Category: finance

Corporate Transparency Act: Implications for Business Startups

Congress passed the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) in January 2021 to provide law enforcement agencies with further tools to combat financial crime and fraud. The CTA requires certain legal entities (each, a “reporting company”) to report, if no exemption is available, specific information about themselves, certain of their individual owners and managers, and certain individuals involved in their formation to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) of the U.S. Department of Treasury. The beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirements of the CTA are set to take effect on January 1, 2024. Those who disregard the CTA may be subject to civil and criminal penalties.

A recent advisory explaining the CTA reporting requirements in further detail may be found here.

While the CTA includes 23 enumerated exemptions for reporting companies, newly formed businesses (Startups) may not qualify for an exemption before the date on which an initial BOI report is due to FinCEN. As a result, Startups (particularly those created on or after January 1, 2024) and their founders and investors, must be prepared to comply promptly with the CTA’s reporting requirements.

As an example, businesses may want to pursue the large operating company exemption under the CTA. However, among other conditions, a company must have filed a federal income tax or information return for the previous year demonstrating more than $5 million in gross receipts or sales. By definition, a newly formed business will not have filed a federal income tax or information return for the previous year. If no other exemption is readily available, such a Startup will need to file an initial BOI report, subject to ongoing monitoring as to whether it subsequently qualifies for an exemption or any reported BOI changes or needs to be corrected, in either case triggering an obligation to file an updated BOI report within 30 days of the applicable event.

Startups also should be mindful that the large operating company exemption requires the entity to (i) directly employ more than 20 full time employees in the U.S. and (ii) have an operating presence at a physical office within the U.S. that is distinct from the place of business of any other unaffiliated entity. Importantly, this means that a mere “holding company” (an entity that issues ownership interests and holds one or more operating subsidiaries but does not itself satisfy the other conditions of this exemption) will not qualify. Startups may want to consider these aspects of the large operating company exemption during the pre-formation phase of their business.

Fundraising often requires Startups to satisfy competing demands among groups of investors, which can lead to relatively complex capitalization tables and unique arrangements regarding management and control. These features may cause BOI reporting for Startups to be more complicated than reporting for other small and closely held businesses. Founders, investors, and potential investors should familiarize themselves with the CTA’s reporting requirements and formulate a plan to facilitate compliance, including with respect to the collection, storage and updating of BOI.

By ensuring all stakeholders understand the BOI reporting requirements and are prepared to comply, your Startup can avoid conflicts with current and potential investors and ensure that it collects the information that it needs to provide a complete and timely BOI report.

Yezi (Amy) Yan and Jordan R. Holzgen contributed to this article.

© 2023 Varnum LLP
For more news on the Corporate Transparency Act, visit the NLR Corporate & Business Organizations section.

What Can We Learn From OFAC Enforcement Actions?

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has closed eight enforcement actions so far in 2023. These enforcement actions targeted companies, financial institutions, and individuals in the United States and abroad, and they resulted in more than $550 million in settlements.

What can other companies, financial institutions, and individuals learn from these enforcement actions? OFAC publishes Enforcement Releases on its website, and these releases provide some notable insights into OFAC’s sanctions enforcement tactics and priorities. By understanding these tactics and priorities, potential targets of OFAC enforcement actions can take strategic steps to bolster their sanctions compliance programs and efforts and reduce their risk of facing OFAC scrutiny.
Notably, all eight of OFAC’s enforcement actions so far in 2023 resulted in settlements with the target. As discussed further below, the majority of these enforcement actions also resulted from voluntary self-disclosures—so it makes sense that the companies and financial institutions involved were interested in settling. There are several other notable consistencies among OFAC’s 2023 enforcement actions as well.

OFAC Enforcement Actions in 2023

Here is a brief summary of each of OFAC’s enforcement actions so far in 2023:

1. Godfrey Phillips India Limited

Statutory Maximum Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP): $1.78 million

Base Penalty Amount: $475,000 (non-egregious violation, no voluntary self-
disclosure)
Settlement Amount: $332,500

Godfrey Phillips India Limited (GPI) faced an enforcement action related to its use of U.S. financial institutions to process transactions for exporting tobacco to North Korea. According to OFAC, GPI “relied on several third-country intermediary parties to receive payment, which obscured the nexus to the DPRK and caused U.S. financial institutions to process these transactions.”

In agreeing to a $332,500 settlement with GPI, OFAC considered the following
aggravating factors under its Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines:

  •  GPI acted “recklessly” and exercised a “minimal degree of caution or care for U.S. sanctions laws and regulations.”
  • Several company managers had actual knowledge that the conduct at issue “concerned the exportation of tobacco to [North Korea].”
  •  The company’s actions harmed U.S. foreign policy objectives “by providing a sought-after, revenue-generating good to the North Korean regime.”

    Mitigating factors in this case included:

  • GPI had not received a Penalty Notice or Finding of Violation from OFAC in the previous five years.
  •  GPI took remedial measures upon learning of the apparent violations, including implementing new know-your customer measures and recordkeeping requirements.
  •   GPI cooperated with OFAC during its investigation.

2. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Statutory Maximum CMP: $1.066 billion

Base Penalty Amount: $533,369,211 (egregious violation, voluntary self-disclosure)

Settlement Amount: $30 million

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. faced an enforcement action related to its predecessor Wachovia Bank’s decision to provide software to a foreign bank that used the software to process trade-finance transactions with sanctioned nations and entities. While noting multiple failures by the bank (including its failure to identify the issue for seven years “despite concerns raised internally within Wells Fargo on multiple occasions”), OFAC agreed to settle Wells Fargo’s potential half-billion-dollar liability for $30 million. Aggravating factors in this case included:

  •  Reckless disregard for U.S. sanctions requirements and failure to exercise a minimal degree of caution or care.
  • The fact that senior management “should reasonably have known” that the software was being used for transactions with sanctioned jurisdictions and entities.
  • Wells Fargo undermined the policy of OFAC’s sanctions programs for Iran, Sudan, and Syria by providing the software platform.

Mitigating factors in this case included:

  • Wells Fargo had a strong sanctions compliance program at the time of the apparent violations.
  • The “true magnitude of the sanctions harm underlying the conduct” is less than the total value of the transactions conducted using the software platform.
  • Wells Fargo had not received a Penalty Notice or Finding of Violation from OFAC in the previous five years and remediated the compliance issue immediately.

3. Uphold HQ Inc.

Statutory Maximum CMP: $44,468,494

Base Penalty Amount: $90,288 (non-egregious violation, voluntary self-disclosure)

Settlement Amount: $72,230

Uphold HQ Inc., a California-based money services business, faced an enforcement action related to its processing of transactions for customers who self-identified as being located in Iran or Cuba or as employees of the Government of Venezuela. The 152 transactions at issue involved a total value of $180,575. Aggravating factors in this case included:

  •  Failure to exercise due caution or care when conducting due diligence on customers who provided information indicating sanctions risks.
  • Uphold had reason to know that it was processing payments for customers in Iran and Cuba and who were employees of the Venezuelan government.

Mitigating factors in this case included:

  •  Uphold had not received a Penalty Notice or Finding of Violation from OFAC in the previous five years.
  • Uphold cooperated with OFAC’s investigation.
  •  Uphold undertook “numerous” remedial measures in response to OFAC’s investigation.

4. Microsoft Corporation

 
Statutory Maximum CMP: $404.6 million

Base Penalty Amount: $5.96 million (non-egregious violation, voluntary self-disclosure)

Settlement Amount: $2.98 million

Microsoft Corporation faced an enforcement action related to its exportation of “services or software” to Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs) and blocked persons in violation of OFAC’s Cuba, Iran, Syria, and Ukraine/Russia-related sanctions programs. According to OFAC’s Enforcement Release, “[t]he majority of the apparent violations . . . occurred as a result of [Microsoft’s] failure to identify and prevent the use of its products by prohibited parties.” Aggravating factors in this case included:

  • Microsoft demonstrated a reckless disregard for U.S. sanctions over a seven-year period.
  •  The apparent violations harmed U.S. foreign policy objectives by providing software and services to more than 100 SDNs or blocked persons, “including major Russian enterprises.”
  •  Microsoft is a “world-leading technology company operating globally with substantial experience and expertise in software and related services sales and transactions.”

Mitigating factors in this case included:

  • There was no evidence that anyone in Microsoft’s U.S. management was aware of the apparent violations at any time.
  • Microsoft cooperated with OFAC’s investigation.
  • Microsoft undertook “significant remedial measures and enhanced its sanctions compliance program through substantial investment” after learning of the apparent violations.

5. British American Tobacco P.L.C.

Statutory Maximum CMP: $508.61 billion

Base Penalty Amount: $508.61 billion (egregious violation, no voluntary self-
disclosure)
Settlement Amount: $508.61 billion

British American Tobacco P.L.C. entered into a settlement for the full statutory maximum CMP resulting from apparent violations of OFAC’s sanctions against North Korea. According to OFAC, the company engaged in a conspiracy “to export tobacco and related products to North Korea and receive payment for those exports through the U.S. financial system” by obscuring the source of the funds involved. Aggravating factors in this case included:

  •  The company “willfully conspired” to unlawfully transfer hundreds of millions of dollars from North Korea through U.S. banks.
  •  The company concealed its business in North Korea through “a complex remittance structure that relied on an opaque series of front companies and intermediaries.”
  • The company’s management had actual knowledge of the apparent conspiracy “from its inception through its termination.”
  •  The transactions at issue “helped North Korea establish and operate a cigarette manufacturing business . . . that has reportedly netted over $1 billion per year.”
  •  British American Tobacco is “a large and sophisticated international company operating in approximately 180 markets around the world.”

Mitigating factors in this case included:

  • British American Tobacco has not received a Penalty Notice or Finding of Violation in the past five years.
  •  British American Tobacco cooperated with OFAC’s investigation.

6. Poloniex, LLC

Statutory Maximum CMP: 19.69 billion

Base Penalty Amount: $99.23 million (non-egregious violation, voluntary self-disclosure)

Settlement Amount: $7.59 million

Poloniex, LLC, which operates an online trading platform in the United States, agreed to settle after it was discovered that the company committed 65,942 apparent violations of various sanctions programs by processing transactions with a combined value of over $15 million. In settling for a small fraction of the base penalty amount, OFAC noted that Poloniex was a “small start-up” when most of the apparent violations were committed and that its acquiring company had already adopted a more-robust OFAC compliance program.

7. Murad, LLC

Statutory Maximum CMP: $22.22 million

Base Penalty Amount: $11.11 million (egregious violation, voluntary self-disclosure)

Settlement Amount: $3.33 million

Murad, LLC, a California-based cosmetics company, faced an OFAC enforcement action after it self-disclosed that it had exported products worth $11 million to Iran. While OFAC found that the company acted willingly in violating its sanctions on Iran, as mitigating factors OFAC noted the company’s remedial response and the “benign
consumer nature” of the products involved.

8. Swedbank Latvia AS

Statutory Maximum CMP: $112.32 million

Base Penalty Amount: $6.24 million (non-egregious violation, no voluntary self-disclosure)

Settlement Amount: $3.43 million

Swedbank Latvia AS faced an enforcement action related to the use of its e-banking platform by a customer with a Crimean IP address to send payments to persons in Crimea through U.S. correspondent banks. While OFAC noted that Swedbank Latvia is “a sophisticated financial institution with over one million customers” and failed to exercise due caution or care, it also noted that the bank took “significant remedial action” in response to the apparent violations and “substantially cooperated” with its investigation.

Insights from OFAC’s 2023 Enforcement Actions To Date

As these recent enforcement actions show, OFAC appears to be willing to give substantial weight to companies’ and financial institutions’ good-faith compliance efforts as well as their remedial efforts after discovering apparent sanctions violations. Cooperation was a key factor in several of OFAC’s 2023 enforcement actions as well. When facing OFAC scrutiny or the need to make a voluntary self-disclosure, companies and financial institutions must work with their counsel to make informed decisions, and they must move forward with a strategic plan in place focused on achieving a favorable outcome in light of the facts at hand.

Oberheiden P.C. © 2023
By Dr. Nick Oberheiden of Oberheiden P.C.
For more news on OFAC Enforcement Actions, visit the NLR Corporate & Business Organizations section.

FINRA Facts and Trends: October 2023

Welcome to the latest issue of Bracewell’s FINRA Facts and Trends, a monthly newsletter devoted to condensing and digesting recent FINRA developments in the areas of enforcement, regulation and dispute resolution. This month, we report on ongoing constitutional challenges to FINRA’s enforcement authority, the possible expansion of the SEC’s WhatsApp record-keeping probe to Zoom and other video calling platforms, several multimillion-dollar settlements of FINRA enforcement actions, and more.

Federal Court Allows FINRA Enforcement Action to Proceed Despite Constitutional Challenges

In the wake of the DC Circuit’s July 2023 ruling that granted an injunction staying a FINRA enforcement proceeding against a broker-dealer based on constitutional challenges of FINRA’s authority, two more FINRA member firms have recently filed federal lawsuits seeking to enjoin FINRA proceedings against them on the same basis. First, in August, Eugene H. Kim filed a lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Columbia (the District Court) seeking a stay of a FINRA enforcement action brought against him for allegedly misusing customer funds. More recently, on October 18, Sidney Lebental filed a similar lawsuit in the District Court, seeking a stay of a FINRA enforcement action brought against him for alleged misconduct in connection with his execution of certain trades.

As we reported in July and September, the DC Circuit’s ruling in July granted a preliminary injunction based on a finding that the plaintiff in that case, Alpine Securities Corporation, had “raised a serious argument that FINRA impermissibly exercises significant executive power.” The two more recent lawsuits filed by Kim and Lebental seek to apply this logic to their own cases, and thus to enjoin FINRA’s Department of Enforcement from proceeding with the actions against them.

But in a ruling issued earlier this month, the District Court declined to grant a stay of the FINRA Enforcement proceeding against Kim. While the District Court acknowledged that it takes guidance from the DC Circuit’s preliminary injunction opinion in Alpine, it held that that opinion “does not suggest that courts must enjoin every challenged FINRA enforcement action pending the Alpine merits decision.” To interpret the DC Circuit’s decision as effectively halting all FINRA enforcement actions, the District Court said, “would upend FINRA’s work—a result that would put investors and US securities markets at risk.”

Will the SEC Turn Its Focus to Zoom Recordings After WhatsApp?

The SEC’s highly publicized sweep of financial service providers’ improper use of WhatsApp and other off-channel communication platforms has resulted in settlements exceeding $2.5 billion. Now, people familiar with the scope and findings of the SEC’s WhatsApp probe have raised concerns that the SEC will expand its record-keeping requirement to include calls over video calling platforms, including Zoom and Microsoft Teams. Those who believe that this expansion is inevitable have already taken steps to meet the SEC’s anticipated scrutiny.

Reuters has reported that the proactive steps taken by some firms include retaining technology specialists and risk consultants not only to ensure that video calls are properly monitored and retained, but also to prevent the use of these platforms for sharing non-public information. Already, two “major global banks” are capturing Zoom sessions, said sources with knowledge of the matter. One of these firms is recording calls by traders and other staff, while the other is capturing all calls so they can be accessed at a future time, if necessary. As of now, video calls are subject to little or no formal record-keeping requirements, as they are viewed as proxies for face-to-face encounters. That may change very soon, with regulators apparently poised to begin assessing the potential for compliance failures over video platforms.

Latest FINRA Dispute Resolution Statistics Point to an Increase in Arbitration Filings

FINRA has released its latest dispute resolution statistics for the current year through September 2023. According to FINRA, the number of arbitration filings has increased nearly 25 percent from this time last year. Customer claims have gone up 14 percent, and breach of fiduciary duty was cited as the most frequent customer claim with a total of 1,127 cases, up from 967 this time last year. The number of industry disputes was 43 percent higher than in September 2022 and breach of contract claims have been the most popular claims so far in 2023, with a total of 201 cases, up from 162 cases a year ago. Notably, filings of Regulation BI arbitration claims by customers continue to rise, with 320 claims filed so far this year, compared to just 216 claims in all of 2022. After cracking the top 15 controversy types in May 2022, Reg BI claims through September have moved the category up to 9th place, and the expectation is that heightened Reg BI scrutiny will give rise to even more claims.

We will report on year-end statistics in early 2024.

Source: FINRA, Dispute Resolution Statistics, https://www.finra.org/arbitration-mediation/dispute-resolution-statistics (last visited Oct. 31, 2023).

Lawsuit Against Broker-Dealer Highlights Risks of Online Impersonators

A Swedish woman recently filed a lawsuit in New Jersey federal court against a New Jersey-based FINRA broker-dealer, AlMax Financial Solutions. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff was defrauded out of more than $180,000 — not by AlMax, but by an impostor website that maintained a website falsely impersonating AlMax.

Notably for FINRA members, the plaintiff’s complaint references FINRA Regulatory Notice 20-30 (Fraudsters Using Registered Representatives Names to Establish Imposter Websites), which informs member firms about reports of fraudsters who run imposter websites while posing as FINRA members.

It is unclear whether the lawsuit, which asserts claims for negligence and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, has any legal merit. For one thing, FINRA Regulatory Notice 20-30 prescribes no mandatory measures that member firms must take to root out impostors, and instead only provides certain actions that members “can take” or that they “may also consider.” Nevertheless, the case is a reminder to member firms of the guidance provided by FINRA concerning these imposter websites, and the risks they may pose.

SDNY Judge Halts FINRA Arbitration Brought by Non-Customers

In a ruling issued on October 13, 2023, US District Judge Naomi Buchwald of the Southern District of New York confirmed that FINRA arbitrations may not be commenced by investors who are not customers of a FINRA member firm, and enjoined an ongoing FINRA proceeding on that basis.

The FINRA proceeding in question was filed against Interactive Brokers LLC, a FINRA member firm, by a group of investors in funds managed by EIA All Weather Alpha Fund I Partners, LLC (EIA). According to the FINRA Statement of Claim, EIA misled its investors and misappropriated their investment assets.

EIA separately maintained trading accounts with Interactive Brokers during the relevant period, the FINRA Statement of Claim said. The investor-claimants filed claims against Interactive Brokers, arguing that — even though the investors themselves had no direct relationship with Interactive Brokers — Interactive Brokers had a responsibility to detect and prevent EIA’s misconduct, but failed to do so. And, because EIA’s relationship with Interactive Brokers was governed by an agreement that contained a broad arbitration provision, the investors contended that its claims against Interactive Brokers were subject to FINRA arbitration, either as third-party beneficiaries of EIA’s agreement with Interactive Brokers, or pursuant to FINRA Rules.

In its ruling after Interactive Brokers filed a lawsuit to stay the arbitration, the Court rejected these arguments. Most significantly, the Court reiterated the Second Circuit’s bright-line rule that to qualify as a “customer” for purposes of FINRA Rule 12200, a person must either purchase a good or service from a FINRA member, or maintain an account with a FINRA member. Since the EIA investors had no such relationship with Interactive Brokers, the Court rejected their claim to be “customers” entitled to avail themselves of FINRA Rules. The Court also found that the investors were not third-party beneficiaries of EIA’s agreement with Interactive Brokers, since they did not meet the “heightened threshold for clarity” required to find that a third party has the right to compel arbitration.

Reminder: New Expungement Rule Is Now Effective

This is a reminder that effective October 16, 2023, FINRA amended its rules to provide a stricter standard and procedural process for registered representatives seeking to expunge negative customer-related complaints. We previously provided a comprehensive analysis of the new FINRA expungement rule.

Notable Enforcement Matters and Disciplinary Actions

  • Inaccurate Trade Data. A multinational financial services firm was sanctioned a total of $12 million by FINRA and the SEC for allegedly submitting inaccurate trading data to the two regulators for nearly a decade. The Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent (AWC) detailing FINRA’s findings on this matter is available here, and the SEC’s administrative order is available here.Firms submit electronic blue sheets (EBSs) to regulators in response to requests for trade information. These EBSs provide examiners with trade details, including the nature of each transaction, the buyer and seller, and the transaction price. According to the SEC and FINRA, the respondent firm submitted tens of thousands of EBSs between November 2012 and October 2022 that were rife with inaccuracies for hundreds of millions of individual transactions.
  • The firm’s reporting failures allegedly stemmed from outdated and inaccurate code, manual validation errors and inadequate verification procedures. Prior to being notified of the inaccuracies, the firm had already begun voluntary remedial efforts, including a full-scale, line-by-line analysis of the code underlying its EBS program, automation of the EBS processing procedures and migration of data to a new reporting system.
  • Trading Approval. A multinational brokerage firm agreed to pay more than $1.6 million to FINRA and the state of Massachusetts to settle claims that it failed to exercise due diligence when approving investors for options trading. The AWC detailing FINRA’s findings is available here.According to regulators, at least some of the alleged violations resulted from a deluge of new account applications in response to the “meme stock” craze of 2020 and 2021. Among other things, the firm’s automated screening system allegedly approved approximately 400 teenagers under the age of 19 to trade options (an impossibility, since the firm’s rules required all customers seeking to trade options to have at least one year of investment experience after the age of 18). The firm also permitted customers to re-submit rejected applications after artificially inflating their trading experience, income and net worth.
  • Inaccurate Research Reports.  A multinational brokerage firm incurred a $2 million sanction over claims that it published thousands of equity and debt research reports with inaccurate conflicts disclosures between 2013 and 2021. The AWC detailing FINRA’s findings is available here.According to FINRA, the firm not only failed to disclose conflicts, but also disclosed conflicts that did not exist. The violations, amounting to more than 300,000 disclosure inaccuracies, allegedly resulted from a series of technical and operational issues, including problems with data feeds, mistakes in the aggregation of client information and a failure to update old data.

FINRA Notices and Rule Filings

  • Regulatory Notice 23-16 – FINRA amended its By-Laws to exempt from the Trading Activity Fee any transaction by a proprietary trading firm that is executed on an exchange of which the firm is a member. This exemption relates to the SEC’s recent amendments to Exchange Act Rule 15b9-1, which we reported on last month. The TAF exemption for proprietary trading firms will be effective November 6, 2023.
  • SR-FINRA-2023-013 – FINRA has proposed a rule change that would amend the FINRA Codes of Arbitration Procedure to disallow compensated representatives who are not attorneys from representing parties in FINRA arbitrations and mediations. The proposed rule change would also codify that law students enrolled in a law school clinic and practicing under the supervision of an admitted attorney may represent parties in FINRA arbitrations and mediations.

© 2023 Bracewell LLP

By Joshua Klein , Keith Blackman , Russell W. Gallaro of Bracewell LLP

For more on FINRA Trends, visit the NLR Financial Institutions & Banking section.

Inadvertent Errors and Tax Hedge Identification

Businesses often manage their price risks by hedging those risks with financial derivative contracts. Because businesses generate ordinary income and loss on their normal business activities, they want to be sure their hedging activities also generate ordinary tax treatment. If these hedging activities were to generate capital gains and losses, they would be basically worthless for many businesses. As a result, business taxpayers want to be able to net their hedging gains and losses against gains and losses on their normal business activities. (See my article, “Hedging: Favorable Tax Treatment Requires Careful Compliance.”)

Tax Hedge Identification Requirements

 In order to receive favorable tax treatment, a hedge (Hedge) must be clearly identified “before the close of the day on which it is acquired, originated, or entered into.”[1] The item (or items) being hedged (Hedged Item) must also be identified on a “substantially contemporaneous”[2] basis, but not more than 35 days after the taxpayer enters into the Hedge. And, the tax hedge accounting method must “clearly reflect income.”

In order to comply with these requirements, taxpayers can either establish an aggregate hedge program where they enter their Hedges into a designated hedge account, or they can attach a notation to a Hedge identifying the specific transaction as a “Hedge.” Either way, taxpayers must unambiguously and timely identify their Hedges and Hedged Items. Simply identifying a hedge for financial accounting purposes is not good enough because the hedge identification must clearly state that the identification is for tax purposes.

 The Best Laid Plans

So what happens if a taxpayer fails to unambiguously and timely identify the Hedge and the Hedged Item? Mistakes and errors happen. Tax identification can slip through the cracks. Sometimes the employee responsible for proper identification leaves the company and that responsibility is not promptly assigned to someone else. There are many reasons why tax identifications are made late, are incomplete, or are missed entirely. To discourage incomplete or omitted identification, the Code imposes so-called whipsaw rules that treat the gains on misidentified hedge transactions as ordinary and losses as capital.[3] This is a seriously adverse tax result. In limited circumstances, however, a taxpayer can escape the consequence if the failure to provide a proper identification was due to an “inadvertent error.”[4]

Inadvertent Error

Treas. Reg. §1.1221-2(g)(2)(ii) provides that a taxpayer can treat gains and losses on hedges that it has failed to identify if the failure was due to an “inadvertent error.” Unfortunately, neither the Code nor the Treasury regulations define inadvertent error. All we’ve got to go on in this regard is one private letter ruling and two Chief Counsel Advice Memoranda. These documents are not the type of guidance that taxpayers can rely on or cite as precedent. Nevertheless, they are instructive, however, because they give us a look into what the IRS views as inadvertent error.

In LTR 200051035 the IRS stated, “In the absence of a specific definition in the regulations, the term ‘inadvertent error’ should be given its ordinary meaning. . . . The ordinary meaning of the term ‘inadvertence’ is ‘an accidental oversight; a result of carelessness.’”[5] This view seems sensible and entirely appropriate.

Three years later, in CCA 200851082 the IRS Chief Counsel said that the “Taxpayer should bear the burden of proving inadvertence, and its satisfaction should be judged on all surrounding facts and objective indicia of whether the claimed oversight was truly accidental…. The size of the transaction, the treatment of the transaction as a hedge for financial accounting purposes, the sophistication of the taxpayer, its advisors, and counterparties, among other things, are all probative.”

Fair enough, but shortly thereafter, the IRS expressed its displeasure with taxpayers that should have known better and explained when taxpayers can rely on the inadvertent error excuse to receive tax hedge treatment. In CCA 201046015, the IRS Chief Counsel’s Office said that the failure to promptly address failed or improperly identified hedges would undercut a taxpayer’s inadvertent error claim; and that the inadvertent error exception is not intended to “eviscerate” the hedge identification requirements. The IRS went on to state, “Absent a change in the regulation, [it saw] no compelling policy justification to read the inadvertent error rule as an open-ended invitation for taxpayers to brush aside establishing hedge identification procedures.” A taxpayer’s claim of ignorance of the requirement for hedge identification is no excuse and is not grounds for claiming inadvertent error. In other words, inattention to the hedge identification requirements cannot be excused simply by asserting inadvertent error.

CONCLUSION

Notwithstanding the regulatory provision that provides an “inadvertent” error is an excuse for failing to timely identify hedges, it is now clear that the IRS is only willing to entertain an inadvertent error claim in very limited circumstances. Taxpayers have very little hope of being able to rely on this excuse to avoid the whipsaw rule if they do not properly identify their hedging transactions. This is just one more reason why taxpayers must treat the hedge identification requirement with care and seriousness. Failure to do so can have severe tax consequences.

[1] Code § 1221(a)(7).

[2] Treas. Reg. § 1.1221-2(f)(2).

[3] Code § 1221(b)(2)(B).

[4] Treas. Reg. § 1.1221-2(g)(2)(ii).

[5] Dec. 22, 2000.

© 2023 ASKramer Law
For more on Tax Hedge Errors, visit the NLR Tax section.

IRS Offers Forgiveness for Erroneous Employee Retention Credit Claims

The Employee Retention Credit (“ERC”) is a popular COVID-19 tax break that was targeted by some unscrupulous and aggressive tax promoters. These promoters flooded the IRS with ERC claims for many taxpayers who did not qualify for the credit. Now, the IRS is showing mercy and allowing taxpayers to withdraw some ERC claims without penalty.

Many taxpayers were very excited about the ERC, which could refund qualified employers up to $5,000 or $7,000 per employee per quarter, depending on the year of the claim. But the requirements are complicated. Some tax promoters seized on this excitement, charged large contingent or up-front fees, and made promises of “risk-free” applications for the credit. Unfortunately, many employers ended up erroneously applying for credits and exposing themselves to penalties, interest, and criminal investigations—in addition to having to repay the credit. For example, the IRS reports repeated instances of taxpayers improperly citing supply chain issues as a basis for an ERC when a business with those issues rarely meets the eligibility criteria.

After months of increased focus, the IRS halted the processing of new ERC claims in September 2023. And now, the IRS has published a process for taxpayers to withdraw their claims without penalty. Some may even qualify for the withdrawal process if they have already received the refund check, as long as they haven’t deposited or cashed the check.

For those who have already received and cashed their refund checks, and believe they did not qualify, the IRS says it will soon provide more information to allow employers to repay their ERC refunds without additional penalties or criminal investigations.

© 2023 Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone PLC
For more articles on the IRS, visit the NLR Tax section.

Cryptocurrency Brings Disruption to Bankruptcy Courts—What Parties Can Expect and the Open Issues Still To Be Resolved (Part Two)

In this second part of our blog exploring the various issues courts need to address in applying the Bankruptcy Code to cryptocurrency, we expand upon our roadmap.  In part one, we addressed whether cryptocurrency constitutes property of the estate, the impacts of cryptocurrency’s fluctuating valuation, issues of perfection, and the effects of cryptocurrency on debtor-in-possession financing.  In this part two, we explore preferential transfers of cryptocurrency, whether self-executing smart contracts would violate the automatic stay, and how confusing regulatory guidelines negatively impact bankruptcy proceedings, including plan feasibility.

Preferential Transfers

Pursuant to section 547(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor-in-possession (or trustee) can avoid a transfer of the debtor’s property to a creditor made in the 90-days before filing the petition if, among other things, the creditor received more than it would have in a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding.  Notably, such a transfer can only be avoided if the thing transferred was the debtor’s property.  When cryptocurrency is valued and whether cryptocurrency is considered to be property of the estate can impact preference liability.

Perhaps the first question to arise in cryptocurrency preference litigation is whether the transferred cryptocurrency is property of the estate.  If, as in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of Celsius Network LLC and its affiliates, the cryptocurrency withdrawn by the accountholder during the ninety days prior to the bankruptcy is determined to be property of the estate, and not the accountholder’s property, a preferential transfer claim could be asserted.  If, however, the cryptocurrency was property of the accountholder, for instance if it was held in a wallet to which only the accountholder had exclusive rights, no preference liability would attach to the withdrawal of the cryptocurrency.

Assuming that a preferential transfer claim lies, the court must decide how to value the preferential transfer.  Section 550 of the Bankruptcy Code allows a debtor-in-possession to recover “the property transferred, or, if the court so orders, the value of such property.”[1] This gives the debtor-in-possession wide latitude in asserting a preference claim.  For instance, the debtor-in-possession could take the position that the cryptocurrency is a commodity, in which case a claim could be asserted to recover the cryptocurrency itself, which, by the end of the case, may be worth a much more than it was at the time of the transfer, with any gain accruing to the estate’s benefit.[2]  In contrast, the party receiving the transferred cryptocurrency would likely take the position that the cryptocurrency is currency, in which case a claim would be limited to the value of the cryptocurrency at the time of the transfer.[3]

The proper valuation methodology has not to date been definitively addressed by the courts.  Perhaps the closest a court has come to deciding that issue was in Hashfast Techs. LLC v. Lowe,[4] where the trustee claimed that a payment of 3,000 bitcoins to a supplier was a preferential transfer.  The bitcoin was worth approximately $360,000 at the time of the transfer but was worth approximately $1.2 million when the trustee asserted the preferential transfer claim.  The trustee argued that the payment to the supplier was intended to be a transfer of bitcoins and not a payment of $360,000, and that the supplier was required to pay 3,000 bitcoins to the estate, notwithstanding the substantial increase in value (and the resulting windfall to the estate).  Ultimately, the court refused to decide whether bitcoin is either currency or commodities and held that “[i]f and when the [trustee] prevails and avoids the subject transfer of bitcoin to defendant, the court will decide whether, under 11 U.S.C. § 550(a), he may recover the bitcoin (property) transferred or their value, and if the latter, valued as of what date.”[5]

The changing value of cryptocurrency will also impact the question of whether the creditor received more than it would have in a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding.[6]  While the value of preferential transfers are determined at the time of the transfer,[7] the analysis of whether such transfer made the creditor better off than in a Chapter 7 liquidation is determined at the time of a hypothetical distribution, which means, practically, at the time of the petition.[8]  Therefore, if a customer withdraws cryptocurrency from a platform during the 90-day preference period, and the cryptocurrency experiences a decrease in value during those 90 days, that customer could arguably be liable for a preferential transfer because the withdrawn cryptocurrency was worth more at the time of the transfer than at the time of the petition.

Presently unanswered is whether the safe-harbor provisions provided for in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code shield cryptocurrency transfers from preferential transfer attack.  Pursuant to section 546(e), a debtor-in-possession cannot avoid as a preference a margin payment or settlement payment made to “financial participant . . . in connection with a securities contract . . . commodity contract . . . [or] forward contract . . . that is made before the commencement of the case.” If the court determines that cryptocurrency is a security or commodity, and that the transfers were made in connection with forward or commodities contracts, then section 546(e) may shield those transfers from attack as preferential.

Violations of the Automatic Stay and Smart Contracts

The self-executing nature of smart contracts may raise automatic stay concerns.  The automatic stay arises upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, and in general, prevents creditors and other parties from continuing their collection efforts against the debtor.[9]  Of relevance to smart contracts, section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code states that the stay applies to “any act” to obtain possession of or control of property of the estate.  Very recently, in Chicago v. Fulton, the United Stated Supreme Court held that section 362(a)(3) prevented any “affirmative act that would alter the status quo at the time of the bankruptcy petition.”[10]

Prior to Fulton, a bankruptcy court in Arkansas examined an analogous issue in Hampton v. Yam’s Choice Plus Autos, Inc. (In re Hampton).[11]  In Hampton, the court adjudicated whether a device that automatically locked the debtor out of her car violated the automatic stay when it disabled function of the car’s engine postpetition.  The device relied on a code—if the debtor paid, the creditor sent her a code, which she would then input, and this prevented the device from automatically disabling the car’s starter.  In this instance, the court found a violation of the automatic stay.[12]

Based on current case law, it remains unclear whether a smart contract, operating automatically, would violate the automatic stay.  For example, if a smart contract is based on a DeFi loan, and it automatically executes postpetition to transfer to the lender assets of the estate, a court may find a violation of the automatic stay.

Hampton would suggest that such actions would be a violation—but two issues caution against relying on Hampton as a clear bellwether.  First, Hampton was decided pre-Fulton and it remains unclear whether, and to what extent, the Supreme Court’s holding in Fulton would change the outcome of Hampton. Second, a potentially key factual distinction exists: the device in Hampton required the creditor to give the debtor a code to prevent the disabling of the car, but smart contracts can be programmed to automatically execute postpetition without any further action by the parties.  If a smart contract is found to violate the automatic stay, the next question is whether such a violation is willful, meaning that a court can impose monetary penalties, including potentially punitive damages.[13]

Note that even if a smart contract is found not to violate the automatic stay, it does not mean that a creditor can retain the property.  Section 542 of the Bankruptcy Code requires those in possession of estate property to turnover the property to the estate.  The estate is created at the time of the filing of the petition, and therefore, any smart contract that executes postpetition would theoretically concern estate property and be subject to turnover.  Unfortunately, ambiguities arise even in this statute, as section 542 contains a good-faith exemption to the turnover mandate if the recipient is not aware of bankruptcy filing and transfers the assets.[14]  Thus, the turnover mandate may be difficult to apply to non-debtor parties to smart contracts who program the contract ahead of time with the knowledge that such a contract may execute after a bankruptcy petition but with no actual knowledge of such petition having been filed.

Regulatory Confusion

The regulatory world has no uniform approach to cryptocurrency. Both the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodities Future Trading Commission (CFTC), perhaps in part spurred by executive pressure, recently advanced heavier regulatory oversight of cryptocurrency.[15]  The two agencies also share jurisdiction; one agency asserting authority to regulate cryptocurrency does not preclude the other from doing so.[16]  Other agencies, such as the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCen), have also asserted the jurisdiction to regulate cryptocurrency.[17]  The result is regulatory confusion for market participants, both because of the sheer number of agencies asserting jurisdiction and the fact that individual agencies can sometimes issue confusing and ill-defined guidelines.

For instance, the SEC applies the Howey test, developed in the 1940s, to determine whether a specific cryptocurrency is a security.[18]  Unfortunately, the SEC has stated that whether a specific cryptocurrency is a security can change overtime, and recently announced even more cryptocurrencies that they believe meet Howey’s definition of a security via their lawsuits with crypto exchanges Binance.US and Coinbase.[19]

The regulatory confusion clouding cryptocurrency has directly impacted bankruptcy proceedings. One recent case study offers a glimpse into that disconcerting influence. In 2022, crypto exchange Voyager Digital Holdings Ltd. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Another major crypto exchange, Binance.US, entered into an agreement with Voyager to acquire its assets—valued at around $1 billion. The SEC, the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS), and the New York Attorney General all filed sale objections in Voyager’s bankruptcy proceedings, arguing that if Voyager’s crypto assets constitute securities, then Binance.US’s rebalancing and redistribution of these assets to its account holders would be an “unregistered offer, sale or delivery after sale of securities” in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act.[20]  The NYDFS also alleged that the agreement “unfairly discriminates” against New York citizens by subordinating their recovery of diminished assets in favor of Voyager’s creditors—as well as foreclosing the option to recover crypto rather than liquidated assets.[21]

SEC trial counsel noted that, “regulatory actions, whether involving Voyager, Binance.US or both, could render the transactions in the plan impossible to consummate, thus making the plan unfeasible.”[22]  In April 2023, Binance.US sent Voyager a legal notice canceling the prospective transaction, writing that “the hostile and uncertain regulatory climate in the United States has introduced an unpredictable operating environment impacting the entire American business community.”[23]

The SEC’s desire towards regulating cryptocurrency as securities appears to be growing.  On August 15, 2023, the SEC settled for $24 million its claims against Bittrex, which included violations of Section 5 of the Securities Act.[24] Upon the settlement, the director of the SEC stated that Bittrex “worked with token issuers . . . in an effort to evade the federal securities law.  They failed.”[25]  Uncertainty combined with aggressive enforcement leaves cryptocurrency entities in an uncertain and precarious position.

Plan Feasibility

The Voyager case also highlights issues with plan feasibility in Chapter 11.  In Voyager, the SEC objected to plan feasibility on the basis that one known digital asset of Voyager was a security, and therefore, the purchaser should register as a securities dealer.[26]  Although the court overruled the SEC’s objection, as noted above, Binance.US ultimately withdrew its purchase offer, placing blame on the overall regulatory climate.[27]  As regulations remain uncertain, and government authorities have shown a willingness to assert themselves into the process of reorganization, debtors who file for bankruptcy will have to brace for new or unforeseen objections to an otherwise confirmable plan.

Conclusion

Cryptocurrency has been seen by some as a disruptive force in finance.  As the above issues show, it also appears to be a disruptive force in bankruptcy cases.  Debtors and creditors alike will have to weather the disruption as best they can while the courts continue to grapple with the many open issues raised by cryptocurrencies.

See Cryptocurrency Brings Disruption to Bankruptcy Courts—What Parties Can Expect and the Open Issues Still To Be Resolved (Part One)

[1] See 11 U.S.C. § 550(a).

[2] This position would arguably be consistent with cases interpreting section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code that have held that the estate is entitled to recover the value of the property when value has appreciated subsequent to the transfer.  See, e.g., In re Am. Way Serv. Corp., 229 B.R. 496, 531 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1999) (noting that when the value of the transferred property has appreciated, “the trustee is entitled to recover the property itself, or the value of the property at the time of judgment.”).

[3] Mary E. Magginis, Money for Nothing: The Treatment of Bitcoin in Section 550 Recovery Actions, 20 U. Pa. J. Bus. L. 485, 516 (2017).

[4] No. 14-30725DM (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2016),

[5] Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment at 1-2, Hashfast Techs. LLC v. Lowe, Adv. No. 15-3011DM (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2016) (ECF No. 49).

[6] See 11 U.S.C. § 547(b)(5) (requiring the transferee to have received more that it would have received in a Chapter 7 liquidation).

[7] Maginnis, supra note 3.

[8] See In re CIS Corp., 195 B.R. 251, 262 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1996) (“Thus, the Code § 547(b)(5) analysis is to be made as of the time the Debtor filed its bankruptcy petition); Sloan v. Zions First Nat’l Bank (In re Casteltons, Inc.), 990 F.2d 551, 554 (9th Cir. 1993) (“When assessing an alleged preferential transfer, the relevant inquiry . . . [is] . . . the actual effect of the payment as determined when bankruptcy results.”).

[9] 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

[10] 141 S.Ct. 585, 590 (2021).

[11] 319 B.R. 163 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2005).

[12] Hampton, 319 B.R. at 165-170.

[13] See 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) (providing that, subject to a good faith exception “an individual injured by any willful violation of [the automatic stay] shall recover actual damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, and, in appropriate circumstances, may recover punitive damages.”).

[14] See 11 U.S.C. § 542(c).

[15] David Gura, The White House calls for more regulations as cryptocurrencies grow more popular (Sept. 6, 2022, 6:00 AM), https://www.npr.org/2022/09/16/1123333428/crypto-cryptocurrencies-bitcoin-terra-luna-regulation-digital-currencies.

[16] See, e.g., CFTC v. McDonnell, 287 F. Supp. 3d 222, 228-29 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (“The jurisdictional authority of CFTC to regulate virtual currencies as commodities does not preclude other agencies from exercising their regulatory power when virtual currencies function differently than derivative commodities.”).

[17] See Treasury Announces Two Enforcements Actions for over $24M and $29M Against Virtual Currency Exchange Bittrex, Inc., (October 11, 2022), https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1006.

[18] See SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946).

[19] Emily Mason, Coinbase Hit With SEC Suit That Identifies $37 Billion of Crypto Tokens As Securities, (June 6, 2023 5:08 pm), https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilymason/2023/06/06/coinbase-hit-with-sec-suit-that-identifies-37-billion-of-crypto-tokens-as-securities/?sh=3cc4c6d667a9; SEC Charges Crypto Asset Trading Platform Bittrex and its Former CEO for Operating an Unregistered Exchange, Broker, and Clearing Agency, https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2023-78 (last visited July 31, 2023).

[20] Jack Schickler, SEC Objects to Binance.US’ $1B Voyager Deal, Alleging Sale of Unregistered Securities, (last updated Feb. 23, 2023 at 2:32 p.m.), https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/02/23/sec-objects-to-binanceus-1b-voyager-deal-alleging-sale-of-unregistered-securities/.

[21] See NYDFS Objection to Plan, In re Voyager Digital Holdings, et al. at 9-10, No. 22-10943 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2023) [ECF No. 1051].

[22] Kari McMahon, SEC and New York Regulators Push Back on Binance.US’s Acquisition of Voyager, The Block (Feb. 23, 2023), https://www.theblock.co/post/214333/sec-and-new-york-regulators-push-back-on-binance-uss-acquisition-of-voyager.

[23] Yueqi Yang & Steven Church, Binance US Ends $1 Billion Deal to Buy Bankrupt Crypto Firm Voyager, Bloomberg (April 25, 2023), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-25/binance-us-terminates-deal-to-buy-bankrupt-crypto-firm-voyager.

[24] See Crypto Asset Trading Platform Bittrex and Former CEO to Settle SEC Charges for Operating an Unregistered Exchange, Broker, and Clearing Agency, https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2023-150 (last visited Sept. 18, 2023).

[25] Id.

[26] See Objection of the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission to Confirmation at 3 n.5, In re Voyager Digital Holdings, et al., No. 22-10943 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2023) (ECF No. 1047).

[27] See supra at n. 23.

© Copyright 2023 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
Article by Mark A. Salzberg , Justin Cloyd of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
For more articles on cryptocurrency, visit the NLR communications, media and internet section.

FTC Junk Fee Ban Proposed Rule Released

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a new proposed rule to ban junk fees, which are unexpected, hidden, and “bogus” charges that are often applied later in a transaction. The FTC announced the proposed rule on October 11, 2023 after receiving 12,000 comments from consumers about how these fees impact them. The FTC is currently “seeking a new round of comments on a proposed junk fee rule,” according to a press release issued by the agency.

Junk fees include charges added when purchasing concert tickets online, making hotel and resort reservations, changing airline booking and seat choice fees, paying utility bills and renting an apartment. Junk fees are sometimes called partitioned pricing, drip pricing or shrouded pricing, according to Ashish Pradhan of Cornerstone Research. Consumers told the FTC that sellers often don’t say what the fees are for, and if they’re getting anything in return for paying them.

“All too often, Americans are plagued with unexpected and unnecessary fees they can’t escape. These junk fees now cost Americans tens of billions of dollars per year—money that corporations are extracting from working families just because they can,”  FTC Chair Lina M. Khan stated today. “By hiding the total price, these junk fees make it harder for consumers to shop for the best product or service and punish businesses who are honest upfront. The FTC’s proposed rule to ban junk fees will save people money and time and make our markets fairer and more competitive.”

The FTC estimates that junk fees can result in “tens of billions of dollars per year in unexpected costs” for consumers, and more than 50 million hours of time spent searching for the total price of short-term lodging and tickets for live events per year.

What Is the FTC Junk Fee Proposed Rule?

The proposed rule requires businesses to include all mandatory fees to be disclosed in pricing and prohibits sellers from applying any hidden fees during the transaction. The FTC said that this would help consumers “know exactly how much they are paying and what they are getting and spur companies to compete on offering the lowest price.”

Specifically, the Junk Fee Proposed Rule bans:

  • Hidden fees. These fees drive up the price of purchases, often before the transaction is complete. The proposed rule also bars businesses from advertising prices that exclude or hide mandatory fees.
  • Bogus fees. The FTC said that companies often charge “bogus fees.” The agency characterizes these fees as charges that consumers are asked to pay without knowing what their purpose is. The proposed rule requires businesses to tell consumers what these fees are for, what the amount is up front and if the fees can be refunded.

The proposed rule allows the FTC to issue monetary penalties against noncompliant companies and provide refunds to affected consumers.

Junk Fee Regulatory Measures from Other Federal Agencies

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

The FTC isn’t the only federal agency targeting junk fees. Other federal agencies are also acting against a variety of add on fees. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) started implementing its Broadband Consumer Labels tool aimed at increasing price transparency.

“No one likes surprise charges on their bill. Consumers deserve to know exactly what they are paying for when they sign up for communications services. But when it comes to these bills, what you see isn’t always what you get,” said FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel on March 23, 2023. “Instead, consumers have often been saddled with additional junk fees that may exorbitantly raise the price of their previously agreed-to monthly charges. To combat this, we’re implementing Broadband Consumer Labels, a new tool that will increase price transparency and reduce cost confusion, help consumers compare services, and provide ‘all-in-pricing’ so that every American can understand upfront and without any surprises how much they can expect to be paying for these services.”

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

Additionally, in March, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released a report on the use of junk fees “in deposit accounts and in multiple loan servicing markets, including the auto, mortgage, student, and payday/small loan sectors,” according to Greenberg Traurig.

“Americans are fed up with the junk fees that are creeping across the economy,” said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra in the FTC press release. “The FTC’s proposed rule will protect families and honest businesses from race-to-the-bottom abuses that cost us billions of dollars each year. If finalized, the CFPB will enforce the rule against violators in the financial industry and ensure that these firms play fairly.”\

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

The Biden Administration and the Department of Housing and Urban Development in a July 19, 2023, press release, specifically address add-on fees in rental housing. “Earlier this year, we called for reform in the housing industry to increase transparency for renters across the country, reflecting the Biden-Harris administration and the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s commitment,” said HUD Secretary Marcia L. Fudge in the FTC press release.

According to HUD rental application fees can be up to $100 or more per application, and, importantly, they often exceed the cost of conducting the background and credit checks. Given that prospective renters often apply for multiple units over the course of their housing search, these application fees can add up to hundreds of dollars.

The Department of Transportation (DOT)

The Department of Transportation in a March 2023 press release addressed aggravating airline fees: after DOT secured commitments from major U.S. airlines to provide free rebooking, meals, and hotels when they are responsible for stranding passengers. Dot stated that they were working to stop airlines from forcing parents to pay to sit next to their kids by requiring airlines to disclose hidden fees for things like extra bags. DOT stated that they helped secure billions of dollars in refunds for passengers whose flights are canceled.

In 2022, Secretary Buttigieg pressed U.S. airlines to do more for passengers who had a flight canceled or delayed because of the airline, by informing the CEOs of the 10 largest U.S. airlines that the DOT would publish a dashboard on amenities and services provided such as rebooking, meals, or hotels in the event of a controllable delay or cancellation. Prior to Buttigieg’s urging, none of the 10 largest U.S. airlines guaranteed meals or hotels when a delay or cancellation was within the airlines’ control, and only one offered free rebooking.   As of March 2023, all of the 10 largest U.S. airlines guarantee meals and rebooking, and nine guarantee hotels when an airline issue causes a cancellation or delay.

What’s Next?

Consumers can submit comments to the FTC electronically for 60 days once the notice of proposed rulemaking is published in the Federal Register. Consumers can also send written comments to the FTC—instructions on how to do this can be found in the Federal Register notice under the “Supplementary Information” section.

Copyright ©2023 National Law Forum, LLC
For more articles on the FTC, visit the NLR Antitrust and Trade section.

Fed Issues FAQs Clarifying That Credit-Linked Notes Can Serve as Valid Capital Relief Tools for U.S. Banks

On September 28, the Federal Reserve Board (“FRB”) posted three new FAQs to its website regarding Regulation Q (Capital Adequacy of Bank Holding Companies, Savings and Loan Holding Companies, and State Member Banks). The FAQ guidance provides additional clarity on the use of credit-linked notes (“CLNs”) to transfer credit risk and offer capital relief to U.S. banks. While in some respects the FAQs merely confirm positions that the FRB has already taken in regard to individual CLN transactions, these FAQs are nevertheless important inasmuch as they publicly memorialize the FRB’s view of these products as valid capital management tools.

The FAQs speak to two different formats of CLNs: those issued by special purpose vehicles (“SPV CLNs”) and those issued directly by banks (“Bank CLNs”). The FRB’s view of SPV CLNs is relatively straightforward: per the FAQs, the FRB recognizes that properly structured SPV CLNs constitute “synthetic securitizations” for purposes of Regulation Q and that the collateral for such SPV CLNs can serve as a credit risk mitigant that banks can use to reduce the risk-weighting of the relevant assets.

The FRB’s posture toward Bank CLNs, however, is more nuanced.  According to the FRB, unlike SPV CLNs, Bank CLNs do not technically satisfy all of the definitional elements and operational criteria applicable to “synthetic securitizations” under Regulation Q, such that banks that issue Bank CLNs would not be able to automatically recognize the capital benefits of such transactions (as would be the case with properly structured SPV CLNs). The reasons for this are twofold: first, Bank CLNs are not executed under standard industry credit derivative documentation; and second, the issuance proceeds from Bank CLNs generally are owned outright by the issuing bank (rather than held as collateral in which the issuing bank has a security interest). Nevertheless, the FRB recognized that Bank CLNs can effectively transfer credit risk; as such, the FRB is willing to exercise its “reservation of authority” to grant capital relief on a case-by-case basis for Bank CLNs where the only two features of the Bank CLNs that depart from the strictures of Regulation Q are those described above. In other words, Bank CLNs can offer capital relief, but only if the issuing bank specifically requests such relief from the FRB and the FRB decides to grant such relief under its reservation of authority powers.

In his statement dissenting on the issuance of the U.S. Basel III endgame proposed rules—our discussion of which is available here—Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) Director Jonathan McKernan argued for increased clarity on the FRB’s position with respect to CLNs in order to provide U.S. banks with better parity in relation to their European counterparts (which routinely issue CLNs in different formats). While these FAQs may not fully address FDIC Director McKernan’s concerns, they do begin to provide some clarity concerning the effective use by banks of CLNs as capital management tools.

© Copyright 2023 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
Article about by: Daniel Meade , Jed Miller of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
For more articles on finance, visit the NLR Financial Institutions & Banking section.

European Commission Action on Climate Taxonomy and ESG Rating Provider Regulation

On June 13, 2023, the European Commission published “a new package of measures to build on and strengthen the foundations of the EU sustainable finance framework.” The aim is to ensure that the EU sustainable finance framework continues to support companies and the financial sector in connection with climate transition, including making the framework “easier to use” and providing guidance on climate-related disclosure, while encouraging the private funding of transition projects and technologies. These measures are summarized in a publication, “A sustainable finance framework that works on the ground.” Overall, according to the Commission, the package “is another step towards a globally leading legal framework facilitating the financing of the transition.”

The sustainable finance package includes the following measures:

  • EU Taxonomy Climate Delegated Act: amendments include (i) new criteria for economic activities that make a substantial contribution to one or more non-climate environmental objectives, namely, sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources, transition to a circular economy, pollution prevention and control, and protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems; and (ii) changes expanding on economic activities that contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation “not included so far – in particular in the manufacturing and transport sectors.” The EU Taxonomy Climate Delegated Act has been operative since January 2022 and includes 107 economic activities that are responsible for 64% of greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. In addition, “new economic sectors and activities will be added, and existing ones refined and updated, where needed in line with regulatory and technological developments.” “For large non-financial undertakings, disclosure of the degree of taxonomy alignment regarding climate objectives began in 2023. Disclosures will be phased-in over the coming years for other actors and environmental objectives.”
  • Proposed Regulation of ESG Rating Providers: the Commission adopted a proposed regulation, which was based on 2021 recommendations from the International Organization of Securities Commissioners, aimed at promoting operational integrity and increased transparency in the ESG ratings market through organizational principles and clear rules addressing conflicts of interest. Ratings providers would be authorized and supervised by the European Securities and Markets Authority. The regulation “provides requirements on disclosures around” ratings methodologies and objectives, and “introduces principle-based organizational requirements on” ratings providers activities. The Commission is also seeking advice from ESMA on the presentation of credit ratings, with the aim being to address shortcomings related to “how ESG factors are incorporated into methodologies and disclosures of how ESG factors impact credit ratings.”
  • Enhancing Usability: the Commission set out an overview of the measures and tools aimed at enhancing the usability of relevant rules and providing implementation guidance to stakeholders. The Commission Staff Working Document “Enhancing the usability of the EU Taxonomy and the overall EU sustainable finance framework” summarizes the Commission’s most recent initiatives and measures. The Commission also published a new FAQ document that provides guidance on the interpretation and implementation of certain legal provisions of the EU Taxonomy Regulation and on the interactions between the concepts of “taxonomy-aligned investment” and “sustainable investment” under the SFDR.

Taking the Temperature: As previously discussed, the Commission is increasingly taking steps to achieve the goal of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030, known as Fit for 55. Recent initiatives include the adoption of a carbon sinks goal, the launch of the greenwashing-focused Green Claims Directive, and now, the sustainable finance package.

Another objective of these regulatory initiatives is to provide increased transparency for investors as they assess sustainability and transition-related claims made by issuers. In this regard, the legislative proposal relating to the regulation of ESG rating agencies is significant. As noted in our longer survey, there is little consistency among ESG ratings providers and few established industry norms relating to disclosure, measurement methodologies, transparency and quality of underlying data. That has led to a number of jurisdictions proposing regulation, including (in addition to the EU) the UK, as well as to government inquiries to ratings providers in the U.S.

© Copyright 2023 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

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

CFIUS Determines it Lacks Jurisdiction to Review Chinese Land Acquisition

In 2022, Fufeng USA, a subsidiary of Chinese company Fufeng Group, purchased 370 acres near Grand Forks, North Dakota, with the intention of developing the land to build a plant for wet corn milling and biofermentation,[1] prompting opposition from federal and state politicians.[2] North Dakota Senators, North Dakota’s Governor, and Senator Marco Rubio urged the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to review the acquisition as a potential national security risk for being located within 12 miles from the Grand Forks Air Force Base, which is home to military drone technology and a space networking center.[3] Following CFIUS’ review of Fufeng’s notice submission, CFIUS determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the transaction. This post summarizes the public information about that CFIUS case and provides observations about the responses by North Dakota and CFIUS in the wake of Fufeng’s proposed investment.

CFIUS Review and Determination

1. Procedural History

In conjunction with rising public opposition to its land acquisition, public reports show that Fufeng USA submitted a declaration to CFIUS on July 27, 2022.[4] North Dakota local news outlet Valley News Live obtained a copy of the CFIUS closing letter to that declaration filing, which stated that CFIUS determined on August 31, 2022 that it lacked sufficient information to assess the transaction and requested that the parties file a full notice.[5] (CFIUS has the option under the regulations to request a full notice filing at the conclusion of the abbreviated 30-day review of a declaration filing.) Based on the CFIUS closing letter to that subsequent notice filing, which was likewise obtained and published by Valley News Live, Fufeng USA submitted a notice on October 17, 2022, and CFIUS subsequently concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the transaction in December 2022.[6]

2. Why CFIUS did not Review under its Part 802 Covered Real Estate Authority

According the CFIUS Letter released by Fufeng to Valley News Live, Fufeng submitted its notice pursuant to 31 C.F.R. Part 800 (“Part 800”), which pertains to covered transaction involving existing U.S. businesses.[7] The closing letter made no reference to the transaction being reviewed as a “covered real estate transaction” under 31 C.F.R. Part 802 (“Part 802”).[8] A reason for this could be that, at the time the case was before CFIUS, the land acquisition by Fufeng USA was not within any of the requisite proximity thresholds and, thus, did not fall within Part 802 authority. Under Part 802, CFIUS has authority over certain real estate transactions involving property in specific maritime ports or airports, or within defined proximity thresholds to identified “military installations” listed in Appendix A to Part 802. Grand Forks Air Force Base was not included in Appendix A at that time, nor was the acquired land within the defined proximity of any other listed military installation. Accordingly, the only way for CFIUS to extend authority would be under its Part 800 authority relating to certain acquisitions of U.S. businesses.

3. CFIUS Determined It Lacked Jurisdiction Under its Part 800 Covered Transaction Authority

CFIUS’ closing letter to Fufeng stated that “CFIUS has concluded that the Transaction is not a covered transaction and therefore CFIUS does not have jurisdiction under 31 C.F.R. Part 800.”[9] Part 800 provides CFIUS with authority to review covered control transactions (i.e., those transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person) or covered investment transactions (i.e., certain non-controlling investments directly or indirectly by a foreign person in U.S. businesses involved with critical technology, critical infrastructure, or the collection and maintaining of US citizen personal data). Greenfield investments, however, inherently do not involve an existing U.S. business. As such, greenfield investments would be outside of CFIUS’ jurisdiction under Part 800. Although the justification underlying CFIUS’ determination regarding Fufeng’s acquisition is not publicly available, CFIUS might have determined that it lacked authority under Part 800 because Fufeng’s purchase of undeveloped land was not an acquisition of a U.S. business, but more likely a greenfield investment.

State and Federal Response

Under state and federal pressure, the City of Grand Forks, which initially approved Fufeng’s development of the corn milling facility, “officially decided to terminate the development agreement between the city and Fufeng USA Inc.” on April 20, 2023.[10] This decision was largely impacted by the U.S. Air Force’s determination that “the proposed project presents a significant threat to national security with both near- and long-term risks of significant impacts to our operations in the area.”[11] As of today, the land appears to still be under the ownership of Fufeng USA.[12]

CFIUS’ determination that it lacked authority drew sharp criticism from state and federal politicians. North Dakota Senator Cramer purported that CFIUS may have determined the jurisdictional question too narrowly and indicated that the determination may prompt federal legislative action.[13] Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) concurred, issuing a statement that permitting the transaction was “dangerous and dumb.”[14] In response to the determination, the Governor of South Dakota announced plans for “legislation potentially limiting foreign purchases of agricultural land” by investigating “proposed purchases of ag land by foreign interests and recommend either approval or denial to the Governor.”[15]

On April 29, 2023, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum signed Senate Bill No. 2371 into law, which prohibits local development and ownership of real property by foreign adversaries and related entities, effective August 1, 2023. Notably, these entities include businesses with a principal executive offices located in China, as well as businesses with a controlling Chinese interest or certain non-controlling Chinese interest.

On May 5, 2023, the U.S. Department of Treasury, the agency tasked with administering CFIUS, also took steps to expand its authority to cover more real property acquisitions. It published a Proposed Rule that would expand CFIUS covered real estate transaction authority over real restate located with 99 miles of the Grand Forks Air Force Base and seven other facilities located in Arizona, California, Iowa, and North Dakota. See a summary of that Proposed Rule and related implications at this TradePractition.com blog post.

FOOTNOTES

[1] See, Alix Larsen, CFIUS requesting Fufeng USA give more information on corn mill development, Valley News Live (Sep. 1, 2022), https://www.valleynewslive.com/2022/09/01/cfius-requesting-fufeng-usa-give-more-information-corn-mill-development/.

[2] See Letter from Gov. Doug Burgum to Secretaries Janet Yellen and Lloyd Austin (Jul. 25, 2022), https://www.governor.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/Gov.%20Burgum%20letter%20urging%20expedited%20CFIUS%20review%2007.25.2022.pdf; Letter from Senators Marco rubio, John Hoeven, and Kevin Cramer to Secretaries Janet Yellen and Lloyd Austin (Jul. 14, 2022), https://senatorkevincramer.app.box.com/s/2462nafbszk2u6yosy77chz9rpojlwtl.

[3] See id; Eamon Javers, Chinese Company’s Purchase of North Dakota Farmland Raises National Security Concerns in Washington, CNBC, July 1, 2022, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/01/chinese-purchase-of-north-dakota-farmland-raises-national-security-concerns-in-washington.html.

[4] See, Alix Larsen, CFIUS requesting Fufeng USA give more information on corn mill development (Sep. 1, 2022), https://www.valleynewslive.com/2022/09/01/cfius-requesting-fufeng-usa-give-more-information-corn-mill-development/.

[5] See id.

[6] See Stacie Van Dyke, Fufeng moving forward with corn milling plant in Grand Forks (Dec. 13, 2022), https://www.valleynewslive.com/2022/12/14/fufeng-moving-forward-with-corn-milling-plant-grand-forks/.

[7] See id.

[8] Id.

[9] See id.

[10] Bobby Falat, Grand Forks officially terminates Fufeng Deal (Apr. 20, 2023), https://www.valleynewslive.com/2023/04/20/grand-forks-officially-terminates-fufeng-deal/.

[11] News Release, Senator John Hoeven, Hoeven, Cramer: Air Force Provides Official Position on Fufeng Project in Grand Forks, (Jan. 31, 2023), https://www.hoeven.senate.gov/news/news-releases/hoeven-cramer-air-force-provides-official-position-on-fufeng-project-in-grand-forks.

[12] See, Meghan Arbegast, Fufeng Group owes Grand Forks County more than $2,000 in taxes for first half of 2022 (Apr. 5, 2023), https://www.grandforksherald.com/news/local/fufeng-group-owes-grand-forks-county-more-than-2-000-in-taxes-for-first-half-of-2022.

[13] See Josh Meny, Senator Cramer discusses latest on Fufeng in Grand Forks (Dec. 27, 2022), https://www.kxnet.com/news/kx-conversation/senator-cramer-discusses-latest-on-fufeng-in-grand-forks/.

[14] Press Release, Senator Marco Rubio, Rubio Slams CFIUS’s Refusal to Take Action Regarding Fufeng Farmland Purchase (Dec. 14, 2022) https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2022/12/rubio-slams-cfius-s-refusal-to-take-action-regarding-fufeng-farmland-purchase.

[15] Jason Harward, Gov. Kristi Noem takes aim at potential Chinese land purchases in South Dakota (Dec. 13, 2022),https://www.grandforksherald.com/news/south-dakota/gov-kristi-noem-takes-aim-at-potential-chinese-land-purchases-in-south-dakota.

© Copyright 2023 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

For more Global Legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.