Category: finance

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

The ERISA Fiduciary Advice Rule: What Happens on June 9?

This is an update on the upcoming effective date of the “fiduciary rule” or “fiduciary advice rule” (the “Rule”) that was issued under the US Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The Rule was published by the US Department of Labor (DOL) in April, 2016. The purpose of the Rule is to cause a person or entity to become a “fiduciary” under ERISA and the US Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”) as a result of giving of certain types of advice involving investment of assets of employee benefit plans, such as 401(k) or pension plans, or of individual retirement accounts (IRAs) and receiving compensation for that advice.

calendar hundred daysThe Rule was originally intended to become effective April 10, but in April the DOL extended (the “Extension Notice”) the effective date of the Rule for 60 days (until June 9), and provided for reduced compliance obligations under the Rule from that date through the end of 2017 (the “Transition Period”). The effective date for Prohibited Transaction Exemptions (PTEs), both new and amended, that are related to the Rule also was extended until June 9, and further transitional relief was provided with respect to certain of those PTEs.

In a May 23 Op Ed in the Wall Street Journal, Labor Secretary Acosta announced that the Rule would go into effect on June 9, as provided for in the Extension Notice, and that the DOL would seek additional public comment on possible revisions to the Rule.  He indicated that the DOL “found no principled legal basis to change the June 9 date while we seek public input.”  The DOL also published, on May 23, FAQs on implementation of the Rule and an update of its previously-issued enforcement policy for the Transition Period. Therefore, it is important to review the rules that will go into effect on June 9.

Under the Rule, fiduciary status is triggered by investment “recommendations.” It provides, in general, that if a person (1) provides certain types of recommendations to a plan or its participants and/or beneficiaries, or to an IRA owner (collectively, “Protected Investors”); and (2) as a result, receives a fee or other compensation (direct or indirect), then that person is providing “investment advice for a fee” and therefore, in giving such advice, is a fiduciary to the Protected Investor. Receipt of compensation tied to such recommendations by a person or entity that is a fiduciary could result in prohibited transactions under ERISA and the Code. Under the Extension Notice, the DOL provided simplified compliance requirements under the Rule for the Transition Period.

This post was written by Gary W. Howell, Austin S. Lilling, Gabriel S. Marinaro, Richard D. Marshall, Andrew R. Skowronski, Robert A. Stone of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP.

Congress Attempts to Counsel Trump Concerning Removal of CFPB Director Cordray, While PHH Petition for Rehearing Remains Undecided

Congress Capitol CFPB Director CordrayToday, Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and others voiced their opposition to any attempt by President-elect Donald Trump to oust Richard Cordray, the current Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), before Cordray’s term ends in July 2018. They also sent a letter to Cordray outlining and praising his accomplishments as CFPB Director.

The Senators’ opposition to the prospect of Cordray’s removal is just the latest volley between members of Congress and the incoming Administration concerning the CFPB’s directorship.

On January 12, Sean Spicer, a senior spokesperson for President-elect Trump, told reporters that the President-elect had interviewed former Representative Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) for the position of Director of the CFPB. With Richard Cordray’s term as CFPB Director not scheduled to conclude until July 2018, this strongly suggested that the President-elect is considering an attempt to oust Cordray sooner. While in Congress, Rep. Neugebauer introduced legislation aiming to replace the CFPB’s single director with a five-member commission.

Spicer’s statement came on the heels of a January 10 statement from Senator Brown, the ranking member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, urging the President-elect not to attempt to remove Cordray or abolish the CFPB. Senator Brown cautioned President-elect Trump that, “Under Richard Cordray’s leadership, the CFPB has returned $12 billion to servicemembers, seniors, and working Americans . . . Firing Cordray and abolishing the consumer bureau so the special interests can get their $12 billion back would shatter President-elect Trump’s promise to hold Wall Street accountable and protect working people.”

Also on January 10, minority members of the House Committee on Financial Services released a letter to President-elect Trump in the same vein, commending Director Cordray and counseling the President-elect against attempting to remove him.

On January 9, Senators Ben Sasse (R-NE) and Mike Lee (R-UT) released a letter to Vice President-elect Mike Pence urging the opposite: “Given the CFPB’s unconstitutional structure, removing Director Cordray would be consistent with President Trump’s oath to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States’ and his duty to serve as an independent guardian of the U.S. Constitution. Removing Director Cordray would also uphold the American idea of limited government, because Director Cordray has vigorously supported the unconstitutional independence of the CFPB and pursued a regulatory agenda that is harmful to the American people.”

The prospect of Director Cordray’s removal is top of mind following the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision in PHH Corp., et al. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which ruled unconstitutional the provision of the Dodd-Frank Act establishing that the CFPB Director could be fired only “for cause,” i.e., for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.

As discussed in a prior post, Senators Brown and Warren are among 21 current and former members of Congress who filed an amicus brief in support of the CFPB’s petition for rehearing en banc of the PHH decision. On December 22, PHH filed a response to the petition, arguing that there is no need for the D.C. Circuit to revisit its original decision. The United States also filed a response on December 22, arguing that the D.C. Circuit’s decision “departs from” Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding the separation-of-powers and the removal of executive agency heads. The court granted PHH until January 27 to respond to the United States’ brief. Any decision on the petition for rehearing will thus not be made until after President-elect Trump’s inauguration on January 20, raising the prospect that the United States’ brief could be withdrawn if the Department of Justice’s position changes under the incoming Administration.

ARTICLE BY Jamie A. Heine of Covington & Burling LLP

© 2017 Covington & Burling LLP

China Devalues the Yuan in Biggest Single-Day Markdown in 20 Years

The People’s Bank of China—the country’s central bank—devalued its notoriously tightly controlled currency (Chinese Renminbi) by 1.9 percent against the U.S. dollar between Monday night and Tuesday morning, Aug. 11, 2015. Such devaluation represents the greatest single-day markdown since 1994, following years of international political rhetoric concerning China’s exchange rate control.

Precisely because the Chinese government kept the yuan tied to a strong dollar, the exports of other countries have become more competitive as their currencies have fallen against the yuan over the past year. This has resulted in a weakening export sector, upon which the Chinese economy is very much dependent. Other contributing factors to the currency devaluation are the country’s slowing, albeit still net-positive, second-quarter GDP in comparison to prior years and, perhaps, a desire to reign in capital outflows from China, which totaled $162 billion for the first half of this year alone. Add to this backdrop the fact that the central bank has repeatedly cut interest rates to boost lending and spur a slowing economy over the past year, thereby also decreasing returns on domestic investments and forcing investors to look outwardly for higher yields.

While Beijing is focused on the country’s growth and macroeconomic prosperity, the move raises questions as to how a weaker yuan will affect the very active market of Chinese foreign investors.

However, the question now is how the devaluation of the yuan will impact foreign direct investment by Chinese in the real estate sector and as well in EB-5 investments.

ARTICLE BY Shaun K. Staller of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

©2015 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.