Category: finance

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.

Privacy Tip #358 – Bank Failures Give Hackers New Strategy for Attacks

Hackers are always looking for the next opportunity to launch attacks against unsuspecting victims. According to Cybersecurity Dive, researchers at Proofpoint recently observed “a phishing campaign designed to exploit the banking crisis with messages impersonating several cryptocurrencies.”

According to Cybersecurity Dive, cybersecurity firm Arctic Wolf has observed “an uptick in newly registered domains related to SVB since federal regulators took over the bank’s deposits…” and “expects some of those domains to serve as a hub for phishing attacks.”

This is the modus operandi of hackers. They use times of crises, when victims are vulnerable, to launch attacks. Phishing campaigns continue to be one of the top risks to organizations, and following the recent bank failures, everyone should be extra vigilant of urgent financial requests and emails spoofing financial institutions, and take additional measures, through multiple levels of authorization, when conducting financial transactions.

We anticipate increased activity following these recent financial failures attacking individuals and organizations. Communicating the increased risk to employees may be worth consideration.

Article By Linn F. Freedman of Robinson & Cole LLP

For more communications, media, and internet legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2023 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.

Navigating the Business Landscape After Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank

NOTE: The information contained in the following alert is up-to-date as of March 15, 2023. News and events are evolving, so check the websites for the FDIC and the applicable banks for updates and announcements.

Start-up, emerging, middle market and other companies and their founders, executives, and investors, are facing heightened demands in the wake of recent developments involving Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and Signature Bank. You can navigate the situation and be well-positioned for continued growth and success by considering the suggestions below.

We banked with Silicon Valley Bank or Signature Bank. How can we get our funds?

  • All funds, including those above Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insurance limits, were transferred to Silicon Valley Bridge Bank, N.A. and Signature Bridge Bank, N.A., respectively, and depositors have full access to their money beginning March 13, 2023

  • You may continue to use the same online banking access, checks and/or ATM/debit cards to access your funds

What are the applicable FDIC insurance limits generally?

  • The FDIC exercised its authority under the systemic risk exception to cover uninsured deposits at Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, but has not otherwise modified the FDIC insurance thresholds

  • Deposits are insured up to at least $250,000 per depositor, per FDIC-insured bank, per ownership category

  • Legal entities with independent operations are generally entitled to $250,000 in FDIC-insurance per FDIC-insured bank

  • Bank customers do not need to purchase deposit insurance; it is automatic for any deposit account opened at an FDIC-insured bank

  • Funds swept into money market funds on an overnight basis are not treated as deposits of the bank, are not subject to FDIC insurance, and the FDIC will honor the banks obligation to convert the money market funds back into cash the next day

  • Banks may also offer a multibank sweep vehicle, often via IntraFi’s ICS or CDARS program, which allows balances in excess of the $250,000 amount to be transferred to other banks to take advantage of each bank’s $250,000 FDIC insurance limit

  • FDIC Link to Are My Deposit Accounts Insured by the FDIC

  • FDIC’s Electronic Deposit Insurance Estimator

We have venture debt or another form of loan from Silicon Valley Bank or Signature Bank. Do we need to continue to make payments? Are the terms of the facility or any security interest modified? Can we continue to draw on a line of credit? Is a letter of credit issued by one of those banks still valid?

  • Payment obligations continue, and the terms of any arrangements are unchanged

  • The FDIC can repudiate contracts under certain circumstances, and so it may not honor advances or letters of credit

  • The FDIC’s general policy is that its role as receiver generally precludes continuing the lending operations of a failed bank

  • The FDIC will consider advancing funds if it determines that the advance is in the best interest of the receivership

  • Upon receiving a funding request, the FDIC may: make all or a portion of the requested loan advance, undertake discussions to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement to restructure the loan, or exercise its statutory right as receiver to repudiate its funding obligations with respect to the loan

  • Accordingly, letter of credit counterparties may  not view Silicon Valley Bank-issued or Signature Bank-issued letters of credit as creditworthy in the current circumstances, and it may be beneficial to take proactive steps to make alternate arrangements where possible

  • However, Silicon Valley Bridge Bank has indicated that it will honor all commitments to advance under existing credit agreements

  • As receiver, the FDIC is looking to maximize recovery and will likely sell the assets of the banks in receivership, either individually or collectively to a successor institution.

What about any warrants issued to such institutions?

  • Warrants issued to a bank in receivership should remain valid and outstanding with no change impacting the cap table

  • As receiver, the FDIC is looking to maximize recovery and will likely sell the assets of the banks in receivership, either individually or collectively to a successor institution.

Can we leave our current bank or at least diversify our deposits across financial institutions?

  • Examine banking relationships and review loan agreements and lines of credit for restrictions and covenants that may require you to maintain primary banking relationship or certain deposit accounts (e.g., your receivables) at the lender

  • Look into ICS or CDARS programs at network banks, which provide FDIC insurance coverage for certain business deposits of $250,000 or more

  • New bank relationships require “Know Your Customer” processing, which requires lead time that could be even more protracted in the current climate

  • An international company considering cash repatriation will want to consider tax implications

Payroll is coming due. Can we delay payments to employees? What should our company do if it is tight on cash?

Labor and wage payment laws and regulations impose requirements on when employers must pay employees

  • Under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, employers must pay non-exempt employees for hours worked and exempt employees for their regularly weekly rate of pay on regularly scheduled pay days for the covered pay period

  • Where state law imposes higher standards regarding unpaid wages, minimum wage, and other wage payment obligations, consider furloughs or changes for future wages to avoid violations

  • Failure to pay wages when due can subject U.S. employers to, among other things, fines and liquidated damages including double or treble damages, attorney fees (for litigation) and individual personal civil and, in some cases, criminal liability on owners and executives

  • Employers remain obligated to deduct and remit payroll taxes from wages even when under stress caused by the insolvency of its bank

  • If company has employees or independent contractors outside the United States, consult local lawyer(s)

Assess payroll, legal and contractual requirements and alternatives

  • Identify other available funds to ensure that payroll requirements can be met and, if not, explore alternative sources of funding

  • Request company owners, senior executives and board to consider pay cuts

  • Consider measures ranging from furloughs of nonexempt employees to pay cuts and/or reductions in hours in compliance with labor and employment laws, and clearly communicate changes to employees

  • Consider use of retention/stay bonuses

  • If an employee decides to leave or a decision is made to let an employee go, consider separation agreement issues and limits on use of non-compete, non-solicitation, non-disclosure, non-disparagement and appropriate release terms in specific context, including in light of existing employee agreements

  • Confirm and comply with prior employee documentation, including employment agreements, offer letters, employee handbooks and policies, IP assignment terms, confidentiality terms, and option or other equity terms

  • Consider governance and contractual requirements with respect to changes in compensation, bonus plans, etc.

  • Take control and communicate with employees as appropriate, to manage the situation and help allay fears and risk of departures and to enhance productivity

What are our options for payments owed to lenders, landlords, suppliers, vendors and other creditors?

  • Consider contacting creditors to negotiate short-term credit and payment extensions in light of cash flow needs and credit risk issues

  • Consider drawing existing and available lines of credit to shore up working capital position

  • Consider strategically stretching out payments to certain other non-critical trade creditors

  • Consider reaching out to investors for short-term liquidity or equity infusions

How can we identify and secure alternative sources of funding?

  • Focus on maintaining current payments to lifeblood sources

  • Consider reaching out to investors for short-term liquidity or equity infusions

  • Consider straight loan or promissory note if the company is in a position to pay a fixed sum or interest, and evaluate valuation, dilution and cap table impacts if considering SAFE, convertible note, warrant, preferred or other equity

  • Consider governance issues including necessary board and investor approvals, creditor consents, intercreditor and tax issues

  • Consider selling non-core assets

How do we obtain a line of credit in this environment?

  • New bank relationships require “Know Your Customer” processing, which require lead time that could be even more protracted in the current climate

  • New lines of credit require lead time for underwriting, credit approval and documentation and, if you have other debt facilities in place already, potential consent from existing lenders

  • Consider expanding existing banking relationships to shorten potential lead times,

What else should we take into account if we are considering bridge financing or other funding from our investors?

  • In addition to above, consider SAFE, convertible note or a preferred stock round and extending any repayment terms

  • Obtain interested party transaction approvals and addition to typical governance requirements such as board and investor approvals

What are my company’s reporting or disclosure obligations? What information should we share internally?

  • Your obligations depend in part on whether the company is public or private, accounting standards, securities laws, exchange rules, state corporate law, and your governance documents

  • For a private company, managing the situation through open and informal communications with stakeholders may provide insight and useful information for financial and operational issues and reporting to the Board

  • A public company affected by a bank shutdown or experiencing a liquidity challenge may have SEC disclosure obligations, and communications with stakeholders will be governed by securities laws

What should I keep in mind about board decision-making

  • Maintain acute awareness of the possibility of self-dealing or even the appearance of self-dealing, and obtain appropriate approvals for any insider transactions, such as disinterested director or stockholder approval

We are focused on conserving and managing cash. What should we be doing?

  • Engage or hire experienced financial and accounting advisors (whether an outside consulting or other firm, or a fractional or full-time experienced finance employee or independent contractor)

  • Track financial position and obligations closely, with an eye on foot faults that could arise in the near, medium, and long-term horizon

  • Challenge assumptions: long-term risks might suddenly become near-term ones.

  • Focus on liquidity issues (cash position, cash flow and burn rate) and forecast for several months to meet obligations to creditors, considering limits on access to significant deposits or credit lines if a banking partner has closed and potential changes in the credit market more broadly

  • Assess availability of alternative funding sources

  • Update financial statements, plans and projections and underlying assumptions, and consult with board, advisors and key investors about appropriate adjustments

  • Consult with advisors and partners on appropriate cash management, financial institution diversification and risk management strategies for your situation

How do we know if our business insurance is the right kind and amount to cover the risks our company and its directors and officers may face?

  • Determine whether losses from a bank closure are covered by business interruption or other insurance

  • Review current D&O insurance coverage, including the applicable limits and periods of coverage

Our company’s insurance premium payment is coming due. Can we delay or defer payment if we are tight on cash?

  • Insurance premiums should be paid when due, as failing to pay an insurance premium could cause the policy to lapse leaving it without coverage

  • Consider contacting the insurance company to clarify any grace period or adjust any deductible

  • Consult with an insurance broker and the board to evaluate whether there is a more affordable option. Review governance terms to see whether changes to insurance may require investor approval

Article By Lori Anne Czepiel, Robert Klingler, James W. Bartling, Mitch Boyarsky, Jason L. Watkins, Paul Z. Rothstein, Joe Daniels, Jackson Hwu, Neil Grayson, Benjamin Barnhill, J. Brennan Ryan, Dowse Bradwell Rustin IV, Richard Levin, and Craig Nazarro of Nelson Mullins.

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

Copyright ©2023 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

The Silicon Valley Bank Failure: Implications on Commercial Leasing

This past Friday, March 10, 2023, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) announced its takeover of the failed Silicon Valley Bank (“SVB”) after a run on the bank late last week caused the largest-scale U.S. bank failure since Washington Mutual in the 2008 financial crisis. Two days later, New York regulators shuttered Signature Bank (“Signature”). The federal government has made it clear that, while FDIC will guaranty all deposits, including uninsured ones, bailouts of these banks will not occur. The failures of SVB and Signature are likely to have widespread ramifications across many industry sectors, including commercial leasing.

How will the bank failures impact landlords in the commercial leasing sector?

  • SVB was a very common issuer of tenant letter of credit security deposits. A letter of credit security deposit is the issuing bank’s contractual obligation to pay the landlord beneficiary the amount that such landlord’s tenant is in default.
  • Landlords holding tenant letters of credit issued by SVB or Signature as security deposits will be directly impacted by the bank failures. Any undrawn standby letters of credit issued by SVB, Signature or any other bank under FDIC receivership may be repudiated by the FDIC, making any such letter of credit worthless. Any affected landlord will want to act promptly to provide proper protection of their interests under any applicable lease.

How can landlords protect their interests under such leases?

  • Any landlord holding a letter of credit security deposit should identify the issuing bank.
  • In any lease where the security deposit is a letter of credit issued by SVB or Signature, the landlord should carefully review the terms of the lease regarding the security deposit and the landlord’s approval rights over the issuing bank, but in any event require the tenant to provide it with a letter of credit issued by a different financial institution.
  • All landlords should review the terms their lease agreements relating to landlord approval rights over issuing banks, draw procedures and requirements and the process for replacing a letter of credit.
  • In the event the lease agreement in question does not provide landlord with adequate approval rights over the issuing bank, clear draw procedures and stringent replacement requirements, the landlord should consider amending the lease agreement to so require.

Article By Jeff Bates and Blake Young of Winstead

For more finance and banking legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2023 Winstead PC.

Information for Borrowers with Loans from Silicon Valley Bank or Signature Bank

This alert provides information for borrowers with loans from Silicon Valley Bank (“SVB”) or Signature Bank (“Signature”) based on information available from the FDIC and our clients’ experiences over the last few days. We have also included information regarding the FDIC’s general policies and procedures when selling and administering loans of failed banks. We will update this alert as additional information becomes available.

Borrowers with loans from SVB or Signature continue to wait for information from the FDIC, and the new bridge banks it formed, with respect to their loans, including any information regarding the sale of their loans, new bank contact information and updates to borrowing procedures and payoff logistics. At present, we understand that the bridge banks are attempting to operate in the same manner with respect to their borrowers (and depositors) that SVB and Signature operated prior to their failures, including through use of the existing relationship managers/bank contacts and online platforms and consistent borrowing and payment mechanics.

Systemic Risk Exception

As widely reported, on Sunday, March 12, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and the Treasury Secretary announced a systemic risk exception and created Silicon Valley Bridge Bank, N.A. and Signature Bridge Bank, N.A. (together, the “Bridge Banks”). The systemic risk exception is an attempt to avoid a widespread bank run and to ensure that all of SVB and Signature Bank’s depositors would be made whole after the failures of the two banks. The systemic risk exception is an exception to federal law that otherwise would require the FDIC to resolve a bank failure at the lowest cost to the Government’s deposit insurance fund.  See Crisis and Response: An FDIC History, 2008-2013, p. 36. Otherwise, the FDIC would not have been in a position to backstop uninsured deposits beyond the $250,000 insured limit per depositor per ownership category. For more information about FDIC deposit insurance limits please see our prior alert: SVB Receivership – What You Need to Know.

Prior to Sunday, the only uses of the systemic risk exception occurred in 2008 and 2009.  Id., pp. 35-36. The systemic risk exception has never before been used to create bridge banks at which loans at failed institutions would then be sold or administered by the FDIC.

Sale of SVB and Signature Loans

The general expectation after a bank failure is that the failed bank’s loans will be sold to a new lender as expeditiously as possible. The FDIC conducted an auction for the assets of SVB (including its loan portfolio) on Sunday, March 12. The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, March 13 that, while none of the largest U.S. Banks bid on SVB at the initial auction, there was at least one offer which was declined by the FDIC. The WSJ is also reporting that regulators are planning to hold another auction of SVB’s assets. We also anticipate an auction of Signature’s assets. The timing of these auctions remains unclear.

In the event that either or both of these auctions produce buyers of the Bridge Banks’ respective assets in bulk, those buyers will become the lenders under the failed banks’ loans. In that case, the applicable successor lender will advise its new borrowers of their new bank contacts and provide relevant loan administration information including loan payment procedures.

If either or both of the auctions fail to produce a buyer for all of the bank’s assets, a bank’s loan portfolio may be split up and sold piecemeal. In this event it may take longer before borrowers know the identity of their new lender. If some or all of the loans are not purchased, they will continue to be administered by the respective Bridge Banks or the FDIC. As noted above, the intent of the FDIC is to continue to operate the Bridge Banks pending substantial completion of the sale process.

Borrowing Under an SVB or Signature Line of Credit

In general, when the FDIC is appointed receiver, it immediately begins analyzing loans that require special attention, such as unfunded and partially funded lines of credit, and construction and development loans. Typically speaking, the role of receiver generally precludes the FDIC from continuing the lending operations of a failed bank; however, the FDIC will consider advancing funds if it determines an advance is in the best interest of the receivership, such as to protect or enhance collateral, or to ensure maximum recovery to the receivership. See A Borrowers Guide to an FDIC Insured Bank Failure.

When the FDIC is operating as receiver, its general procedures provide that if a borrower submits a request for additional funding, the FDIC will conduct a thorough analysis to determine the best course of action for the receivership. The FDIC uses information contained in the failed bank’s loan files to the extent available and considered reliable. Because the files of failed banks are often incomplete or poorly documented, the FDIC may require additional financial information to perform its analysis and make decisions.

In the current circumstances, with the Bridge Banks operating under the systemic risk exception, these general FDIC rules appear to have been relaxed, at least for the time being and our clients are reporting that borrowing (and deposit) operations are generally functioning in the ordinary course. We have not yet heard from any clients that additional information has been required in connection with advances from the Bridge Banks.

SVB Contact Information

The FDIC is currently directing SVB borrowers with questions about drawing on lines of credit to contact their existing relationship manager/bank representative at SVB. SVB also has a call center at 800-774-7390 open from 5:00 AM to 5:30 PM (Pacific) with representatives that can assist borrowers.

Signature Contact Information

The FDIC is currently directing Signature borrowers with questions about drawing on lines of credit to contact their existing relationship manager/bank representative at Signature Bank. Signature Bank also has a 24-hour call center at 866-744-5463 with representatives that can assist borrowers.

On Monday, March 13, our clients had mixed results contacting their existing bank relationship managers and drawing on lines of credit. Some clients requested online draws but have not been successful as a result of system malfunctions (and we heard the same reports with respect to some attempts to access and move deposits). On the other hand, we heard reports from our clients that automatic draws and account sweeps have continued to function (and many borrowers successfully accessed their accounts). Today (March 14), clients appear to be having more success in accessing their lines of credit. We will continue to gather information about borrowers’ ability to access their lines as it becomes available.

Loan Payoff/Lien Release Information

Many clients have inquired about the mechanics for arranging a loan payoff/refinancing of their SVB loan or Signature loan. In the event that the loan is sold, the borrower can coordinate payoff with the new lender that purchased the loan. In the meantime, borrowers should reach out to their relationship managers or otherwise contact the bank using the means provided above to arrange any payoff and/or lien release. Further information regarding lien releases may also be found on the FDIC lien release website. In the event that borrowers’ loans are not sold quickly by the FDIC to a new lender, we expect that those borrowers will be strongly encouraged by the FDIC to arrange for a refinancing. See A Borrowers Guide to an FDIC Insured Bank Failure.

Continue Performing Obligations under Loan Documents

Notwithstanding the failures of SVB and Signature, their borrowers should continue to abide by their loan documents, including submitting payments as required by their loan documents at the same addresses and complying with all other covenants and agreements. Borrowers will be advised by the FDIC, the Bridge Banks or a subsequent purchaser of their loan if there are any updates to payment mechanics or bank contact information.

Article By Timothy John Carter, Jonathan C. Hayden, Trevor Hoffmann, Muryum Khalid, Kevin Renna, Douglas B. Rosner, Andrew Rothstein, Jesse Rubinstein, and Jesse Scott of Goulston & Storrs.

Click here for more financial legal news from the National Law Review.

2023 Goulston & Storrs PC.

Silicon Valley Bank Fails After Run on Deposits

“The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation took control of the bank’s assets on Friday. The failure raised concerns that other banks could face problems, too.”

Read the New York Times article (Free Subscription Required)

In light of the news this morning that Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) has been closed by the California Department of Financial Protection, which appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as SVB’s receiver, it’s fair to ask if this is the beginning of a trend among regional banks or an isolated incident. SVB, while unique in the banking industry, since it would lend against illiquid (pre-IPO) securities, mainly issued by ventured-backed companies, faced challenges in a rising interest rate environment that are not unique and which, many similarly situated regional banks, are still facing.

As the Federal Reserve considers whether to raise interest rates by 0.25% or 0.5%, in order to combat inflation, a key factor in their analysis will be the impact these interest rate hikes have on regional banks and their portfolios. Regional banks, unlike their Fortune 100, multi-national counterparts, derive their value from vast portfolios of bonds, which are very sensitive to interest rate hikes (as interest rates rise, the value of these bonds fall). For instance, the S&P Regional Banks Select Industry Index is down 3.69% today, 19.92% month-to-date, and 13.02% year-to-date.

Therefore, in the coming days, it will be crucial to watch both the Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee meeting on March 21-22 and whether SVB’s collapse signals a contagion among the regional bank sector. SVB’s closure is the biggest bank collapse since the financial crisis and many start-up/early-stage companies will be very interested to see if it is the last or the first of many.

© 2023 ArentFox Schiff LLP

The Future of Stablecoins, Crypto Staking and Custody of Digital Assets

In the wake of the collapse of cryptocurrency exchange firm FTX, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has ratcheted up its oversight and enforcement of crypto firms engaged in activities ranging from crypto staking to custody of digital assets. This is due in part to concerns that the historically free-wheeling and largely unregulated crypto marketplace may adversely impact U.S. investors and contaminate traditional financial systems. The arguments that cryptocurrencies and digital assets should not be viewed as securities under federal laws largely fall on deaf ears at the SEC. Meanwhile, the state of the crypto economy in the United States remains in flux as the SEC, other regulators and politicians alike attempt to balance competing interests of innovation and investment in a relatively novel and untested asset class.

Is Crypto Staking Dead?

First, what is crypto staking? By way of background, it’s necessary to understand a bit about blockchain technology, which serves as the underpinning for all cryptocurrency and digital asset transactions. One of the perceived benefits of such transactions is that they are decentralized and “peer-to-peer” – meaning that Person A can transact directly with Person B without the need for a financial intermediary to approve the transaction.

However, in the absence of a central authority to validate a transaction, blockchain requires other verification processes or consensus mechanisms such as “proof of work” (which in the case of Bitcoin mining ensures that transactions are valid and added to the Bitcoin blockchain correctly) or “proof of stake” (a network of “validators” who contribute or “stake” their own crypto in exchange for a chance to validate a new transaction, update the blockchain and earn a reward). Proof of work has come under fire by environmental activists for the enormous amounts of computer power and energy required to solve complex mathematical or cryptographic puzzles to validate a transaction before it can be recorded on the blockchain. In contrast, proof of stake is analogous to a shareholder voting their shares of stock to approve a corporate transaction.

Second, why has crypto staking caught the attention of the SEC? Many crypto firms and exchanges offer “staking as a service” (SaaS) whereby investors can stake (or lend) their digital assets in exchange for lucrative returns. This practice is akin to a person depositing cash in a bank account in exchange for interest payments – minus FDIC insurance backing of all such bank deposits to protect investors.

Recently, on February 9, 2023, the SEC charged two crypto firms, commonly known as “Kraken,” for violating federal securities laws by offering a lucrative crypto asset SaaS program. Pursuant to this program, investors could stake their digital assets with Kraken in exchange for annual investment returns of up to 21 percent. According to the SEC, this program constituted the unregistered sale of securities in violation of federal securities laws. Moreover, the SEC claims that Kraken failed to adequately disclose the risks associated with its staking program. According to the SEC’s Enforcement Division director:

“Kraken not only offered investors outsized returns untethered to any economic realities but also retained the right to pay them no returns at all. All the while, it provided them zero insight into, among other things, its financial condition and whether it even had the means of paying the marketed returns in the first place.”1

Without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, Kraken has agreed to pay a $30 million civil penalty and will no longer offer crypto staking services to U.S. investors. Meanwhile, other crypto firms that offer similar programs, such as Binance and Coinbase, are waiting for the other shoe to drop – including the possibility that the SEC will ban all crypto staking programs for U.S. retail investors. Separate and apart from potentially extinguishing a lucrative revenue stream for crypto firms and investors alike, it may have broader consequences for proof of stake consensus mechanisms commonly used to validate blockchain transactions.

NY DFS Targets Stablecoins

In the world of cryptocurrency, stablecoins are typically considered the most secure and least volatile because they are often pegged 1:1 to some designated fiat (government-backed) currency such as U.S. dollars. In particular, all stablecoins issued by entities regulated by the New York Department of Financial Services (NY DFS) are required to be fully backed 1:1 by cash or cash equivalents. However, on February 13, 2023, NY DFS unexpectedly issued a consumer alert stating that it had ordered Paxos Trust Company (Paxos) to stop minting and issuing a stablecoin known as “BUSD.” BUSD is reportedly the third largest stablecoin by market cap and pegged to the U.S. dollar.

The reasoning behind the NY DFS order remains unclear from the alert, which merely states that “DFS has ordered Paxos to cease minting Paxos-issued BUSD as a result of several unresolved issues related to Paxos’ oversight of its relationship with Binance in regard to Paxos-issued BUSD.”2 The same day, Paxos confirmed that it would stop issuing BUSD. However, in an effort to assuage investors, Paxos stated “All BUSD tokens issued by Paxos Trust have and always will be backed 1:1 with U.S. dollar–denominated reserves, fully segregated and held in bankruptcy remote accounts.”3

Separately, the SEC reportedly issued a Wells Notice to Paxos on February 12, 2023, indicating that it intended to commence an enforcement action against the company for violating securities laws in connection with the sale of BUSD, which the SEC characterized as unregistered securities. Paxos, meanwhile, categorically denies that BUSD constitute securities, but nonetheless has agreed to stop issuing these tokens in light of the NY DFS order.

It remains to be seen whether the regulatory activity targeting BUSD is the beginning of a broader crackdown on stablecoins amid concerns that, contrary to popular belief, such coins may not be backed by adequate cash reserves.

Custody of Crypto Assets

On February 15, 2023, the SEC proposed changes to the existing “custody rule” under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. As noted by SEC Chair Gary Gensler, the custody rule was designed to “help ensure that [investment] advisers don’t inappropriately use, lose, or abuse investors’ assets.”4 The proposed changes to the rule (referred to as the “safeguarding rule”) would require investment advisers to maintain client assets – specifically including crypto assets – in qualified custodial accounts. As the SEC observed, “[although] crypto assets are a relatively recent and emerging type of asset, this is not the first time custodians have had to adapt their practices to safeguard different types of assets.”5

A qualified custodian generally is a federal or state-chartered bank or savings association, certain trust companies, a registered broker-dealer, a registered futures commission merchant or certain foreign financial institutions.6 However, as noted by the SEC, many crypto assets trade on platforms that are not qualified custodians. Accordingly, “this practice would generally result in an adviser with custody of a crypto asset security being in violation of the current custody rule because custody of the crypto asset security would not be maintained by a qualified custodian from the time the crypto asset security was moved to the trading platform through the settlement of the trade.”7

Moreover, in a departure from existing practice, the proposed safeguarding rule would require an investment adviser to enter into a written agreement with the qualified custodian. This custodial agreement would set forth certain minimum protections for the safeguarding of customer assets, including crypto assets, such as:

  • Implementing appropriate measures to safeguard an advisory client’s assets8
  • Indemnifying an advisory client when its negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct results in that client’s loss9
  • Segregating an advisory client’s assets from its proprietary assets10
  • Keeping certain records relating to an advisory client’s assets
  • Providing an advisory client with periodic custodial account statements11
  • Evaluating the effectiveness of its internal controls related to its custodial practices.12

The new proposed, cumbersome requirements for custodians of crypto assets appear to be a direct consequence of the collapse of FTX, which resulted in the inexplicable “disappearance” of billions of dollars of customer funds. By tightening the screws on custodians and investment advisers, the SEC is seeking to protect the everyday retail investor by leveling the playing field in the complex and often murky world of crypto. However, it still remains to be seen whether, and to what extent, the proposed safeguarding rule will emerge after the public comment period, which will remain open for 60 days following publication of the proposal in the Federal Register.

1 SEC Press Release 2023-25 (Feb. 9, 2023).

2 NY DFS Consumer Alert (Feb. 13, 2023) found at https://www.dfs.ny.gov/consumers/alerts/Paxos_and_Binance.

3 Paxos Press Release (Feb. 13, 2023) found at https://paxos.com/2023/02/13/paxos-will-halt-minting-new-busd-tokens/.

4 SEC Press Release 2023-30 (Feb. 15, 2023).

5 SEC Proposed Rule, p. 79.

6 SEC Fact Sheet: Proposed Safeguarding Rule.

7 SEC Proposed Rule, p. 68.

8 For instance, per the SEC, this could require storing crypto assets in a “cold wallet.”

9 Per the SEC, “the proposed indemnification requirement would likely operate as a substantial expansion in the protections provided by qualified custodians to advisory clients, in particular because it would result in some custodians holding advisory client assets subject to a simple negligence standard rather than a gross negligence standard.” See SEC Proposed Rule, p. 89.

10 Per the SEC, this requirement is intended to “ensure that client assets are at all times readily identifiable as client property and remain available to the client even if the qualified custodian becomes financially insolvent or if the financial institution’s creditors assert a lien against the qualified custodian’s proprietary assets (or liabilities).” See SEC Proposed Rule, p. 92.

11 Per the SEC, “[in] a change from the current custody rule, the qualified custodian would also now be required to send account statements, at least quarterly, to the investment adviser, which would allow the adviser to more easily perform account reconciliations.” See SEC Proposed Rule, p. 98.

12 Per the SEC, the proposed rule would require that the “qualified custodian, at least annually, will obtain, and provide to the investment adviser a written internal control report that includes an opinion of an independent public accountant as to whether controls have been placed in operation as of a specific date, are suitably designed, and are operating effectively to meet control objectives relating to custodial services (including the safeguarding of the client assets held by that qualified custodian during the year).” See SEC Proposed Rule, p. 101.

Article By Anjali C. Das of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP

For more cryptocurrency and finance legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2023 Wilson Elser

Australia: ASIC Reveals 2023 Enforcement Priorities

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has revealed its key enforcement priorities for 2023. This year, ASIC has signalled an expanded focus on enforcement activity targeting:

  • sustainable finance practices and disclosure of climate risks;
  • financial scams;
  • cyber and operational resilience; and
  • investor harms involving crypto-assets.

In its release, ASIC has emphasised that the regulator’s prioritisation of monitoring in these areas intends to “address misconduct, market integrity threats and consumer harms in sectors including financial services, retail and crypto-assets.”

The warning coincides with this month’s release of ASIC’s enforcement and regulatory report that highlights the major uptick in enforcement and regulatory actions taken by ASIC during the last half of 2022, including:

  • 173 criminal charges being laid and $76.3 million in civil penalties imposed;
  • heightened action against money laundering risks;
  • the issuance of 22 design and distribution obligations (DDO) stop orders to prevent consumers and investors being targeted by products inappropriate to their objectives, financial situation and needs; and
  • the regulator’s first action for greenwashing and consequential issuance of infringement notices for misleading sustainability-related statements.

Another priority of ASIC for the coming year is to increase its transparency to industry and streamline its interactions with the entities it regulates. For the first time, ASIC has released a regulatory developments timetable setting out projected timeframes for ASIC regulatory work, such as the publication of draft or final guidance, and the anticipated making of a legislative instrument. ASIC’s release of these key enforcement priorities and regulatory developments timetable gives us a clear indication of ASIC’s intention to continue its heightened level of surveillance and enforcement action into 2023.

Article By Matthew J. Watts and Rebecca Mangos of K&L Gates

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

Copyright 2023 K & L Gates

Breaking News – Hermès Makes History With First NFT Trademark Trial Victory

A New York City jury just returned a verdict in favor of Hermès in a historic dispute between the luxury fashion house and digital artist Mason Rothschild over Hermès’ alleged trademark rights relating to Hermès’ famous Birkin handbag. The jury awarded Hermès $133,000 in total damages for trademark infringement, dilution, and cybersquatting.

The jury finding that the First Amendment did not shield Rothschild from liability in connection with his MetaBirkins NFTs project is significant, particularly as this matter involved the first trial by jury to consider the interplay of free speech and trademark protection in the context of NFTs. This decision, which may be appealed, provides guidance for artists, brands, and others seeking ingress into metaverse, including to what extent “real world” intellectual property rights apply to and may be enforced in virtual worlds.

Haute-ly Contested NFTs

Throughout the dispute over this past year, the parties have contested each other’s characterization of the MetaBirkins NFTs. To Hermès, the MetaBirkins NFTs are merely the instruments of a “digital speculator” looking to exploit one of its most exclusive assets via NFTs. In contrast, Rothschild argues that the MetaBirkins NFTs project, a series of 100 NFT images that depict a range of reimagined Hermès Birkin bags featuring a variety of colorful fur, is digital art and a commentary on the famed BIRKIN bag, consumerism, and animal cruelty within the fashion industry. As a result, he argues that the MetaBirkins NFTs are artistic works that should be shielded from liability under the free speech principles of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The nine-member jury disagreed, finding that the MetaBirkins NFTs were more like commodities that are subject to trademark and other laws, rather than artwork. A factor that may have influenced the jury’s decision was evidence suggesting that Rothschild may have seen the MetaBirkins NFTs as a “cash cow.” This may have cast doubt on the authenticity of his characterization of the MetaBirkins NFTs as an art project.

The Test is Yet to Come

Although the jury found the MetaBirkins NFTs to be infringing, the final disposition of this dispute remains pending with the possibility of appeal. Given the importance of the issues at stake, the outcome of this case is bound to be subject to debate regardless of any appeal.

Moreover, while no NFT-specific legal test appears to have emerged from this case and the legal landscape for IP in the Metaverse (and beyond) continues to lack clear guidance, this case has nonetheless provided insight on how courts (and juries) may view the interplay of IP and NFTs. The ultimate outcome of this landmark case is likely to form the basis of the emerging law involving IP rights and NFTs.

© 2023 ArentFox Schiff LLP
For more Intellectual Property Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review