Category: finance

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. 

Is Biodiversity Emerging As A Unifying Concept That Can Help Ease The Political Polarization Surrounding ESG?

Highlights

    • In addition to global initiatives by the United Nations, G7, and the U.S., the need for protection against biodiversity loss has become a central focus of the business and investment communities
    • Biodiversity protection is emerging worldwide as a unifying concept that can mitigate the political polarization surrounding ESG and promote constructive dialogue about sustainability
    • A number of steps can be taken to capitalize on the unique attributes and appeal of biodiversity and leverage its potential to serve as a unifying concept

International Biodiversity Day, May 22, 2023, with its theme “From Agreement to Action: Build Back Biodiversity” was a powerful reminder that momentum for biodiversity conservation is accelerating globally. Biodiversity is increasingly being recognized as a potential unifying concept that can help alleviate some of the extreme political divergence over the term ESG.

ESG, which encompasses a broad range of environmental, social, and governance factors, has become politically charged and the subject of intense debate and varying interpretations. Biodiversity, on the other hand, is widely recognized as a critical aspect of environmental sustainability and it is increasingly acknowledged as a pressing issue by virtually all stakeholders, including scientists, policymakers, businesses, and communities.

Biodiversity represents the variety of life on Earth, including ecosystems, species, and genetic diversity. It is a tangible and universally valued concept that resonates with people from various backgrounds and ideologies. The preservation, protection and conservation of biodiversity are essential for the health and resilience of ecosystems, as well as for addressing climate change and ensuring the well-being of future generations.

By emphasizing biodiversity within sustainability discussions, stakeholders can find common ground and rally around a shared objective: protecting and restoring the Earth’s natural diversity. Biodiversity provides a unifying language and focus that transcends political divisions, as it highlights the interconnectedness of all life forms. It allows for a more tangible and universally valued point of reference, which can facilitate collaboration and drive collective action towards conservation efforts.

In addition to global initiatives by the United Nations, the Group of Seven (G7), and the U.S., the need for protection against biodiversity loss has also become a central focus of business and investment communities, and appears to be receiving a more favorable reception in the U.S. than the broader concepts associated with and motives attributed to ESG investing. This increased attention has, in turn, opened up a number of practical opportunities for action to leverage the potential of biodiversity as a unifying concept.

International Support for Biodiversity Protection

The United Nations formed the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to promote nature and human well-being. The first draft was proposed on May 22, 1992, which was then designated as International Biodiversity Day. Since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, nearly 200 countries have signed onto this treaty, which is a legally binding commitment to conserve biological diversity, to sustainably use its components and to share equitably the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.

In December 2022, at the 15th UN Biodiversity Conference (COP15), the CBD adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework that calls for protecting 30 percent of the planet’s land, ocean, and inland waters and includes 23 other targets to help restore and protect ecosystems and endangered species worldwide, and ensure that big businesses disclose biodiversity risks and impacts from their operations. The Kunming-Montreal framework also focused on increasing funding for biodiversity by at least $200 billion per year (with at least $30 billion per year to developing countries by 2030).

The U.S. is one of just a few countries worldwide that has not yet formally approved the CBD. While President Clinton signed the CBD in 1993, the Senate did not ratify it. Although the U.S. was on the sidelines at COP15 in late 2022, in parallel with the CBD approval of the Kunming-Montreal framework, the U.S. reiterated its support for an ambitious and transformative Global Diversity Framework, outlined in this State Department press release.

In addition to committing to conserve at least 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030, other U.S. leadership initiatives to mainstream and conserve nature that were announced or reaffirmed at that time include:

    • Conserving forests and combatting global deforestation
    • Prioritizing nature-based solutions to address climate change, nature loss, and inequity
    • Incorporating nature into national economic statistics and accounts to support decision-making
    • Recognizing and including indigenous knowledge in federal research, policy, and decision-making, including protections for the knowledge holder
    • Knowing nature with a national nature assessment that will build on the wealth of existing data, scientific evidence, and Indigenous Knowledge to create a holistic picture of America’s lands, waters, wildlife, ecosystems and the benefits they provide
    • Strengthening action for nature deprived communities by expanding access to local parks, tree canopy cover, conservation areas, open space and water-based recreation, public gardens, beaches, and waterways
    • Conserving arctic ecosystems through increased research on marine ecosystems, fisheries, and wildlife, including through co-production and co-management with Indigenous Peoples

The U.S. also spearheaded efforts to reverse the decline in biodiversity globally by advancing land and water conservation, combating drivers of nature loss, protecting species, and supporting sustainable use, while also enabling healthy and prosperous communities through sustainable development. The U.S. also affirmed its financial commitment to and support for international development assistance to protect biodiversity. Additionally, the U.S. made major policy and financial commitments to protect oceans and advance marine conservation and a sustainable ocean economy.

Of particular importance, the U.S. reaffirmed its commitment to advancing science-based decision making and its support for the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

Most recently, the G7 Hiroshima Leaders’ Communique issued at the close of their meeting on May 20 on the cusp of International Biodiversity Day, affirmed that G7 leadership (including the U.S.) welcomed “the adoption of the historic Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030, which is fundamental to human well-being, a healthy planet and economic prosperity, and commit to its swift and full implementation and to achievement of each of its goals and targets.”
G7 leadership also reaffirmed their commitment “to substantially increase our national and international funding for nature by 2025,” and “to supporting and advancing a transition to nature positive economies.” Notably, they also pressed companies to do so as well while at the same time voicing support for TNFD’s market framework for corporate nature related disclosures:

“We call on businesses to progressively reduce negative and increase positive impacts on biodiversity. We look forward to the publication of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures’ (TNFD’s) market framework and urge market participants, governments and regulators to support its development.”

Similarly, multilateral development banks (MDBs) were urged by the leaders of G7 to increase their support for biodiversity by leveraging financial resources from all sources and “deploying a full suite of instruments.”

Increasing Focus On Biodiversity By The Financial Sector

The financial sector has taken note of the growing international support for biodiversity conservation and protection. A 2023 study by PwC found that “55% of global GDP—equivalent to about US $58 trillion—is moderately or highly dependent on nature.” In its report The Economic Case for Nature, the World Bank found that a partial collapse of ecosystem services would cost 2.3 percent of global GDP ($2.7 trillion) in 2030. Conversely, the report found that implementing policies beneficial to nature and biodiversity conservation (including achieving the “30×30” goal subsequently approved by the CBD in the Kunming-Montreal framework and by Executive Order in the U.S.) could result in a substantial increase in global real GDP by 2030.

According to a 2020 report by the World Economic Forum, protecting nature and increasing biodiversity could generate business opportunities of $10 trillion a year and create nearly 400 million new jobs by 2030. Given this economic potential, it comes as no surprise that a growing number of investors are focusing on deploying capital for nature-based opportunities, and trying to assess whether and to what extent companies are susceptible to biodiversity related risks.

Toward those ends, the financial sector has been monitoring and supporting the development of TNFD’s market framework for nature related disclosures that was most recently endorsed by G7. That private global effort was launched in 2021 in response to the growing need to factor nature into financial and business decisions. The fourth and final beta version was issued in March 2023:

“The TNFD is a market-led, science-based and government supported initiative to help respond to this imperative. The Taskforce is nearing the end of its two-year framework design and development phase to provide market participants with a risk management and disclosure framework to identify, assess, respond and, where appropriate, disclose their nature-related issues. The TNFD framework, including TCFD-aligned recommended disclosures, will be published in September 2023 ready for market adoption.”

While the TNFD framework is not legally binding, the final version will be coming on line just in time for use as a guide for compliance with the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which was effective in April 2023. It will require a substantial number of European companies and others operating in the EU, to start making disclosures regarding biodiversity and nature in coming years.

One of the more significant catalysts for investment in the protection of biodiversity and nature was the establishment of the Natural Capital Investment Alliance as part of the United Kingdom’s Sustainable Markets Initiative announced in 2020 and the Terra Carta sustainability charter launched by King Charles a year later. The Alliance is a public/private venture that aims to invest $10 billion in natural capital assets. Speaking at the One Planet Summit on biodiversity where the Alliance was announced in January 2021, King Charles stated “… I have created a Natural Capital Investment Alliance to help us arrive at a common language on Natural Capital Investment so that we can start putting money to work and improve the flow of capital.”

According to research by Environmental Finance, total assets held in thematic biodiversity funds more than tripled in 2022, and it is anticipated that momentum and growth will accelerate in response to COP 15 in December 2023, and approval of the Kunming-Montreal framework.

Positioning Biodiversity As A Unifying Concept

While biodiversity is not replacing ESG, it is gaining more attention within the broader ESG framework. Biodiversity conservation is supported by a vast body of scientific research and has a broad consensus among stakeholders. Many companies are incorporating biodiversity considerations into their sustainability strategies, and setting goals for conservation, habitat restoration, and responsible land use. Investors are also factoring biodiversity into their decision-making processes, looking for companies that demonstrate strong biodiversity conservation efforts.

Given the universal importance of biodiversity, it can serve as a focal point for mutual understanding for stakeholders with varying perspectives. Biodiversity conservation provides a unifying language that encourages collaborative efforts towards shared goals of environmental stewardship and the preservation of natural resources. Protection against biodiversity loss is not an ideological issue. To the contrary, it is fundamental, practical, and existential: the need to preserve the natural systems that support life on Earth. Emphasizing the importance of biodiversity shifts the focus to concrete and tangible actions required globally and locally, such as species preservation, and ecosystem protection, which can garner broader support and participation and help bridge political divides.

While biodiversity protection is by no means a panacea, there are further steps that can be taken to capitalize on its unique attributes and appeal that can improve the potential for biodiversity to serve as a unifying concept that can help reduce the current political polarization in the U.S. over ESG and promote more constructive dialogue around sustainability:

    • Universal concern – Biodiversity loss affects every individual and society, regardless of political affiliation. It is a shared concern that is oblivious to political boundaries, as the preservation of nature’s diversity is vital for the well-being of all life on Earth. By emphasizing biodiversity as a unifying concept, stakeholders can find mutuality and work together towards its conservation.
    • Inclusivity – Biodiversity requires inclusive engagement by diverse stakeholders and technical and scientific support from local communities, indigenous groups, governments, businesses, civil society organizations and the public. Such engagement fosters dialogue, understanding, and collaboration, breaking down political barriers.
    • Tangible and relatable – Biodiversity is a concrete and tangible concept that people can relate to, unlike some of the more complex ESG concepts, like Scope 3 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and Net Zero. It encompasses the variety of species, ecosystems, and genetic diversity, which are easily understandable and relatable to everyday experiences. This relatability can bridge political divides and foster broader support for conservation efforts.
    • Interconnectedness – Biodiversity underscores the interconnectedness of ecosystems and species emphasizing that actions in one area can have cascading far-reaching consequences on others, including ecological, social, and economic effects. Recognizing this interconnectedness can encourage stakeholders to collaborate across sectors and ideologies to address biodiversity loss collectively.
    • Co-benefits and shared values – Biodiversity conservation often aligns with other societal values and goals, such as climate change mitigation, sustainable development, and human well-being. By emphasizing the co-benefits that arise from biodiversity conservation, such as ecosystem services and resilience, stakeholders can rally around shared values and work towards a common vision.
    • Economic implications – Biodiversity loss can have significant economic implications for industries like agriculture, tourism, and pharmaceuticals. It can also have impacts on supply chains and market access. Recognizing the economic value of biodiversity and the potential risks associated with its decline can bring together diverse stakeholders, including businesses and investors, who recognize the importance of integrating biodiversity considerations into their strategies and decision-making processes.
    • Science-based approach – Biodiversity conservation relies on scientific knowledge and research. Emphasizing the scientific evidence on the importance of biodiversity helps build consensus and transcends political biases, providing a foundation for constructive discussions.
    • Local and global perspectives – Biodiversity conservation is relevant at both local and global scales. It allows for discussions that incorporate local knowledge, values, and practices, while recognizing the need for global cooperation to address biodiversity loss and protect shared resources.

To leverage biodiversity as a unifying concept, it is crucial to promote open dialogue, knowledge sharing, and collaboration. Stakeholders should engage in inclusive decision-making processes that respect diverse perspectives and prioritize equitable and sustainable outcomes.

Takeaways

Biodiversity is emerging as a potential unifying concept that can help mitigate the political polarization surrounding the term ESG. While ESG has become a politically charged and debated topic, biodiversity is widely recognized as a critical aspect of environmental sustainability and has broad support across different stakeholders.

By focusing on biodiversity, stakeholders can find common ground in recognizing the importance of preserving nature’s diversity and ensuring the long-term sustainability of ecosystems. Biodiversity loss is a global challenge that affects everyone, irrespective of political affiliation, and it is increasingly acknowledged as a pressing issue by scientists, policymakers, businesses, and communities.

It is important to note that while biodiversity can be a unifying concept, there will still be debates and differing opinions on specific approaches and trade-offs involved in biodiversity conservation. Different stakeholders may have differing priorities, perspectives, and proposed means and methods to address biodiversity loss. The complexity of biodiversity issues, such as balancing conservation with economic development or navigating conflicts between different stakeholder interests, requires careful consideration and dialogue.

© 2023 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

For more Financial Legal News, visit the National Law Review.

Rise in VCM Business May Trigger CFTC Oversight on Sales of Carbon Offset Credits

Many major companies have announced a blueprint to minimize their carbon footprint. Some companies have gone so far as to proclaim that they will achieve “net zero” emissions in the near future. To accomplish their climate goals, many have turned to purchasing products called “carbon offset credits.”

Offset credits are defined as tradable “rights” or certificates linked to activities that lower the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. These offsets are purchased and sold on what is commonly referred to as “voluntary carbon markets” (VCMs), where owners of carbon-reducing projects can sell or trade their carbon offsets to emitters who wish to offset the negative effects of their emissions.[1] The VCMs, however, have been subject to criticism and concern due to lack of effective regulation to combat potential fraud. In response, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has announced its intent to increase enforcement resources and expertise to police the carbon markets.

How It Works

The owner of the carbon-reducing project applies to an independent (and largely unregulated) registry for carbon offsets. The registry then evaluates the project, often relying on complex information submitted by the project owner, to determine whether and how much atmospheric carbon the project will reduce. If the registry determines the project will reduce atmospheric carbon, it will issue a carbon offset credit to the project owner.

Typically, one offset credit represents one metric ton of carbon dioxide removed or kept out of the atmosphere. The price of offset credits will vary depending on different project types, different levels of benefits, and the markets in which they are traded. Once the registry issues the offset credit, the project owner can sell it to whomever it wants on a VCM. It is not uncommon for profit-seeking entities such as brokers or investors to purchase the offset credit and then sell it to the “end user,” which is the entity that wants to take credit for the carbon reduction. Once the “end user” purchases the offset credit, the credit is “retired” to ensure that it cannot be sold again.

Although voluntary carbon markets have been around for decades, they have taken off in recent years amid a deluge of corporate climate commitments. From 2018 to 2021, the VCM’s value grew from $300 million to $2 billion. Global management consultancy company McKinsey estimates that the value of VCMs may reach as high as $180 billion by 2030, while Research and Markets has projected a global value of $2.68 trillion by 2028.

Yet, the voluntary carbon market is fragmented and largely unregulated, suffers from varying accounting standards, and has been described as “the Wild West” for fraud. An investigation by The Guardian found that 90% of offsets issued by one of the largest registries for rainforest preservation projects were worthless because they did not represent legitimate carbon reductions. The voluntary carbon market is largely unregulated in the United States, and carbon offsets are almost exclusively issued by nongovernmental entities. Perhaps not surprisingly, regulators have started to look at the voluntary carbon markets more closely. In particular, the CFTC has shown an increasing interest in carbon in recent years.

Road Ahead

In September 2020, the CFTC’s Climate-Related Market Risk Subcommittee issued a report, “Managing Climate Risk in the U.S. Financial System,” that concluded climate change poses a major risk to the stability and integrity of the US economy and presented several dozen recommendations to mitigate climate risks. Less than a year later, CFTC Chairperson Rostin Behnam created the Climate Risk Unit to focus on the role of derivatives “in climate-related risk and transitioning to a low carbon economy.”

In June 2022, the CFTC held the first ever Voluntary Carbon Markets Convening to discuss issues related to a potential carbon offset market and to solicit input from industry participants in the CFTC’s potential role. After the Convening, the CFTC issued an RFI asking whether and how the CFTC should be involved in creating and regulating a voluntary carbon market. The responses to the RFI reflected that, while most industry participants agreed on the need for additional transparency and standardization in the voluntary carbon markets, they disagreed on the role the CFTC should play in such a market. A group of seven United States senators, including Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), argued that the CFTC should establish a robust regime governing the carbon market. Others argued that it is too soon for the CFTC to create rules and a registration mechanism, expressing concern that those actions might stifle industry innovation and progress.

At a keynote speech in January 2023, Chair Behnam stated that the CFTC “can play a role in voluntary [carbon] markets.” CFTC Commissioner Goldsmith Romero echoed the sentiment a month later in another speech and gave proposals for the CFTC to “promote resilience to climate risk.” Among those was a proposal that the “Commission should promote market integrity by increasing enforcement resources and expertise to combat greenwashing and other forms of fraud.”

The voluntary carbon market, Goldsmith Romero noted, “carr[ies] particular concerns of greenwashing, fraud, and manipulation” which “can lead to serious harm, distort market pricing, seriously damage a company’s reputation, and undermine the integrity of the markets.” This is particularly true with an esoteric commodity such as carbon offsets. For tangible commodities such as soybeans or oil, verifying delivery of the goods is relatively easy. But for carbon offsets, the offset purchaser often cannot verify that the promised greenhouse gas reduction is actually occurring; instead, the purchaser must rely on the promises made by the project owner or independent registry.

At present, the CFTC has limited enforcement jurisdiction over carbon offsets because only a limited number of carbon derivatives are traded on regulated futures markets. Carbon, as well as carbon and other environmental offsets or credits, are generally considered “commodities” as defined by § 1a(9) of the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936 (CEA). As a regulated commodity, transactions involving carbon credits or offsets are subject to the CFTC’s anti-fraud and anti-manipulation enforcement jurisdiction.

As VCMs continue to grow, it is likely that offerings of carbon derivatives such as futures, options, and swaps will grow with them, which may provide the jurisdictional catalyst for the CFTC to get more involved. The CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of futures markets, including oversight of the listing of new contracts on futures exchanges. Currently, a limited number of carbon futures are available to trade, and most trade on already regulated exchanges such as the Global Emissions Offset (GEO) futures contracts traded at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME). The price of CME’s GEO futures contract is based on CORSIA-eligible (Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation) offset credits issued through specific independent registries.

But given the varying standards and methodologies for these registries, combined with an increasing number of investigations that have found significant issues with offset credits, it is reasonable to expect that the CFTC may eventually seek to engage in more oversight of the registries to ensure that futures contracts are not being manipulated and the offset credits are actually delivering the carbon reductions promised. Given that offsets are widely traded as commodities, that demand for offset-based derivatives products is growing, and that fraud may be a widespread problem throughout the marketplace, it seems like a matter of when, not if, the CFTC begins to regulate VCMs more heavily.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Although often used interchangeably, voluntary carbon markets are different from compliance carbon markets. Compliance carbon markets are regulated markets set by “cap-and-trade” regulations at the state, national, or international governmental organizations. Governmental organizations set a cap on carbon emissions and then provide members with credits that act as a “permission slip” for a company to emit up to the cap. Voluntary carbon markets, on the other hand, involve trading of carbon credits between companies to reduce their own carbon footprint.

© 2023 ArentFox Schiff LLP
For more Environmental Law news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

CMS Takes Steps to Lower SNF Medicare Payment Error Rates

With the Medicare Comprehensive Error Rate Testing program projected error rate for skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) showing a significant increase in 2022 (15.1%, up from 7.9% in 2021), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has instructed each of its Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) that review SNF Medicare claims to initiate a five-claim probe and educate medical review for each SNF in the MAC’s jurisdiction.

CMS surmises that the source of the increase in improper payments may lie with the change from resource utilization group (RUG) IV to the patient driven payment model (PDPM) and has noted that the primary root cause of SNF errors is missing documentation.

MACs are instructed to implement the five-claim probe on a rolling basis beginning with the top 20% of SNFs that show the highest risk. If any improper payments are identified, the MAC will adjust (or deny) the claim(s) and offer either widespread education or 1:1 individualized education depending on the error rate. 1:1 education will include claim specific information and allow the SNF to review the claim decision, ask questions and receive feedback.

Beginning June 5, 2023, SNFs nation-wide should be on the lookout for a prepayment probe and educate record request from the MAC and be prepared to respond within 45 days.

Copyright © 2023, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

For more Healthcare Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Upstream and Affiliate Guaranties in NAV Loans

Guaranties are a common feature in fund finance transactions. Particularly in NAV loans, upstream and affiliate (or “sideways”) guaranties are used. Below we discuss some of the context for the use of these types of guaranties, as well as some of the issues that lenders should consider in relying on them.

Upstream Guaranties

It is not uncommon in NAV loan transactions for the borrower to hold the underwritten assets for the financing (i.e., the fund’s portfolio of investments) through one or more controlled subsidiary holding vehicles (each, a “HoldCo”). Lenders may take a pledge of the management and economic interests in the HoldCos (rather than the underlying investments). In order to get as close to the underlying investments as possible (without taking a pledge), lenders may require that a HoldCo issue a guaranty directly to the lenders (or the administrative agent, on behalf of the lenders), guaranteeing the borrower’s obligations under the NAV loan facility. This “upstream” guaranty provides the lenders a direct claim against the HoldCo for amounts due under the loan, mitigating some of the risk of structural subordination to potential creditors (expected or unexpected) at the level of the HoldCo.[1]

Affiliate Guaranties

It is also common in NAV loan facilities for the borrower’s portfolio of investments to be held by multiple subsidiaries and/or affiliates of the borrower. Each such subsidiary or affiliate may be designated as a guarantor for repayment of the loan. As a result, such entities end up guaranteeing the obligations of their affiliates. The purpose of these affiliate guaranties is the same as the upstream guaranties discussed above – namely, to provide the lenders with a more direct enforcement claim in a default scenario.

Use of Such Guaranties

Motivations for the use of such upstream and affiliate guaranties may include:

a lender’s desire to underwrite a broader portfolio of investments, mitigating concentration risk to the portfolio of a single holding entity;
a lender’s desire to ensure that it is not subordinate to creditors that may arise at the level of the entity that directly owns the investment; or
a borrower’s desire to obtain a higher loan-to-value ratio than the lenders would otherwise provide based on the investments alone.
While upstream and affiliate guaranties can help to address these issues, they may raise nuanced legal issues that should be discussed with counsel in light of the relevant facts and circumstances.

Enforceability Considerations

Guaranties constitute the assumption of the liabilities of another entity and are contingent claims against the guarantor. Under certain insolvency laws, guaranties may be subject to challenge, and payments under guaranties may be subject to avoidance. Upstream or affiliate guaranties may be subject to heightened scrutiny and challenge in a bankruptcy or distress scenario. Below are a few potential issues lenders should bear in mind with respect to upstream and affiliate guaranties.

1. Constructively Fraudulent Transfer Avoidance. Under Bankruptcy Code section 548 and certain state laws, (a) transfers of property (including grants of security interests or liens), or (b) obligations assumed (such as incurring a loan or guaranty obligation) may be avoided as constructively fraudulent if BOTH of the following requirements are satisfied:[2]

  • (i) the transferor/guarantor does not receive reasonably equivalent value; AND
  • (ii) the transferor/guarantor is insolvent or undercapitalized or rendered insolvent, undercapitalized or unable to pay its debts because of the transfer or the assumed liability.

A guaranty by a parent of the obligations of a wholly owned and solvent subsidiary, a so-called downstream guaranty, is generally regarded as providing the parent with reasonably equivalent value through an enhancement of the value of its equity ownership of the subsidiary.

Upstream and affiliate guaranties require more scrutiny than guaranties by a borrower parent to determine whether any potential enforceability issues are present.

a. Reasonably Equivalent Value. The determination of value is not formulaic or mechanical, but rather generally determined by the substance of the transaction. Value or benefits from a transfer may be direct (e.g., receipt of loan proceeds) or indirect. But if indirect, they must be “fairly concrete.”

In each of the above scenarios, we are assuming that the upstream or affiliate guarantor would not use the proceeds of any loans and, consequently, would not be added to the loan facility as a borrower. However, other indirect but tangible benefits or value to the guarantor should be identified, e.g., favorable loan terms or amendments, use of the NAV facility proceeds that may indirectly but materially benefit the guarantor, maintenance of the entire fund group of entities that benefits the guarantor, etc.

b. Financial Condition of Guarantor. The financial condition of the transferor/guarantor is evaluated at the time of the incurrence of the guaranty. The evaluation is made from the debtor/guarantor – in what condition was the guarantor left after giving effect to the transfer or assumption of the obligation. Diligence regarding a guarantor’s financial condition may demonstrate that such guarantor is sufficiently creditworthy to undertake the guaranty and remain solvent and able to conduct its respective businesses. Representations from the guarantor may be sought to confirm its financial condition.

c. Potential Mitigants. In addition to performing diligence with respect to the above points, lenders and their counsel will often include contractual provisions to mitigate the possibility that a guaranty may be found to constitute a fraudulent transfer. Savings clauses, limited recourse guaranties, and net worth guaranties are all tools that can be used to address the issues noted above. The scope and appropriateness of such provisions is beyond the scope of this article and should be discussed with external deal and restructuring counsel.

2. Preference Challenge. Under Bankruptcy Code section 547, a transfer made by a debtor to a creditor, on account of an antecedent debt, that is made while the debtor was insolvent and within 90 days before the bankruptcy case has been commenced may be subject to avoidance as a preferential transfer. Certain defenses may apply to a potential preferential transfer, including the simultaneous exchange of “new value” by the creditor. However, note that any pre-bankruptcy transfers of value, like payments under a guaranty, may be subject to scrutiny and potential challenge by the guarantor/debtor or a bankruptcy trustee.

Guaranties can be an important element in structuring NAV loan transactions to achieve the terms desired by the parties and to provide necessary protections for the lenders, but consideration needs to be given to the legal issues, such as the ones mentioned here, that their inclusion can present.

[1] Lenders will typically also require the HoldCo to pledge its accounts to which proceeds of the underlying investments are paid, allowing lenders to foreclose on such cash at the HoldCo level, without the need for such cash to first be distributed up to the borrower.

[2] Note that the precise language of certain state fraudulent transfer laws may differ, but conceptually, most state statutes require a showing of (i) insufficient or unreasonably small consideration in exchange for the transfer or liability incurred, and (ii) the transferor/debtor being insolvent at the time of the transfer, or becoming insolvent or subject to financial distress as a result of the transfer.

© Copyright 2023 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Regulatory Update and Recent SEC Actions

REGULATORY UPDATES

Recent SEC Leadership Changes

On January 10, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) announced the appointment of Cristina Martin Firvida as director of the Office of the Investor Advocate, effective January 17, 2023. Ms. Martin Firvida was most recently the vice president of financial security and livable communities for government affairs at the American Association of Retired Persons (“AARP”). As the investor advocate, Ms. Martin Firvida will lead the office that assists retail investors in interactions with the SEC and with self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”), analyzing the impact on investors of proposed rules and regulations, identifying problems that investors have with financial service providers and investment products, and proposing legislative or regulatory changes to promote the interests of investors.

On January 11, 2023, the SEC announced that Paul Munter has been appointed as chief accountant. He has served as acting chief accountant since January 2021. In addition to continuing to lead the Office of the Chief Accountant (“OCA”), he will also assist the SEC in its oversight of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”). Mr. Munter joined the SEC in 2019 as deputy chief accountant in charge of OCA’s international work. Before joining the agency, Mr. Munter was a senior instructor of accounting at the University of Colorado Boulder. He had previously retired from KPMG, where he served as the lead technical partner for the U.S. firm’s international accounting and International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”) activities and served on the firm’s panel responsible for establishing firm positions on the application of IFRS.

On January 13, 2023, the SEC announced that Renee Jones, director of the Division of Corporation Finance, departed the agency and was replaced by Erik Gerding, effective February 2, 2023. Mr. Gerding previously served as the Division’s deputy director. Mr. Gerding joined the SEC in October 2021 and led the Legal and Regulatory Policy in the Division of Corporation Finance. He has taught as professor of law and a Wolf-Nichol Fellow at the University of Colorado Law School, where he has focused in the areas of securities law, corporate law, and financial regulation. Mr. Gerding previously taught at the University of New Mexico School of Law. He also practiced in the New York and Washington, D.C., offices of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, representing clients in the financial services and technology industries in an array of financial transactions and regulatory matters.

Boards File Comment Letters Asking SEC to Withdraw Swing Pricing Rule Proposal

Over thirty (30) fund boards have submitted comment letters to the SEC with respect to the controversial swing pricing rule proposal. Industry participants have noted that this level of direct board participation in the comment process for a rule proposal of this type is unprecedented in recent SEC history. Many of the letters call for a withdrawal of the rule proposal, with some arguing that millions of American investors will not get the best price for their trades. Many letters also stated that requiring swing pricing would burden fund complexes and harm mutual fund investors without solving the liquidity problems that the SEC aimed to resolve. A vast majority of the comment letters indicated that swing pricing is not needed and that current tools for managing liquidity worked well, even during the volatile 2020 markets.

The comment letters also noted that investors who hold fund shares through intermediaries may have to place their orders earlier as a result of the proposed hard close requirement, which would put them at a disadvantage over the investors who buy shares directly from a fund. Several commenters also expressed concern that the hard close could cause intermediaries to drop mutual funds from their offerings in favor of less-regulated investment vehicles, such as collective investment trusts (“CITs”). Some letters pointed out that one of the justifications the SEC raises for the new rule is the market volatility during the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on fund liquidity risk management, yet the SEC then goes on to say that it did not have specific data about fund dilution during that period. Letters also alleged that the SEC did not provide an accurate cost benefit analysis, and noted that the SEC states in the rule proposal that it “cannot predict the number of investors that would choose to keep their investments in the mutual fund sector nor the number of investors that would exit mutual funds and instead invest in other fund structures such as ETFs, close-end funds, or CITs.”

SEC Proposes Rule to Prohibit Conflicts of Interest in Certain Securitizations

The SEC issued a proposed rule (the “proposed rule”) to prohibit material conflicts of interest in the sale of asset-backed securities (“ABS”). The proposed rule, Rule 192 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), was issued on January 25, 2023, to implement Section 27B of the Securities Act, a provision added by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”). Specifically, the proposed rule would prohibit securitization participants from engaging in certain transactions that could incentivize a securitization participant to structure an ABS in a way that would put the securitization participant’s interests ahead of those of ABS investors. The SEC originally proposed a rule to implement Section 27B in September 2011. If adopted, the proposed rule would prohibit an underwriter, placement agent, initial purchaser, or sponsor of an ABS, including affiliates or subsidiaries of those entities, from engaging, directly or indirectly, in any transaction that would involve or result in any material conflict of interest between the securitization participant and an investor in such ABS. Under the proposed rule, such transactions would be considered “conflicted transactions” and include, for example, a short sale of the ABS or the purchase of a credit default swap or other credit derivative that entitles the securitization participant to receive payments upon the occurrence of specified credit events in respect of the ABS.

The prohibition on conflicted transactions would commence on the date on which a person has reached, or has taken substantial steps to reach, an agreement that such person will become a securitization participant with respect to an ABS, and it would end one year after the date of the first closing of the sale of the relevant ABS. The proposed rule would provide certain exceptions for risk-mitigating hedging activities, bona fide market-making activities, and certain commitments by a securitization participant to provide liquidity for the relevant ABS. The public comment period will remain open for 60 days following publication of the proposing release on the SEC’s website or 30 days following publication of the proposing release in the Federal Register, whichever period is longer.

Division of Examinations Publishes Risk Alert on Regulation Best Interest

On January 30, 2023, the Division of Examinations published a Risk Alert (the “Risk Alert”) to highlight observations from examinations related to Regulation Best Interest, which had a June 30, 2020, compliance date and to assist broker-dealers in reviewing and enhancing their compliance programs related to Regulation Best Interest. The Risk Alert discusses deficiencies noted during examinations conducted, as well as examples of weak practices that could result in deficiencies. Regulation Best Interest established a new, enhanced standard of conduct under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) for broker-dealers (“broker-dealers” or “firms”) and associated persons that are natural persons (“financial professionals”) of a broker-dealer when making recommendations of securities transactions or investment strategies involving securities (including account recommendations) to retail customers. Regulation Best Interest requires compliance with four component obligations: (1) providing certain prescribed disclosure, before or at the time of the recommendation, about the recommendation and the relationship between the retail customer and the broker-dealer (“Disclosure Obligation”); (2) exercising reasonable diligence, care, and skill in making the recommendation to, among other things, understand the potential risks, rewards, and costs associated with a recommendation, and having a reasonable basis to believe that the recommendation is in the best interest of a retail customer (“Care Obligation”); (3) establishing, maintaining, and enforcing written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and address conflicts of interest; and (4) establishing, maintaining, and enforcing written policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with Regulation Best Interest. The Risk Alert set out specific examples of practices, policies, and procedures that were deficient in complying with requirements under the Regulation, including:

  • Policies and Procedures Relating to the Disclosure Obligation. Some broker-dealers did not have written policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the Disclosure Obligation. The SEC noted that examples of policies and procedures that may contain deficiencies or weaknesses include policies and procedures that did not specify when or how disclosures should be created or updated.
  • Policies and Procedures Relating to the Care Obligation. Examples of policies and procedures that may contain deficiencies or weaknesses include policies and procedures that directed financial professionals to consider reasonably available alternatives without providing any guidance as to how to do so; directed financial professionals to consider costs without providing any guidance as to how to do so; or created systems that allowed financial professionals to evaluate costs or reasonably available alternatives but did not mandate their use or, in some instances, could not determine whether or not financial professionals used the systems.
  • Conflict of Interest. The SEC observed a number of deficiencies related to the requirement that broker-dealers have written policies and procedures reasonably designed to address conflicts of interest associated with their recommendations to retail customers. For example: some broker-dealers did not have written policies and procedures reasonably designed to specify how conflicts are to be identified or addressed; some broker-dealers limited the identified conflicts to conflicts associated with prohibited activities (e.g., churning) or used high-level, generic language that did not identify the actual conflict (e.g., “we have conflicts related to compensation differences”) and did not reflect all conflicts of interest associated with the recommendations made by the firm or its financial professionals; and some broker-dealers inappropriately relied on disclosure to “mitigate” conflicts that appeared to create an incentive for the financial professional to place its interest ahead of the interest of the retail customer, and did not establish any mitigation measures.

SEC Releases Staff Guidance on Differential Advisory Fee Waivers

The staff of the Division of Investment Management (“Staff”) issued guidance (“Guidance”) on February 2, 2023, to mutual funds, their boards of directors/trustees (“Boards”), and their legal counsel about the implications under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”), regarding fee waiver and expense reimbursement arrangements that result in different advisory fees being charged to different share classes of the same fund. The Guidance noted that Rule 18f-3 permits fee waivers and expense reimbursements provided that such arrangements do not result in cross-subsidization of fees among classes. The Staff stated that whether a differential advisory fee waiver presents a prohibited means of cross-subsidization between classes is a facts-and-circumstances determination that a mutual fund’s board, in consultation with the investment adviser and legal counsel, should consider making and documenting after considering all relevant factors.

For example, a fund’s Board may be able to conclude that a long-term waiver of an advisory fee for one class of shares, but not other classes of shares, does not provide a means for cross subsidization in contravention of Rule 18f-3 if the Board finds that (1) shareholders in the waived class pay fees to the adviser at the investing fund level in a funds-of-funds structure for advisory services, and (2) that such fees, when added to the advisory fees that are paid by the waived class, after giving effect to the waiver, are at least equal to the amount of advisory fees paid by the other classes, such that the waiver for the waived class is demonstrably not being subsidized by other classes. For a fund that already has such differential advisory fee waivers in place, the Staff said the fund’s board may wish to consider, specifically within the context of Rule 18f-3, whether: (i) such waivers present a means for cross-subsidization, (ii) the steps they are taking to monitor such waivers to guard against cross-subsidization are (and continue to be) effective, and/or (iii) alternative fee arrangements may be appropriate. Relatedly, the Staff suggested that a fund should consider the extent to which the Board’s consideration of these issues under Rule 18f-3 should be disclosed to its shareholders.

SEC Division of Examinations Announces 2023 Priorities

On February 7, 2023, the SEC’s Division of Examinations (the “Division”) announced its 2023 examination priorities. The Division publishes its examination priorities annually to provide insights into its risk-based approach, including the areas it believes present potential risks to investors and the integrity of the U.S. capital markets. The following are a selection of the Division’s 2023 priorities:

  • New Investment Adviser and Investment Company Rules:The Division will focus on the new Marketing Rule (Rule 206(4)-1 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act)) and whether registered investment advisers (“RIAs”) have adopted and implemented written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to prevent violations by the advisers and their supervised persons of the new Marketing Rule and whether RIAs have complied with the substantive requirements.

    The Division will also focus on new rules applicable to investment companies (“funds”), including the Derivatives Rule (Rule 18f-4 under the Investment Company Act) and the Fair Valuation Rule (Investment Company Act Rule 2a-5). If a fund relies on the Derivatives Rule, the Division will, among other things: (1) assess whether registered investment companies, including mutual funds (other than money market funds), exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) and closed-end funds, as well as business development companies (“BDCs”), have adopted and implemented policies and procedures reasonably designed to manage the funds’ derivatives risks and to prevent violations of the Derivatives Rule pursuant to Investment Company Act Rule 38a-1; and (2) review for compliance with Rule 18f-4, including the adoption and implementation of a derivatives risk management program, board oversight, and whether disclosures concerning the fund’s use of derivatives are incomplete, inaccurate, or potentially misleading.

    Under the new Fair Valuation Rule, the Division will, among other things: (1) assess funds’ and fund boards’ compliance with the new requirements for determining fair value, implementing board oversight duties, setting recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and permitting the funds’ board to designate valuation designees to perform fair value determinations; and (2) review whether adjustments have been made to valuation methodologies, compliance policies and procedures, governance practices, service provider oversight, and/or reporting and recordkeeping.

  • RIAs to Private Funds – Examinations will include a review of issues under the Advisers Act, including an adviser’s fiduciary duty, and will assess risks, focusing on compliance programs, fees and expenses, custody, the new Marketing Rule, conflicts of interest, and the use of alternative data. The Division will also review private fund advisers’ portfolio strategies, risk management, and investment recommendations and allocations, focusing on conflicts and disclosures around these areas. In addition, the Division will focus on RIAs to private funds with specific risk characteristics, including highly leveraged private funds and private funds managed side-by-side with BDCs.
  • Retail Investors and Working Families – Examinations will focus on how registrants are satisfying their obligations under Regulation Best Interest and the Advisers Act fiduciary standard to act in the best interests of retail investors and not to place their own interests ahead of the interests of retail investors.
  • Registered Investment Companies  ̶  The Division will review compliance programs and governance practices, disclosures to investors, and accuracy of reporting to the SEC of the registered investment companies, including ETFs and mutual funds. The Division will also focus on funds with specific characteristics, such as: (1) turnkey funds, to review their operations and assess effectiveness of their compliance programs; (2) mutual funds that converted to ETFs, to assess governance and disclosures associated with the conversion to an ETF; (3) non-transparent ETFs, to assess compliance with the conditions and other material terms of their exemptive relief; (4) loan-focused funds, such as leveraged loan funds and funds focused on collateralized loan obligations, for liquidity concerns and to review whether the funds have been significantly impacted by, and have adapted to, elevated interest rates; and (5) medium and small fund complexes that have experienced excessive staff attrition, to focus on whether such attrition has affected the funds’ controls and operations. The Division will also monitor the proliferation of volatility-linked and single-stock ETFs, and may review such funds’ disclosures, marketing, conflicts, and compliance with portfolio management disclosures, among other things. In addition, the Division will focus on adviser compensation, practices and processes for assessing and approving advisory and other fund fees, the effectiveness of derivatives risk management and liquidity risk management programs.
  • Environmental, Social, and Governance (“ESG”) – The Division will focus on ESG-related advisory services and fund offerings, including whether funds are operating in the manner set forth in their disclosures, whether ESG products are appropriately labeled, and whether recommendations of such products for retail investors are made in the investors’ best interests.
  • Information Security and Operational Resiliency – The Division will review broker-dealers’, RIAs’, and other registrants’ practices to prevent interruptions to mission-critical services and to protect investor information, records, and assets. Reviews of broker-dealers and RIAs will include a focus on the cybersecurity issues associated with the use of third-party vendors, including registrant visibility into the security and integrity of third-party products and services and whether there has been an unauthorized use of third-party providers.
  • Emerging Technologies and Crypto-Assets – The Division will conduct examinations of broker-dealers and RIAs that are using emerging financial technologies or employing new practices, including technological and on-line solutions to meet the demands of compliance and marketing and to service investor accounts. Examinations of registrants will focus on the offer, sale or recommendation of, or advice regarding trading in, crypto or crypto-related assets and include whether the firm (1) met and followed its standard of care when making recommendations, referrals, or providing investment advice; and (2) routinely reviewed, updated, and enhanced its compliance, disclosure, and risk management practices.

As in recent past years, the Division noted that it prioritizes RIAs and investment companies that have never been examined, including recently registered firms or investment companies, and those that have not been examined for a number of years.

“Our priorities reflect the changing landscape and associated risks in the securities market and are the product of a risk-based approach to examination selection that balances our resources across a diverse registrant base. We will emphasize compliance with new SEC rules applicable to investment advisers and investment companies as well as continue our focus on emerging issues and rules aimed at protecting retail investors,” said Division of Examinations’ Director Richard R. Best. “Our examination program continues moving forward and remains committed to furthering investor protection through high-quality examinations and staying abreast of the latest industry trends and emerging risks to investors and the markets.”

SEC Reopens Comment Period for Proposed Cybersecurity Risk Management Rules and Amendments for Registered Investment Advisers and Funds

The SEC reopened the comment period on proposed rules and amendments related to cybersecurity risk management and cybersecurity-related disclosure for registered investment advisers, registered investment companies, and BDCs that were proposed by the SEC on February 9, 2022. The initial comment period ended on April 11, 2022. Per the SEC’s March 15, 2023, announcement, the reopened comment period will allow interested persons additional time to analyze the issues and prepare comments in light of other regulatory developments, including whether there would be any effects of other SEC proposals related to cybersecurity risk management and disclosure that the SEC should consider. The comment period will remain open until 60 days after the date of publication of the reopening release in the Federal Register.

SEC Finalizes Rules to Reduce Broker-Dealer Settlement Cycle from (T+2) to (T+1)

The SEC adopted rule changes to shorten the standard settlement cycle for most broker-dealer transactions in securities from two business days after the trade date (“T+2”) to one (“T+1”). The SEC indicates that the final rules, adopted on February 15, 2023, are designed to reduce the credit, market, and liquidity risks in securities transactions faced by market participants. The final rules will: (i) require a broker-dealer to either enter into written agreements or establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure the completion of allocations, confirmations, and affirmations as soon as technologically practicable and no later than the end of the trade date; (ii) require registered investment advisers to make and keep records of the allocations, confirmations, and affirmations for certain securities transactions; (iii) add a new requirement to facilitate straight-through processing, which applies to certain types of clearing agencies that provide central matching services; and (iv) require central matching service providers to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce new policies and procedures reasonably designed to facilitate straight-through processing and require them to submit an annual report to the SEC that describes and quantifies progress with respect to straight-through processing. The final rules will become effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. The compliance date for the final rules is May 28, 2024.

SEC Proposes Enhanced Custody Rule for Registered Investment Advisers

The SEC proposed rule changes to enhance protections of customer assets managed by registered investment advisers. If adopted, the changes would amend and redesignate rule 206(4)-2, the SEC’s current custody rule (the “custody rule”), as new rule 223-1 under the Advisers Act (the “proposed rule”) and amend certain related recordkeeping and reporting obligations. According to the SEC’s announcement on February 15, 2023, the SEC exercised its authority under the Dodd-Frank Act in broadening the application of the custody rule. The proposed rule would change the current rule’s scope in two important ways. First, it would expand the types of investments covered by the rule. The proposed rule would extend the rule’s coverage beyond client “funds and securities” to client “assets” so as to include additional investments held in a client’s account, e.g. digital assets, including crypto assets. Second, an adviser would be deemed to have “custody” of client assets whenever the adviser has discretionary authority to trade client assets.

The proposed rule would also require qualified custodians to provide certain standard custodial protections when maintaining an advisory client’s assets and additional protections for certain securities and physical assets that cannot be maintained by a qualified custodian. The proposed rule would also provide exceptions to the surprise examination requirement in instances in which the adviser’s sole reason for having custody is because it has discretionary authority or because the adviser is acting according to a standing letter of authorization. In addition, the proposed rule would expand the scope of who can satisfy the custody rule’s surprise examination requirement through financial statement audits. Finally, the proposed rule would update related recordkeeping requirements for advisers and amend Form ADV to align reporting obligations with the proposed rule and to improve the accuracy of custody-related data available to the SEC, its staff, and the public. The comment period on the proposal will remain open for 60 days following publication of the proposing release in the Federal Register.

“I support this proposal because, in using important authorities Congress granted us after the financial crisis, it would help ensure that advisers don’t inappropriately use, lose, or abuse investors’ assets,” said SEC Chair Gary Gensler. “In particular, Congress gave us authority to expand the advisers’ custody rule to apply to all assets, not just funds or securities. Further, investors would benefit from the proposal’s changes to enhance the protections that qualified custodians provide. Thus, through this expanded custody rule, investors working with advisers would receive the time-tested protections that they deserve for all of their assets, including crypto assets, consistent with what Congress envisioned.”

Republican Leaders Request Information from Gensler on Climate Disclosure Proposal

On February 22, 2023, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Patrick McHenry (R-NC); the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Tim Scott (R-SC); and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Bill Huizenga (R-MI), sent a letter to the SEC Chair Gary Gensler demanding records and other information related to the proposed climate disclosure rule, including responses to previous requests by numerous members of both the House and the Senate that Chair Gensler had failed to provide. The Republican leaders argued that the proposed rule exceeds the SEC’s mission, expertise, and authority and—if finalized in any form—will unnecessarily harm consumers, workers, and the U.S. economy. In addition, the Republican members of the House Appropriations subcommittee pushed to cut the agency’s budget and requested that the SEC expand its enforcement efforts, reduce the pace of its rulemaking, and refrain from regulation. According to the opening statement of Steve Womack (R-Ark.), chair of the Financial Services and General Government subcommittee, who opened the March 29, 2023, hearing, the SEC budget is too big, the agency costs too much to run, and it focuses too much on the implementation and enforcement of new regulations rather than on trying to encourage the flow of investment capital into markets.

“The blistering pace of the SEC rulemaking is a cause for concern,” Womack wrote, “especially when the SEC is wading into areas that are not within their expertise and constitutionally questionable, such as requiring public companies to report on greenhouse gas emissions while claiming private enterprises won’t be impacted.”

SEC Fee Rate Advisories

The SEC announced that, starting on February 27, 2023, the fee rates applicable to most securities transactions would be set at $8.00 per million dollars. Per the January 23, 2023, announcement, the then-current rate of $22.90 per million dollars would remain in effect on charge dates through February 26, 2023. The assessment on security futures transactions remained unchanged at $0.0042 for each round-turn transaction. Subsequently, on March 1, 2023, the SEC announced that a mid-year adjustment to the fee rate for fiscal year 2023 was not required. As a result, the fiscal 2023 fee rate will remain at $8.00 per million dollars until September 30, 2023, or 60 days after the enactment of a regular FY 2024 appropriation, whichever occurs later. Similarly, the SEC confirmed that the Section 31 assessment on round-turn transactions in security futures also would remain at $0.0042 per transaction.

SEC Proposes Changes to Reg S-P to Enhance Protection of Customer Information

The SEC proposed amendments to Regulation S-P (“Reg S-P”) that would, among other things, require broker-dealers, investment companies, registered investment advisers, and transfer agents (collectively, “covered institutions”) to provide notice to individuals affected by certain types of data breaches that may put them at risk of identity theft or other harm. Reg S-P currently requires broker-dealers, investment companies, and registered investment advisers to adopt written policies and procedures for the protection of customer records and information (the “safeguards rule”). Reg S-P also requires the proper disposal of consumer report information (the “disposal rule”). If adopted, the SEC’s proposal, which was announced on March 15, 2023, would (i) update current requirements to address the expanded use of technology and corresponding risks since the SEC originally adopted Reg S-P in 2000; (ii) require covered institutions to adopt written policies and procedures for an incident response program to address unauthorized access to or use of customer information; (iii) require, with certain limited exceptions, covered institutions to provide notice to individuals whose sensitive customer information was or is reasonably likely to have been accessed or used without authorization; (iv) require a covered institution to provide such notice as soon as practicable, but not later than 30 days after the covered institution becomes aware that an incident involving unauthorized access to or use of customer information has occurred or is reasonably likely to have occurred; and (v) make a number of additional changes to Reg S-P, including:

(a) broadening and aligning the scope of the safeguards rule and disposal rule to cover “customer information,” a new defined term which would extend the protections of the safeguards and disposal rules to both nonpublic personal information that a covered institution collects about its own customers and nonpublic personal information that a covered institution receives about customers of other financial institutions;

(b) extending the safeguards rule to transfer agents registered with the SEC or another appropriate regulatory agency, and expanding the existing scope of the disposal rule to include transfer agents registered with another appropriate regulatory agency rather than only those registered with the SEC; and

(c) conforming Reg S-P’s existing provisions regarding the delivery of an annual privacy notice with a statutory exception created by the U.S. Congress in 2015.

The public comment period for the proposed amendments will remain open until 60 days after the date of publication of the proposing release in the Federal Register.

SEC Proposes New Requirements to Address Cybersecurity Risks to the U.S. Securities Markets

The SEC proposed requirements (the “proposal”) for broker-dealers, clearing agencies, major security-based swap participants, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, national securities associations, national securities exchanges, security-based swap data repositories, security-based swap dealers, and transfer agents (collectively, “Market Entities”) to address their cybersecurity risks. In its March 15, 2023, announcement of the proposal, the SEC noted that Market Entities increasingly rely on information systems to perform their functions and provide their services and that the interconnectedness of Market Entities increases the risk that a significant cybersecurity incident can simultaneously impact multiple Market Entities causing systemic harm to the U.S. securities markets.

Proposed new Rule 10 under the Exchange Act would require all Market Entities to (i) establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to address their cybersecurity risks, (ii) review and assess, at least annually, the design and effectiveness of their cybersecurity policies and procedures, including whether they reflect changes in cybersecurity risk over the time period covered by the review, and (iii) provide the SEC with immediate written electronic notice of a significant cybersecurity incident upon having a reasonable basis to conclude that the significant cybersecurity incident has occurred or is occurring. The proposal includes additional requirements for Market Entities other than certain types of small broker-dealers (collectively, “Covered Entities”), including the requirement that Covered Entities utilize a proposed new Form SCIR to (a) report and update information about any significant cybersecurity incident and (b) publicly disclose summary descriptions of their cybersecurity risks and the significant cybersecurity incidents they experienced during the current or previous calendar year. The public comment period for the proposal will remain open until 60 days after the date of publication of the proposing release in the Federal Register.

SEC Proposes to Expand and Update Regulation SCI

The SEC proposed amendments to expand and update Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity (“Regulation SCI”). Regulation SCI requires certain U.S. securities markets entities (“SCI entities”) to take corrective action with respect to systems disruptions, systems compliance issues, and systems intrusions and to notify the SEC of such events. In the SEC’s March 15, 2023, announcement of the proposed amendments, the SEC explained that trading and technology have evolved since Regulation SCI’s adoption in 2014 and that the growth in electronic trading allows ever-increasing volumes of securities transactions in a broader range of asset classes at increasing speed by competing trading platforms, including those offered by broker-dealers that play multiple roles in the markets. The proposed amendments would expand the scope of SCI entities covered by Regulation SCI to include registered security-based swap data repositories, all clearing agencies that are exempt from registration, and certain large broker-dealers (in particular, those that exceed a total assets threshold or a transaction activity threshold in national market system stocks, exchange-listed options contracts, U.S. Treasury Securities, or Agency Securities).

The proposed amendments would require that an SCI entity’s policies and procedures include the maintenance of a written inventory and classification of all SCI systems and a program for life cycle management; a program to prevent unauthorized access to such systems and information therein; and a program to manage and oversee certain third-party providers, including cloud service providers, of covered systems. The proposed amendments would also expand the types of SCI events experienced by an SCI entity that would trigger immediate notification to the SEC, update the rule’s annual SCI review and business continuity and disaster recovery testing requirements, and update certain of the Regulation’s recordkeeping provisions. The public comment period for the proposed amendments will remain open until 60 days after the date of publication of the proposing release in the Federal Register.

The SEC Issues Frequently Asked Questions for Registration of Municipal Advisors

On March 20, 2023, the SEC updated its Registration of Municipal Advisors Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQs”) page which provides general interpretive staff guidance on various aspects of the SEC’s municipal advisor registration rules. The updated page provides answers to questions across several categories, including the following topics: (i) independent registered municipal advisor exemption; (ii) registered investment adviser exclusion; (iii) issuance of municipal securities/post-issuance advice; (iv) completion of Form MA, Form MA-I, and Form MA-NR; (v) withdrawal from municipal advisor registration; and (vi) investment strategies and proceeds of municipal securities.

SEC Issues Statement Regarding Risk Legend Used by Non-Transparent ETFs

Under the terms of the SEC’s exemptive relief granted to actively managed ETFs that do not provide daily portfolio transparency (“non-transparent ETFs”), each non-transparent ETF is required to include in its prospectus, fund website, and any marketing materials a risk legend  highlighting the differences between the non-transparent ETF and fully transparent actively managed ETFs, as well as certain costs and risks unique to non-transparent ETFs. Recognizing that the standardized risk legend required by the exemptive orders may be difficult to place in certain digital advertisements (e.g., banner advertisements) due to space limitations, the SEC issued new disclosure language on March 29, 2023, which may be used in digital advertisements by non-transparent ETFs in place of the standardized risk legend currently provided in the exemptive orders. Requirements relating to placement of the risk legend or new disclosure language in a prominent location remain as prescribed in the exemptive orders.

SEC ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

SEC Charges Former Investment Adviser Managing Director and Co-Portfolio Manager with Undisclosed Conflict of Interest

The SEC charged a former managing director (the “defendant”) of a New York-based investment adviser (the “Adviser”), with failing to disclose a conflict of interest arising from his relationship with a film distribution company in which the fund he managed for the Adviser invested millions of dollars. The SEC’s order, issued on January 5, 2023, found that, from 2015 to 2019, a closed-end publicly traded fund (the “fund”), invested in Aviron Group, LLC subsidiaries by loaning the subsidiaries, which were in the business of funding advertising budgets of motion pictures, as much as $75 million. The defendant, a co-portfolio manager of the fund, had a significant role in recommending and overseeing the fund’s loans to the Aviron subsidiaries. At the same time, the defendant asked Aviron to help advance his daughter’s acting career. Aviron helped defendant’s daughter obtain a small role in a film produced in 2018. The defendant did not disclose to the fund’s board of trustees or the Adviser’s compliance and legal teams that he asked Aviron to help advance his daughter’s acting career or that Aviron helped his daughter obtain a film role. The defendant consented to the entry of the SEC’s order finding that he violated Section 206(2) of the Advisers Act. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, the defendant agreed to a cease-and-desist order, a censure, and a $250,000 penalty.

SEC Charges Former SPAC CFO for Orchestrating Fraud Scheme

The SEC announced fraud charges against Cooper J. Morgenthau, the former CFO of African Gold Acquisition Corp. (“African Gold”), a special purpose acquisition company (“SPAC”), alleging that he stole more than $5 million from African Gold and from investors in two other SPACs that he incorporated. The SEC’s January 3, 2023, complaint alleged that from June 2021 through July 2022, Morgenthau embezzled money from African Gold and stole funds from another SPAC series to pay for his personal expenses and to trade in crypto assets and other securities; concealed unauthorized withdrawals by falsifying African Gold’s bank account statements; and raised money from the other SPAC’s investors based on misrepresentations. The SEC’s complaint alleged that Morgenthau violated antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, lied to African Gold’s auditor and accountants in violation of the Exchange Act, knowingly falsified African Gold’s books and records, and filed false certifications with the SEC. Morgenthau consented to a judgment enjoining him from further federal securities laws violations and barring him from serving as an officer or director of a publicly traded company, with monetary remedies to be determined at a later date. In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, on the same day the SEC issued its complaint, announced criminal charges against Morgenthau.

In a related matter, on February 22, 2023, the SEC announced that it settled charges against African Gold for internal controls, reporting, and recordkeeping violations. Per the SEC, it was due to these failures that Morgenthau was able to embezzle money from the company’s operating bank account as discussed in the above complaint. The SEC noted that African Gold made materially false filings with the SEC and maintained inaccurate books and records. According to the SEC’s order, African Gold’s only liquid asset was the money held in its operating bank account, and thus potential fraud by management posed one of the company’s most significant risks of material misstatements in its financial statements. The SEC’s order alleged that, despite this risk, African Gold gave Morgenthau control over nearly all aspects of its operating bank account and financial reporting process with little to no oversight. The SEC’s order found that African Gold violated Exchange Act provisions relating to internal controls, reporting, and recordkeeping. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, African Gold agreed to a cease-and-desist order and to pay a $103,591 civil monetary penalty.

SEC Settles Charges Against Investment Adviser for Alleged Conflicts of Interest Arising Out of Revenue Sharing and Incentive Arrangements

The SEC issued an order instituting and settling administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against Moors & Cabot, Inc. (“Moors & Cabot”), a registered investment adviser and broker-dealer. Per the January 19, 2023, order, between at least February 2017 and September 2021, Moors & Cabot failed to fully and fairly disclose material facts and conflicts of interest associated with certain revenue-sharing payments and financial incentives that Moors & Cabot received from two unaffiliated clearing brokers. According to the order, Moors & Cabot also failed to implement written compliance policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of the Advisers Act in connection with the disclosure of revenue sharing, fee markups, financial incentives, and associated conflicts of interest, as well as disciplinary histories. Moors & Cabot is charged with willfully violating Sections 206(2) and 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-7 thereunder.

Company to Pay $5 Million for Misleading Disclosures About Its Valuation Methodologies for Fixed Income Securities

The SEC announced settled charges against a privately held financial, software, data and media company headquartered in New York (the “Company”) for misleading disclosures relating to its paid subscription service, which provides daily price valuations for fixed income securities to financial services entities. The SEC’s January 23, 2023, order found that from at least 2016 through October 2022, the Company failed to disclose to its subscription service customers that the valuations for certain fixed income securities could be based on a single data input, such as a broker quote, which did not adhere to methodologies it had previously disclosed. The order found that the Company was aware that its customers, including mutual funds, may utilize subscription service prices to determine fund asset valuations, including for valuing fund investments in government, supranational, agency, and corporate bonds, municipal bonds, and securitized products, and that subscription service prices, therefore, can have an impact on the price at which securities are offered or traded. The SEC’s order found that the Company violated section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act. Without admitting or denying the findings, the Company agreed to cease and desist from future violations and to pay a $5 million penalty. The SEC’s order noted that the Company voluntarily engaged in remedial efforts to improve its subscription service line of business.

Twenty-five States File Lawsuit to Block DOL’s ESG Rule

Twenty-five states are suing the Biden Administration in an attempt to block the Department of Labor (“DOL”) rule that allows fiduciaries to consider ESG factors when choosing retirement investments (“DOL ESG Rule”). According to the lawsuit filed in Texas federal court on January 26, 2023, the attorneys general claim that the DOL ESG Rule violates Employment Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), which requires that retirement plans invest solely for financial gain, and runs afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) as arbitrary and capricious because the DOL failed to assess either the harm it poses for plan participants and beneficiaries or the advantage of superseding the 2020 DOL rule effectively banning ESG considerations in plan investment selections. Among the twenty-five states are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, and Iowa. In addition to the states, listed plaintiffs include two energy companies, an energy industry trade group, and an individual participant in an unnamed workplace plan.

The claimants argue that the DOL is deviating from prior policy because its 2020 DOL rule still required that financial factors take precedence. It is argued in the complaint that the DOL justified the 2022 rule by noting that it would cure a “chill” or “confusion” allegedly caused by the 2020 rule. Per the claimants, the DOL never identified who was confused, what the source of confusion was, or whether the alleged confusion caused a reduction in the financial returns for plan participants. Claimants further allege that the DOL did not consider alternatives and failed to consider that the solution to the purported concerns caused by the 2020 rules would be to issue clarifying sub-regulatory guidance. The claimants request the court to postpone the DOL ESG Rule’s effective date and to impose a preliminary injunction and declare the DOL ESG Rule in violation of the APA and ERISA.

SEC Charges Options Clearing Corporation with Rule Failures

The SEC announced that The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) will undertake remedial efforts and pay $17 million in penalties to settle charges that it failed to comply with its own SEC-approved stress testing and clearing fund methodology rule during certain times between October 2019 and May 2021. According to the SEC’s February 16, 2023, order, Chicago-based OCC’s failure to implement and comply with its own rule was the result of its failure to properly establish, implement, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to manage certain operational risks. The SEC’s order further found that OCC failed to modify its comprehensive stress testing system and did not provide timely notification to the SEC of this failure as required by Regulation SCI. The SEC also found that OCC failed to comply with its margin methodology, margin policy, and stress testing and clearing fund methodology relating to specific wrong way risk and holiday margin.

According to the SEC, in addition to the $17 million penalty, OCC has undertaken several remedial measures, including revising its model validation policies and procedures; enhancing its approach to risk data governance; implementing changes to elements of its control environment, including processes, procedures, and controls; and conducting appropriate training on the changes. This is the SEC’s second enforcement action against OCC. In a September 2019 settled action, the SEC charged OCC with failure to establish and enforce policies and procedures involving financial risk management, operational requirements, and information-systems security, and imposed remedial measures and a $15 million penalty.

Republican Attorney-Generals Ask Court to Set Aside SEC Proxy Voting Disclosure Rules

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and three other Republican attorneys general filed a petition on February 21, 2023, against the SEC in the federal appeals court opposing the new proxy voting disclosure rules. Among other changes, the new rules amend Form N-PX by expanding the number of voting categories to include information about votes in certain standardized categories, including various ESG-related topics such as environment or climate, and diversity, equity and inclusion. Though the petition does not detail the states’ legal arguments against the proxy voting disclosure rules, Attorney General Paxton claimed in a statement that the rules are politically motivated. According to the office of Utah’s attorney general, the rules “will put shareholders at increased risk of loss, encouraging political activism and raising administrative costs.” The SEC’s two Republican commissioners, Hester Peirce and Mark Uyeda, both voted against adopting the rules, which the SEC’s three Democrats supported.

SEC Charges a Church and Its Investment Management Company for Disclosure Failures and Misstated Filings

The SEC announced charges against an exempt investment adviser (the “Adviser”), a non-profit entity operated by a religious organization (the “Church”) to manage the Church’s investments, for failing to file forms that would have disclosed the Church’s equity investments, and for instead filing forms for shell companies that obscured the Church’s portfolio and misstated the Adviser’s control over the Church’s investment decisions. The SEC also announced charges against the Church for causing these violations. To settle the charges, the Adviser agreed to pay a $4 million penalty and the Church agreed to pay a $1 million penalty. The SEC’s order, issued on February 21, 2023, found that from 1997 through 2019, the Adviser failed to file Forms 13F. According to the SEC’s order, the Church was concerned that disclosure of its portfolio, which by 2018 had grown to approximately $32 billion, would lead to negative consequences and in order to obscure the amount of the Church’s portfolio, and with the Church’s knowledge and approval, the Adviser filed Forms 13F in the names of shell LLCs which it had created rather than in the Adviser’s name.

The order found that the Adviser maintained investment discretion over all relevant securities, that it controlled the shell LLCs, and that it directed nominee “business managers,” most of whom were employed by the Church, to sign the SEC filings. The SEC found that the shell LLCs’ Forms 13F misstated, among other things, that the LLCs had sole investment and voting discretion over the securities, when in reality the Adviser retained control over all investment and voting decisions. The Adviser agreed to settle the SEC’s allegation that it violated Section 13(f) of the Exchange Act and Rule 13f-1 thereunder by failing to file Forms 13F and by misstating information in these forms. The Church also agreed to settle the SEC’s allegation that it caused the Adviser’s violations through its knowledge and approval of the Adviser’s use of the shell LLCs.

SEC Charges Private Fund Auditor and Audit Engagement Partner with Improper Professional Conduct

The SEC announced settled charges against Spicer Jeffries LLP, an audit firm based in Denver, and an audit engagement partner Sean P. Tafaro, for their improper professional conduct in connection with audits of two private funds. According to the SEC’s March 29, 2023, order, during the audit planning stages, Spicer Jeffries and Tafaro assessed that valuation of investments was a significant fraud risk but did not implement the planned audit approach to respond to the risk. The order further finds that Spicer Jeffries and Tafaro failed to obtain sufficient audit evidence about the method of measuring fair value, the valuation models, and whether alternative valuation assumptions were considered. According to the order, due to these failures and others, Spicer Jeffries and Tafaro did not exercise due care, including professional skepticism. The order also found that Spicer Jeffries’ deficient system of quality control led to failures to adhere to professional auditing standards. Without admitting or denying the findings, Spicer Jeffries and Tafaro consented to the SEC’s order finding that they engaged in improper professional conduct. Spicer Jeffries agreed to be censured and to implement undertakings to retain an independent consultant to review and evaluate certain of its audit, review, and quality control policies and procedures. Tafaro agreed to be suspended from appearing and practicing before the SEC as an accountant. The SEC’s order permits Tafaro to apply for reinstatement after one year.

Cyber Fraud and Crypto Asset Enforcement Actions

The SEC brought charges against various individuals and entities relating to cyber fraud and crypto assets, including blockchain and lending programs. For example, these include:

  1. The SEC charged five individuals and three entities for their involvement in a fraudulent investment scheme named CoinDeal that raised more than $45 million from sales of unregistered securities to tens of thousands of investors worldwide. According to the SEC’s complaint filed on January 4, 2023, the five individuals allegedly disseminated false and misleading statements to investors about extravagant returns from investing in a blockchain technology called CoinDeal; the purported value of CoinDeal; the parties involved in the supposed sale of CoinDeal; and the use of investment proceeds. The complaint further alleged that no sale of CoinDeal ever occurred and no distributions were made to CoinDeal investors, and that the defendants collectively misappropriated millions of dollars of investor funds for personal use. In June 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted one of the individuals on three counts of wire fraud and two counts of monetary transaction in unlawful proceeds for his involvement in CoinDeal. The SEC’s complaint charged each party with different violations of the antifraud and registration provisions of the Securities Act and Exchange Act; and aiding and abetting under the antifraud provisions of the Exchange Act; and under the antifraud and registration provisions of the Securities Act and Exchange Act.
  2. The SEC charged a crypto asset-related financial products and services corporation (the “Corporation”), with failing to register the offer and sale of its retail crypto asset lending product. To settle the SEC’s charges, the Corporation agreed to pay a $22.5 million penalty and cease its unregistered offer and sale of its product to U.S. investors. In parallel actions announced the same day, the Corporation agreed to pay an additional $22.5 million in fines to settle similar charges by state regulatory authorities. The SEC’s January 19, 2023, order found that the Corporation marketed its product as a means for investors to earn interest on their crypto assets, and that the Corporation exercised its discretion to use investors’ crypto assets in various ways to generate income for its own business and to fund interest payments to investors. The order also found that the Corporation’s product is a security and that the offer and sale of the Corporation’s product did not qualify for an exemption from SEC registration. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, the Corporation agreed to a cease-and-desist order prohibiting it from violating the registration provisions of the Securities Act.
  3. The SEC charged Avraham Eisenberg with orchestrating an attack on a crypto asset trading platform, Mango Markets, by manipulating the MNGO token, a so-called governance token that was offered and sold as a security. Eisenberg is facing parallel criminal and civil charges in the Southern District of New York brought by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”). The SEC’s complaint alleged that beginning on October 11, 2022, Eisenberg engaged in a scheme to steal approximately $116 million worth of crypto assets from the Mango Markets platform. The SEC’s complaint, filed in federal district court in Manhattan, charged Eisenberg with violating antifraud and market manipulation provisions of the securities laws and sought permanent injunctive relief, a conduct-based injunction, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties.
  4. The SEC charged Singapore-based Terraform Labs PTE Ltd and Do Hyeong Kwon with orchestrating a multibillion-dollar crypto asset securities fraud involving an algorithmic stablecoin and other crypto asset securities. According to the SEC’s complaint filed on February 16, 2023, from April 2018 until the scheme’s collapse in May 2022, Terraform and Kwon raised billions of dollars from investors by offering and selling an inter-connected suite of crypto asset securities, many in unregistered transactions. The complaint charged the defendants with violating the registration and antifraud provisions of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act.
  5. The SEC announced charges against former NBA player Paul Pierce for touting EMAX tokens, crypto asset securities offered and sold by EthereumMax, on social media without disclosing the payment he received for the promotion and for making false and misleading promotional statements about the same crypto asset. The SEC’s February 17, 2023, order found that Pierce violated the anti-touting and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, Pierce agreed to settle the charges and pay over $1.4 million in penalties, disgorgement, and interest. Pierce also agreed not to promote any crypto asset securities for three years.
  6. The SEC charged the former co-lead engineer (the “defendant”) of an Antigua- and Barbuda-based company that operated a global crypto asset trading platform (the “Company”), for his role in a multiyear scheme to defraud equity investors. According to the SEC’s complaint, issued on February 28, 2023, the defendant created software code that allowed Company customer funds to be diverted to a quantitative trading firm specializing in crypto assets (a “crypto hedge fund”) owned by co-founders and officers of the Company, despite false assurances to investors that the Company was a safe crypto asset trading platform with sophisticated risk mitigation measures to protect customer assets and that the crypto hedge fund was just another customer with no special privileges. The complaint alleged that the defendant knew or should have known that such statements were false and misleading, and that the defendant actively participated in the scheme to deceive the Company’s investors
    The SEC’s complaint charged the defendant with violating the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. The defendant consented to a bifurcated settlement, subject to court approval, which would permanently enjoin him from violating the federal securities laws, a conduct-based injunction, and an officer and director bar. In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) announced charges against the defendant on the same day the SEC’s complaint was filed.
  7. The SEC charged the crypto asset trading platform beaxy.com (the “Beaxy Platform”) and its executives for failing to register as a national securities exchange, broker, and clearing agency. The SEC also charged the founder of the platform, Artak Hamazaspyan, and a company he controlled, Beaxy Digital, Ltd., with raising $8 million in an unregistered offering of the Beaxy token (“BXY”) and alleged that Hamazaspyan misappropriated at least $900,000 for personal use, including gambling. Finally, the SEC charged market makers operating on the Beaxy Platform as unregistered dealers. Pursuant to the Consents filed on March 29, 2023, the charged market makers have agreed to perform certain undertakings, including ceasing all activities as an unregistered exchange, clearing agency, broker, and dealer; shutting down the Beaxy Platform; providing an accounting of assets and funds for the benefit of customers; transferring all customer assets and funds to each respective customer; and destroying any and all BXY in possession.

Thomas R. Westle and Stacy H. Louizos would like to thank Margaret M. Murphy and Hiba Hassan for their contributions to this update.

© 2023 Blank Rome LLP
For more Financial and Securities legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review

Inflation’s Effect on Taxes – The Good and the Bad

Many federal tax provisions are adjusted for inflation annually, but not all. Rising inflation may result in lower tax bills for many taxpayers in 2023. Unfortunately, the impacts of inflation on taxpayers will not lower their 2022 tax bills even though inflation is at the highest level in the past 40 years.

The standard deduction is indexed for inflation. In 2023, for married couples filing joint tax returns, the standard deduction increased by $1,800 to $27,700; and for single taxpayers the standard deduction increased by $900 to $13,850.

The tax rates for individual tax filers have not changed (with the highest tax rate remaining at 37%), but the income levels have increased between the brackets. For example, in 2023, the 32% tax bracket starts at $364,200 for married couples filing jointly (up from $340,100 in 2022); and the 35% bracket for married couples filing jointly starts at $462,500 (up from $331,900 in 2022).

Estates of decedents who die in 2023 will have an estate tax exemption of $12,920,000 (up from $12,060,000 in 2022). The gift tax exclusions also increased to the same amounts and the annual gift exclusion increased to $17,000 per donee, which allows a married couple to gift $34,000 using their annual exclusion with no limit on the number of donees.

Social security recipients will enjoy an 8.7% increase in their monthly benefits in 2023 compared to 2022.

Other increases, as a result of rising inflation, include higher maximum contributions to retirement plans, health savings accounts and flexible spending accounts.

Inflation will impact taxpayers, employees and employers negatively as well. Employees, employers and self-employed individuals will be subject to social security taxes on earnings of $160,200 (up from $147,000 in 2022).

The limitation on itemized deduction for state and local tax has not increased, although state and local taxes have generally increased and the personal exemption continues to remain at zero. Finally, there has been no reduction in the long-term capital gains tax rate or increase in the deduction for capital losses which remains limited to $3,000 per year in excess of capital gains.

Article By Edwin I. Josephson of Chuhak & Tecson, P.C.

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

© 2023 Chuhak & Tecson P.C.