses distributed-ledger technology. This technology is called the blockchain. The blockchain eliminates the need for intermediaries such as banks. Unlike a dollar, which is interchangeable, each bitcoin is unique. The blockchain records all bitcoin transactions to prevent someone from re-spending the same bitcoin over and over.

Suppose you wanted to transfer cash to a friend. You could transfer funds from your bank account to her bank account. The banks act as intermediaries. Suppose you wanted to transfer cash to that same friend without a middle man. The only way to do that is meet her and hand over the cash. This exchange many not be practical for many reasons. You might live far from each other. Even if you’re near each other, you might not want to travel around town with a briefcase full of cash. Bitcoin and blockchain technology allow the transfer of cash directly and digitally without a middle man.

The blockchain is both transparent and opaque. It is transparent as to the ownership chain of every bitcoin.  In this way, it is easier to “trace” a bitcoin than to trace cash.  But the blockchain presently does not show liens on bitcoin.  So a secured party can confirm if a borrower owns bitcoin, but not if the borrower or a previous owner encumbered the bitcoin.

Is Bitcoin Money?

At first glance, bitcoin would seem to fall in the category of “money.” Article 9 defines money as a medium of exchange authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government. No government has adopted bitcoin as a medium of exchange. Dollars, euros, and pounds meet the definition of money—bitcoin does not. Therefore, bitcoin does not meet the definition of money. And a secured party perfects its security interest in money by physical possession, but because bitcoin is virtual, physical possession is impossible.

Is Bitcoin a Deposit Account?

A deposit account is a demand, time, savings, passbook, or similar account maintained with a bank. With a traditional deposit account, the secured party perfects its security interest by having “control” over that account. This is usually accomplished when the debtor, the debtor’s bank, and the secured party execute a deposit account control agreement. If the debtor defaults, the secured party can direct the debtor’s bank to transfer the funds from the account.

Bitcoin often is stored in a digital wallet with an exchange like Coinbase. The wallet is access-restricted by private keys or passwords, but that wallet is not a deposit account. The bitcoin itself is held by its owner on the blockchain, which is decentralized. Unlike a deposit account, there is no intermediary like a bank. With no intermediary, there is no way to establish “control” over the bitcoin. Consequently, bitcoin does not meet the definition of a deposit account.

Bitcoin is (Probably) a General Intangible

By process of elimination, bitcoin should be treated as a general intangible. A general intangible is personal property that does not fall into any other Article 9 category. A lender perfects a security interest in general intangibles by filing a UCC-1 financing statement. In North Carolina, you file it with the Secretary of State.

Although we can categorize bitcoin as a general intangible for Article 9 purposes, and create and perfect a security interest accordingly, several issues arise that question the overall effectiveness of that security interest. For starters, a security interest in general intangibles follows the sale, license, or other disposition of the collateral, unless the secured party consents to the transfer free of its security interest, the obligations secured by the security interest have been satisfied, or the security interest has otherwise terminated.

This is a problem for the lender wanting a first-priority lien on the bitcoin. Before approaching the lender, the borrower may have granted a secured party a security interest in bitcoin, or granted a security interest in “all assets whether now owned or acquired later” and then acquired bitcoin. In both instances, the bitcoin is encumbered by the security interest. The lender could not confirm prior liens without searching UCC-1 filings in all 50 states (and even that might not catch international liens).

Even if a secured party acquires a senior lien in bitcoin, that party still has the problem of lack of control over the bitcoin. Without control, bitcoin collateral is susceptible to unauthorized transfers. Even if a borrower has an account at an online currency exchange like Coinbase—which allows you to exchange bitcoin into traditional money—the exchange may be unwilling to sign a tri-party control agreement to restrict the debtor’s ability to exchange the bitcoin. Upon default, without the debtor’s cooperation, it will be difficult or impossible to enforce, take possession, and liquidate the bitcoin.

Conclusion

Putting aside its value and volatility, the intrinsically unique nature of bitcoin makes it an imperfect and problematic form of collateral under Article 9. Part II of this article will discuss the pros and cons of using Article 8 of the UCC to create and perfect a security interest in bitcoin. Article 8 has the potential to be a safer and more reliable solution for these transactions.

© 2018 Ward and Smith, P.A.. All Rights Reserved.

This post was written by Lance P. Martin of Ward and Smith, P.A.

               

State of Washington Enacts Student Loan Servicing Law

Washington has become the latest state to impose a licensing requirement on student loan servicers. Yesterday, Governor Jay Inslee signed  SB 6029, which establishes a “student loan bill of rights,” similar to the bills that have been enacted in California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, and Illinois.

The law’s requirements include the following:

  • Creation of Advocate Role: The law creates the position of “Advocate” within the Washington Student Achievement Council to assist student education loan borrowers with student loans. This role is analogous to that of “ombudsman” under proposed and enacted servicing bills in other states.  One of the Advocate’s roles is to receive and review borrower complaints, and refer servicing-related complaints to either the state’s Department of Financial Institutions (“DFI”) or the Attorney General’s Office, depending on which office has jurisdiction. The Advocate is also tasked with:
    • Compiling information on borrower complaints;
    • Providing information to stakeholders;
    • Analyzing laws, rules, and policies;
    • Assessing annually the number of residents with federal student education loans who have applied for, received, or are waiting for loan forgiveness;
    • Providing information on the Advocate’s availability to borrowers, institutions of higher education, and others;
    • Assisting borrowers in applying for forgiveness or discharge of student education loans, including communicating with student education loan servicers to resolve complaints, or any other necessary actions; and
    • Establishing a borrower education course by 10/1/20.
  • Licensing of Servicers: SB 6029 requires servicers to obtain a license from the DFI. There are various exemptions from licensing for certain types of entities and programs (trade, technical, vocational, or apprentice programs; postsecondary schools that service their own student loans; persons servicing five or fewer student loans; and federal, state, and local government entities servicing loans that they originated), although such servicers would still need to comply with the statute’s substantive requirements even if they are not licensed.
  • Servicer Responsibilities: All servicers, except those entirely exempt from the statute, are subject to various obligations. Among other things, servicers must:
    • Provide, free of charge, information about repayment options and contact information for the Advocate ;
    • Provide borrowers with information about fees assessed and amounts received and credited;
    • Maintain written and electronic loan records;
    • Respond to borrower requests for certain information within 15 days;
    • Notify a borrower when acquiring or transferring servicing rights; and
    • Provide borrowers with disclosures relating to the possible effects of refinancing student loans.
  • Modification Servicer Responsibilities: The bill imposes a number of requirements on third-parties providing student education loan modification services, including mandates that such persons: not charge or receive money until their services have been performed; not charge fees that are in excess of what is customary; and immediately inform a borrower in writing if a modification, refinancing, consolidation, or other such change is not possible.
  • Requirements for Educational Institutions: Institutions of higher education are required to send borrower notices regarding financial aid.
  • Fees: The bill also calls for the establishment, by rule, of fees sufficient to cover the costs of administering the program created by the bill.
  • Bank Exemption: The statute provides for a complete exemption for “any person doing business under, and as permitted by, any law of this state or of the United States relating to banks, savings banks, trust companies, savings and loan or building and loan associations, or credit unions.” Notably, this exemption does not expressly cover state banks chartered in other states.

As we recently noted, bills like  SB 6029 are being introduced in legislatures across the country at an increasing rate, and we are continuing to track the progress of these proposals as they move through various statehouses.

Hopefully the torrent of such proposals will soon be reduced to a trickle, now that the U.S. Department of Education has formally weighed in on this trend, issuing an interpretation emphasizing that the Higher Education Act, federal regulations, and applicable federal contracts preempt laws like SB 6209 that purport to regulate federal student loan servicers.

 

Copyright © by Ballard Spahr LLP 2018
This post was written by Jeremy C. Sairsingh of Ballard Spahr LLP.

               

The Unique Quandaries Faced in Recovering International Cryptocurrency Frauds

Cryptocurrency itself is a string of computer-generated code.  This line of code is accessed by an owner’s unique passcode secret private key.  Each owner’s cryptocurrency is kept in their “Virtual Wallet”. Virtual wallets are similarly anonymous as are the virtual currency balances. The transfer of cryptocurrency is based upon the block chain protocol, a public decentralized ledger that identifies transactions by a digital code with no link to a person or place.

Practically, there is no public record of virtual currency transfers.  Other than the debtor’s own testimony, a creditor would not know where to begin searching for evidence of virtual currency purchases or transactions. There is no way for a creditor to identify either the owner or location of a transferee’s cryptocurrency address. In some cases, the debtor could honestly state that he does not know the identity of the individual who received his cryptocurrency transfers.

For asset protection purposes, a cryptocurrency account currently functions similarly to offshore banking prior to the IRS’s crackdown of anonymous personal foreign accounts.  Today, it is almost impossible for U.S. citizens to establish an anonymous bank account, or any type of bank account, outside of the U.S. With the advent of Bitcoin, a U.S. citizen can open and maintain a financial account that has creditor protection features similar to an offshore bank account in that the Bitcoin account is anonymous and can be maintained outside the geographical jurisdiction of domestic courts. Since block chains are decentralized, they are not subject to any central authority (such as a bank or other financial institution) that might be legally compelled to provide a court with access or control over assets in its possession. Without the complete private key, no court or legal authority can manipulate ownership of a block chain asset.

At the moment, creditors face obstacles of identifying potential defendants and the international nature of the transaction.  Properly selected offshore fiduciaries holding accounts are unlikely to become subject to the jurisdiction of a court where a defendant may be sued.  Absent jurisdictional authority, a court is powerless to compel the fiduciary to turn over assets. Similarly, a US court could try to compel the party to turn over the account or information about the transaction. The court’s contempt powers could be used to coerce compliance. Arrest and incarceration can be utilized. See In Re Lawrence, 279 F.3d 1294,1300 (11th Cir. 2002); FTC v. Affordable Media Inc., 129 F.3d 1228, 1229 (9thCir. 1999). But, on cruel and unusual punishment grounds, incarceration cannot be imposed forever. If the asset is more important than personal freedom, a court’s power of compliance is limited.

There are two equitable remedies that exist under English common law which could be flexibly applied to these evolving transactions. One existing remedy is the equitable pre-trial discovery device known as a Norwich Pharmacal order requiring third parties to disclose information to potentially identify the wrongdoer, to trace funds and to assist prospective plaintiffs in determining whether a cause of action exists.  (There are five states in the U.S. that also allow for pretrial discovery to identify the wrongdoing.)  Norwich orders, being a flexible tool of equity, could assist in claims involving cryptocurrency transactions.  It may be possible that identification information might come from “know your customer” information given a bitcoin exchange.  Proceedings could be constituted as “the bitcoin holder with the public key number…”  However, the hurdle still exists to identify the wrongdoer.

The second equitable remedy is injunctive relief.  Courts have granted world-wide injunctions, particularly when the impugned conduct is occurring online and globally, such as the internet.  InGoogle Inc. v. Equustete, 2017 SC 34, the Supreme Court of Canada recently held that injunctive relief can be ordered against somebody who is not a party to the underling lawsuit, even if that third party is not guilty of wrongdoing.  Google was ordered to stop displaying search results globally for any Data Link websites.  “The problem in this case, is occurring online and globally.  The internet has no borders; its natural habitat is global.  The only way to ensure interlocutory injunction (order) attain its objection was to have it apply where Google operates – globally.”  Thus, if the third party to the block chain transaction can be identified, there may be a remedy to discover information and wrongdoing.

Therefore, courts will need to apply not only new remedies, but expand existing ones.  While the identities of the buyer and seller are encrypted, a transaction record is maintained on the public ledger. In the future, anti-money laundering laws and cryptocurrency exchanges may require the collection of personal data of customers. Until then, the challenge of recovery will require creativity and experience.

 

© Horwood Marcus & Berk Chartered 2018.
This post was written by Eric (Rick) S. Rein from Horwood Marcus & Berk Chartered.

Climate Change and Trends in Global Finance

On December 12, French President Emmanuel Macron, joined by President of the World Bank Group, Jim Yong Kim and the Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, hosted the One Planet Summit highlighting public and private finance in support of climate action. The summit’s focus centered on addressing the fight against climate change and ensuring that climate issues are central to the finance sector.

The summit’s most notable event was perhaps the announcement that insurance giant Axa would be dumping investments in and ending insurance for controversial U.S. oil pipelines, quadrupling its divestment from coal businesses, and increasing its green investments fivefold by 2020. Axa’s plans echo those of BNP Paribas, who, in mid-October, announced that it would terminate business with companies whose principal activities involve exploration, distribution, marketing, or trading of oil and gas from shale or oil sands. The bank also ceased financing projects that are primarily involved in the transportation or export of oil and gas. These moves themselves follow controversy over the Dakota Access pipeline in the U.S. from mid-March that resulted in ING’s $2.5 billion divestment in the loan that financed the pipeline.

These measures prefigure what might be a more conspicuous trend of large institutional investors moving more rapidly away from fossil fuel investments and into green investments. In mid-December, the World Bank said it would end all financial support for oil and gas exploration by 2019. Around the same time, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo revealed a plan for the state’s common retirement fund, with over $200 billion in assets, to cease all new investments in entities with significant fossil-fuel related activities and to completely decarbonize its portfolio. Recently, HSBC pledged $100 billion to be spent on sustainable finance and investment over the next eight years in an effort to address climate change. Additionally, JP Morgan Chase committed $200 billion to similar clean-minded investments, Macquarie acquired the UK’s Green Investment Bank, and Deutsche Bank and Credit Agricole both made exits from coal lending. As the landscape of global finance shifts, it will be important to monitor how funds, banks, and insurers address the issues related to climate change.

 

©1994-2017 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

MAS Releases “A Guide to Digital Token Offerings”

On 14 November 2017, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (the “MAS”) released  “A Guide to Digital Token Offerings” providing general guidance on the application of the securities laws administered by the MAS in relation to offers or issues of digital tokens in Singapore.

The main consideration is whether the digital token is designed in a way that would make it a product regulated under Singapore’s securities laws i.e. if it behaves like a share, debenture or some other form of security. If a token does not function like a security, then technically, neither will the security laws apply.

In the first case study in the guide, Company A plans to set up a platform to enable sharing and rental of computing power amongst the users of the platform. In order to raise funds to develop this platform, Company A intends to offer and sell digital tokens wherein the token will have utility upon completion. The MAS states that the digital token in this case study would not constitute a security under the Securities and Futures Act (Cap. 289). It appears that this is because other than the right to access the issuer’s platform to rent computing power, the digital token in question did not appear to have any other “rights” or “features” that made it look like a security.

Therefore, if a digital token is structured in a similar way as set out in this case study, then it would presumably not trigger the relevant Singapore securities laws, notwithstanding the fact that the sale of the token may have been used to fund the building of the platform.

The practical issue to consider then is this:- How will a company convince its investors to purchase such digital tokens in the first place, given that they do not appear to offer any type of rights or features that would give potential purchasers of those digital tokens a return on their investment?

Singapore is devoting huge resources to building the FinTech industry and offering many incentives to new entrants in the jurisdiction. Initial Coin Offerings (“ICOs”) structured like the example herein would seem to be acceptable.

This post was written by Nicholas M. Hanna & Samantha See of  K& L Gates., Copyright 2017

Equity Plan Share Reserves: How to Increase Its Life Expectancy: Executive Compensation Practical Pointers

Efforts to conserve an equity plan’s share reserve should begin the day the issuer’s stockholders approve the plan (or share increase), and should continue going forward. Issuers that do not make such efforts tend to face problems relating to dwindling share reserves, including moving to cash-based programs, hiring proxy solicitation firms to garner stockholder support for share increases, and overcoming possible negative reactions from ISS.

The following are some ideas an issuer could use to extend the life of its plan share reserve:1

  • Grant awards that are settled in cash – Depending on the terms of the plan, a cash-settled award may not draw from the share reserve.2 An alternative would be settling a portion of the award in shares (e.g., up to target), with any achievement above that settled in cash.
  • Grant full value awards like restricted stock or RSUs – Such grants provide greater value to the holder than options or SARs, the latter providing incentive only to the extent the share price exceeds the exercise/strike price, but draw from the share reserve the same as full value awards.3
  • Permit net-exercise of stock options – Depending on the terms of the plan, the shares subject to the option that are netted in a net-exercise may not draw from the share reserve. Also, a net-exercise could be helpful to a Section 16 insider to avoid a blackout (i.e., no open market transaction occurs with a net-exercise).4
  • Amend the plan to permit maximum withholding – A recent change in accounting rules provides that maximum withholding will not result in liability accounting treatment. Depending on the terms of the plan, withholding of shares to cover taxes may not draw from the share reserve.
  • Grant stock-settled SARs rather than options – A stock-settled SAR will provide the same economic result as a net-exercised option, but since a SAR is settled in shares with respect to only the excess over the strike price, fewer shares are burned than with a net-exercised option.
  • Use inducement awards for new executive-level hires and certain M&A events – The award must be a material inducement to getting the executive/employee to accept the position. If properly structured, these awards can be made outside of the plan and do not require stockholder approval under NYSE or NASDAQ rules.5
  • Implement an ESOP or ESPP – ESOPs, which are subject to ERISA, do not require stockholder approval under NYSE or NASDAQ rules. Depending upon the structure of an ESPP, stockholder approval may be required.6

1. Some of these methods involve liberal share counting, which is disfavored by ISS.

2. Liability classification would apply for accounting purposes and settlement in cash will not count towards satisfying any share ownership requirements.

3. This method will not work if the plan contains fungible share counting provisions.

4. However, a net-exercise of an incentive stock option could jeopardize the ISO’s favorable tax treatment.

5. Without stockholder approval, such awards could not qualify for deduction under Section 162(m), if applicable.

6. Broad participation requirements may apply.

This post was written by Matthew B. Grunert  & Carolyn A. Exnicios of Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP.,© 2017
For more legal analysis go to The National Law Forum 

CFTC Clarifies That Variation Margin Constitutes Settlement

The Division of Clearing and Risk (DCR) of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has issued an interpretive letter clarifying that payments of variation margin, price alignment amounts and other payments in satisfaction of outstanding exposures on a counterparty’s cleared swap positions constitute “settlement” under the  (CEA) and CFTC Regulation 39.14. The CEA and CFTC Regulation 39.14 provide that a derivatives clearing organization (DCO) must effect a settlement at least once each business day and ensure that settlements are final when effected.

Although not mentioned by DCR, the letter is clearly intended to complement earlier guidance issued jointly by the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Guidance) regarding the Regulatory Capital Treatment of Certain Centrally Cleared Derivatives Contracts Under Regulatory Capital Rules. As the Guidance explains in greater detail, for purposes of the risk-based capital calculation and the supplementary leverage ratio calculation, the regulatory capital rules require financial institutions to calculate their trade exposure amount with respect to derivatives contracts. The trade exposure amount, in turn, is determined, in part, by taking into account the remaining maturity of such contracts. The Guidance goes on to explain that for a derivatives contract that is structured such that on specific dates any outstanding exposure is settled and the terms are reset so that the fair value of the contract is zero, the remaining maturity equals the time until the next reset.

“Accordingly, for the purpose of the regulatory capital rules, if, after accounting and legal analysis, the institution determines that (i) the variation margin payment on a centrally cleared Settled-to-Market Contract settles any outstanding exposure on the contract, and (ii) the terms are reset so that fair value of the contract is zero, the remaining maturity on such contract would equal the time until the next exchange of variation margin on the contract.”

CFTC Letter No. 17-51 provides the legal analysis to confirm that, as a condition of registration with the CFTC as a DCO, each DCO must provide for daily settlement of all obligations, including the payment and receipt of all variation margin obligations, which payments are irrevocable and unconditional when effected. As a result, a clearing member’s obligations to each DCO are satisfied daily and the fair value of the open cleared derivatives held at the DCO is effectively reset to zero daily.

This post was written by James M. Brady & Kevin M. Foley of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP., ©2017
For more Financial & Banking legal analysis, go to The National Law Review

New Rules Offer Clarity On China’s Outbound M&A Crackdown

On August 18, 2017, China’s State Council issued guidelines clarifying rules passed a year ago by the State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE) limiting outbound investments as cover-up to move money out of China.

The new guidelines provide different policies for Chinese companies’ investment overseas, broadly dividing overseas investment into three categories:

  • investments in “real estate, hotels, entertainment, sport clubs, [and] outdated industries” are restricted;

  • investments in sectors that could “jeopardize China’s national interest and security, including output of unauthorized core military technology and products” and investments in gambling and pornography are prohibited; and

  • investments in establishing R&D centers abroad and in sectors like high-tech and advanced manufacturing enterprises that could boost China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and investments that would benefit Chinese products and technology will be encouraged by Chinese outbound regulators.

These guidelines are new and we have to wait and see how they will be interpreted and implemented by regulators. Still, there may be reasons to believe they will have a net positive effect on the China-U.S. M&A market. The new guidelines bring about greater certainty to buyers, lenders and targets on whether a deal will get approved by Chinese regulators.

The volume and size of Chinese outbound M&A is already on an upward trajectory in the second quarter of 2017, as buyers are already getting more acclimated to SAFE rules announced at the end of 2016 restricting the outflow of Chinese capital. Chinese buyers completed 94 deals totaling $36 billion in Q2, compared to the 74 deals totaling $12 billion in Q1. The current Chinese outbound M&A trend, coupled with greater certainty under the new guidelines, is likely to result in more Chinese outbound M&A deals during the last quarter of 2017, as well as in 2018.

This post was written by Shang Kong & Zhu Julie Lee of Foley & Lardner LLP © 2017

For more legal analysis go to The National Law Review

The Corporate Transparency Act: A Proposal to Expand Beneficial Ownership Reporting for Legal Entities, Corporate Formation Agents and – Potentially – Attorneys

In late June, Representatives Carolyn Maloney and Peter King of New York introduced The Corporate Transparency Act of 2017 (the “Act”). In August, Senators Ron Wyden and Marco Rubio introduced companion legislation in the Senate. A Fact Sheet issued by Senator Wyden is here. Representative King previously has introduced several versions of this proposed bipartisan legislation; the most recent earlier version, entitled the Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act, was introduced in February 2016.  Although it is far from clear that this latest version will be passed, the Act is worthy of attention and discussion because it represents a potentially significant expansion of the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) to a whole new category of businesses.

The Act is relatively complex.  In part, it would amend the BSA in order to compel the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations that would require corporations and limited liability companies (“LLCs”) formed in States which lack a formation system requiring robust identification of beneficial ownership (as defined in the Act) to themselves file reports to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) that provide the same information about beneficial ownership that the entities would have to provide, if they were in a State with a sufficiently robust formation system.  More colloquially, entities formed in States which don’t require much information about beneficial ownership now would have to report that information directly to FinCEN – scrutiny which presumably is designed to both motivate States to enact more demanding formation systems, and demotivate persons from forming entities in States which require little information about beneficial ownership.

 

However, there is another facet to the Act which to date has not seemed to garner much attention, but which potentially could have a significant impact. Under the Act, formation agents – i.e., those who assist in the creation of legal entities such as corporations or LLCs – would be swept up in the BSA’s definition of a “financial institution” and therefore subject to the BSA’s AML and reporting obligations.  This expanded definition potentially applies to a broad swath of businesses and individuals previously not regulated directly by the BSA, including certain attorneys.

Clearly attempting to gain steam from last year’s Panama Papers scandal – although the Act’s various predecessor bills were introduced before that scandal erupted – the “Findings” section of the Act lays out the case for its passage. According to that section, the Act is necessary because:

  • Few States obtain meaningful information about the beneficial owners of entities formed under their laws, and often require less information than is needed to obtain a bank account or driver’s license;
  • Many States have automated procedures which allow the formation of a new entity within 24 hours of the filing of an online application;
  • Some Internet Web sites highlight the anonymity provided by certain State incorporation practices as a reason to incorporate in those States, along with offshore jurisdictions;
  • Criminals have exploited these weaknesses to conceal their identities and use newly formed entities to promote terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering, tax evasion, securities fraud, and foreign corruption;
  • The lack of beneficial ownership information has stymied law enforcement;
  • The Financial Action Task Force (“FATF”), described as “a leading international anti-money laundering organization,” has criticized the U.S. for failing to obtain timely access to adequate, accurate and current ownership information;
  • In contrast to the U.S., every country in the European Union requires formation agents to identify the beneficial owners of the corporations formed in those countries.

In the media, the backers of the Act have latched onto another argument to advocate for its passage: national security.  They say that the Act will assist in battling terrorist financing and unseemly conduct such as the alleged interference by Russia in the 2016 U.S. election for President. In the press releaseaccompanying the proposed House legislation, Representative King catalogued the various anti-corruption/transparency groups which are backing the bill, such as Global Witness. Although the support of such groups is not surprising, the press release also highlights the support of a prominent banking industry group, The Clearing House Association (whose President, Greg Baer, has appeared as a guest blogger here on the topic of reforming the current AML regulatory regime).

If passed, the Act would represent another chapter in the domestic and global campaign to increase transparency in financial transactions through information gathering by private parties and expanded requirements for AML-related reporting. As we have blogged, this ongoing campaign has included FinCEN creating reporting requirements for title insurance companies involved in cash purchases of high-end real estate; FinCEN issuing regulations which require covered financial institutions to identify the beneficial ownership of new accounts opened by legal entity customers; Congress recently introducing the Combatting Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing, and Counterfeiting Act of 2017, which in part seeks to expand cross-border reporting requirements under the BSA; and the FATF issuing in December 2016 its Mutual Evaluation Report on the Unites States’ Measures to Combat Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, which (again) found that that a continued lack of timely access to adequate, accurate, and current information on the beneficial owners of entities represented a “fundamental gap” in the U.S. AML regulatory regime.  As suggested by its Findings section, the Act also would represent a partial response by the U.S. Congress to international critiques, such as those posed by the FATF and the European Parliament, that the United States has become a haven for suspected money launderers and tax evaders and is lagging behind other nations in AML compliance.

In our next post, we will describe the proposed Act’s details and its potential implications for a new category of defined “financial institution” – formation agents, which might include attorneys.

This post was written by Peter D. Hardy and Juliana Gerrick of Ballard Spahr LLP Copyright ©
For more legal analysis go to The National Law Review

Monopoly Money or the Real Deal? Exploring the Possibility of Paying Employees in Bitcoin

Bitcoin, the most popular form of digital or crypto-currency, is gaining traction as an investment vehicle and a way to pay for goods and services. More than 100,000 merchants worldwide now accept Bitcoin, allowing consumers to book a hotel stay, take a taxi, or buy a car.  The buzz around crypto-currency continues to grow as Bitcoin options will likely soon be traded on the futures exchange and regulators consider how to monitor Bitcoin transactions.

So what about paying employees in Bitcoin? Here are some things to consider before diving into the digital currency market.

What is Crypto-currency?

Virtual or digital currency is a digital representation of value that has no paper or coin equivalent. Crypto-currency such as Bitcoin uses encryption to control its creation.  Virtual currency is electronically created and stored and does not have the backing of a commodity, bank, or government authority. Additionally, virtual currency does not have the status of legal tender.  This means that a creditor can refuse virtual currency as payment for a debt.

Convertible virtual currency is a class of virtual currency that can be substituted for real currency. As of this week, 1 Bitcoin could be converted into to approximately $4,594.69 USD.

How Do I Get and Use Bitcoin?

Bitcoin is available online and may be purchased with cash, credit card, or wire transfer. A Bitcoin user would set up an online “wallet” that manages his or her transactions.  Each user has a unique address that is identified by a series of letters and numbers and each transaction in Bitcoin is also identified by a series of letters and numbers that can be viewed on a public ledger blockchain.info and shared with other devices on the Bitcoin network.

Due to the encryption of the transactions, the users have a certain level of anonymity, but the transactions are public. One of the advantages of Bitcoin is that there are no intermediaries, which gives user’s control to send payments from one party directly to another without a financial institution making fees lower.

To prevent paying twice with the same Bitcoin, each user has its own private key and a public key. Once a transfer is initiated, the transfer is submitted to the network encoded by the public key.  The acceptance occurs when the person accepts the amount on his or her private key.  The sender signs the transaction with the private key.  This log of transactions is continually downloaded by users on the network removing the need for a third-party clearinghouse to monitor the transactions.

Theoretically, paying an employee in Bitcoins would go through the same process. However, to comply with payroll deductions and filings, employers most commonly engage a payroll service experienced in Bitcoin that handles payroll deductions and filings.

What are the withholding implications of using Bitcoins as wages?

Just like wages paid in non-virtual currency, Bitcoin compensation would be considered W-2 wages for employees. Bitcoin is also subject to federal income tax withholding, FICA, FUTA, and the self-employment tax based on the fair market value of the Bitcoin on the date it was received. 

Do Bitcoin payments meet an employer’s minimum wage and overtime requirements?

Regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) require that wage payments be in “cash or a negotiable instrument payable at par,” meaning that Bitcoin payments may not satisfy an employer’s minimum wage and overtime requirements under the FSLA. An employer could pay in a hybrid of U.S. currency and Bitcoin to meet the federal requirements and pay anything above that amount in Bitcoin.  Several state wage and hour laws also require that wages be paid in U.S. currency so it is important to check both federal and state laws before paying employees in crypto-currency.

What about exempt employees?

Most exempt employees have minimum salary requirements under federal law. The minimum salary requirement under the FLSA salary basis test must be paid in U.S. currency or a negotiable instrument.  Like the minimum wage and overtime requirements, once that threshold is met, employers may pay employees the rest of the amount in Bitcoin.

Other concerns?

For nonexempt employees, there is some gray area as to how to value Bitcoins for the regular rate calculation for overtime purposes. The timing of the valuation may have a significant economic impact due to Bitcoin’s somewhat volatile nature.  Bitcoin valuation may also be a problem when calculating the regular and back pay if an employee is misclassified as exempt.  There may also be other issues tied to Bitcoin’s volatility, the administrative cost of converting wages to Bitcoin and security of Bitcoin wallets.  Before diving into the digital currency world, it is recommended that an employer consult with legal counsel to avoid any potential pitfalls.

This post was written by Taylor E. Whitten  of  Foley & Lardner LLP © 2017
For more Labor & Employment legal analysis go to The National Law Review