Category: finance

Buying, Selling, and Investing in Telehealth Companies: Navigating Structural and Compliance Issues

A multi-part series highlighting the unique health regulatory aspects of Telemedicine mergers and acquisitions, and financing transactions

Investors in the telehealth space and buyers and sellers of telehealth companies need to account for a set of health regulatory considerations that are unique to deals in this sector. As all parties to potential telehealth transactions analyze their long term role in the telehealth marketplace, two of the central issues to any transaction are compliance and structure – both in terms of structuring the telehealth transaction itself and due diligence issues that arise related to a target’s structure.

The COVID-19 pandemic, combined with strained health care staffing and provider availability, have accelerated the growth of the telehealth, and start-ups and traditional health systems alike are competing for access to patient populations in the telehealth space. However, as we adjust to life with COVID-19 as the norm, the expiration of the federal Public Health Emergency (PHE) looms, and the national economy contracts, we expect that the remainder of 2022 and into 2023 will see consolidation as the telehealth market begins to saturate and the long-term viability of certain platforms are tested. Telehealth companies, health systems, pharma companies and investors are all in potential positions to take advantage of this consolidation in a ripening M&A sector (while startups in the telehealth space continue to seek venture and institutional capital).

This is the first post in a series highlighting the unique health regulatory aspects of telehealth transactions. Future installments of this series are expected to cover licensure and regulatory approvals, compliance / clinical delivery models, and future market developments.

Telehealth Transaction Structure Considerations

The structure of any given telehealth transaction will largely depend on the business of the telehealth organization at play, but also will depend on the acquirer / investor. Regardless of whether a party is buying, selling or investing in a telehealth company, structuring the transaction appropriately will be important for all parties involved. While a standard stock purchase, asset purchase or merger may make sense for many of these transactions, we have also seen a proliferation of, affiliation arrangements, joint ventures (JV), alliances and partnerships.  These varieties of affiliation transactions can be a good choice for health systems that are not necessarily looking to manage or develop an existing platform, but instead are looking to leverage their patient populations and resources to partner with an existing technology platform. An affiliation or JV is more popular for telehealth companies operating purely as a technology platform (with no core business involving clinical services being provided). For parties in the traditional healthcare provider sector that provide clinical services, an affiliation or JV, which is easier to unwind or terminate than a traditional M&A transaction, can allow the parties to “test the waters” in a new, combined business venture. The affiliation or JV can take a variety of forms, including technology licensing agreements; the creation of a new entity to house the telehealth mission, which then has contractual arrangements with the both the JV parties; and exclusivity arrangements relating to use of the technology and access to patient populations.

While an affiliation or JV offers flexibility, can minimize the need for a large upfront investment, and can be an attractive alternative to a more permanent purchase or sale, there can be increased regulatory risk. Entrepreneurs, investors, and providers considering any such arrangement should bear in mind that in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and proliferation of telehealth, the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS-OIG) has expressed a heightened interest in investigating so called “telefraud” and recently issued a special fraud alert regarding suspect arrangements, discussed in this prior post. Further, the OIG’s guidance on contractual joint ventures that would run afoul of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) should be front of mind and parties should strive to structure any affiliation or JV in a manner that meets or approximates an AKS safe harbor.

Target Telehealth Company Structure Compliance

Where telehealth companies are providing clinical services, and are not purely technology platforms, structuring and transaction diligence should focus on whether the target is operating in compliance with corporate practice of medicine (CPOM) laws. The CPOM doctrine is intended to maintain the independence of physician decision-making and reduce a “profits over people” mentality, and prevent physician employment by a lay-owned corporation unless an exception applies. Most states that have adopted CPOM impose similar restrictions on other types of clinical professionals, such as nurses, physical therapists, social workers, and psychologists. Telehealth companies often attempt to utilize a so-called “friendly PC” structure to comply with CPOM, whereby an investor-owned management services organization (“MSO”) affiliates with a physician-owned professional corporation (or other type of professional entity) (a “PC”) through a series of contractual agreements that foster a close working relationship between the MSO, PC, and PC owner and whereby the MSO provides management services, and sometimes start-up financing. The overall arrangement is intended to allow the MSO to handle the management side of the PC’s operations without impeding the professional judgment of the PC or the medical practice of its physicians and the PC owner.

CPOM Compliance Considerations and Diligence for Telehealth Companies

A sophisticated buyer will want to confirm that the target’s friendly PC structure is not only formally established, but is also operationalized properly and in a manner that minimizes fraud and abuse risk. If CPOM compliance gaps are identified in diligence this may, at worst, tank the deal and, at best, cause unexpected delays in the transaction timeline, as restructuring may be required or advisable. The buyer may also request additional deal concessions, such as a purchase price reduction and special indemnification coverage (with potentially a higher liability limit and an escrow as security). Accordingly, a telehealth company anticipating a sale or fund raise would be well served to engage in a self-audit to identify any CPOM compliance issues and undertake necessary corrective actions prior to the commencement of a transaction process.

Below are nine key questions with respect to CPOM compliance and related fraud and abuse issues that a buyer/investor in a telehealth transaction should examine carefully (and that the target should be prepared to answer):

  1. Does target have a PC that is properly incorporated or foreign qualified in all states where clinical services are provided (based on the location of the patient)?
  2. Does the PC owner (and any directors and officers of the PC, to the extent different from the PC owner) have a medical license in all states where the PC conducts business (to the extent in-state licensure is required)? To the extent the PC has multiple physician owners and directors/officers, are all such individuals licensed as required under applicable state law?
  3. Does the PC(s) have its own federal employer identification number, bank account (including double lockbox arrangement if enrolled in federal healthcare programs), and Medicare/Medicaid enrollments?
  4. Does the PC owner exercise meaningful oversight and control over the governance and clinical activities of the PC? Does the PC owner have background and expertise relevant to the business (e.g., a cardiologist would not have appropriate experience to be the PC owner of a PC that provides telemental health services)?
  5. Are the physicians and other professionals providing clinical services for the business employed or contracted through a PC (rather than the MSO)? Employment or independent contractor agreements should be reviewed, as well as W-2s, and payroll accounts.
  6. Is the PC properly contracted with customers (to the extent services are provided on a B2B basis) and payors?
  7. Do the contractual agreements between the MSO and PC respect the independent clinical judgment of the PC owner and PC physicians and otherwise comply with state CPOM laws.
  8. Do the financial arrangements between the MSO, PC, and PC owner comply with AKS, the federal Stark Law, and corollary state laws and fee-splitting prohibitions, to the extent applicable?
  9. Is the PC owner or any other physician performing clinical services for the PC an equity holder in the MSO? If so, are these equity interests tied to volume/value of referrals to the PC or MSO (i.e., if the MSO provides ancillary services such as lab or prescription drugs) or could equity interests be construed as an improper incentive to generate healthcare business (e.g., warrants that can only be exercised upon attainment of certain volume)?

Telehealth companies considering a sale or financing transaction, and potential buyers and investors, would be well served to spend time on the front end of a potential transaction assessing the above issues to determine potential risk areas that could impact deal terms or necessitate any friendly PC structuring.

Article By Hannah E. Zaitlin, Mitchell D. Lindstrom, David S. Sanders, and Natasha Allen of Foley & Lardner LLP

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

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

Is The End Of FINRA Drawing Nigh?

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, aka FINRA, is a non-profit Delaware corporation.  It was formed in 2007 by the combination of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. and the regulatory arm of the New York Stock Exchange, Inc.  FINRA is a self-regulatory organization that primarily regulates securities broker-dealers.

Professor Benjamin P. Edwards recently reported that a complaint has been filed in Florida challenging the constitutionality of FINRA.  The lawsuit filed by two broker-dealers alleges:

However, FINRA’s current structure and operations, particularly in light of the transformation of the organization over the course of the last two decades, contravene the separation of powers, violate the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution (the “Constitution”) and constitute an impermissible delegation of powers. Because it purports to be a private entity, FINRA is unaccountable to the President of the United States (the “President,” or “POTUS”), lacks transparency, and operates in contravention of the authority under which it was formed.  It utilizes its  own in-house tribunals in a manner contrary to Article III and the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution and deprives entities and individuals of property
without due process of law.

The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief.

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

© 2010-2022 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

FRB and FDIC Issue Joint ANPR on Possible Resolution Requirements for Large Banking Organizations While FRB and OCC Approve U.S. Bank MUFG Union Bank Merger

The Federal Reserve Board (“FRB”) and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) Board issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPR”) titled “Resolution-Related Resource Requirements for Large Banking Organizations.” Separately, but relatedly (if for no other reason than the FRB put it in the same press release as the ANPR), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) and the FRB approved their respective applications for the merger of MUFG Union Bank into U.S. Bank.

The ANPR is seeking comment on possible changes to the resolution-related standards applicable to large banking organizations (“LBOs”) that are not global systemically important banks (“GSIBs”). Those possible changes that the FRB and FDIC are contemplating would bring some of what is required for GSIB resolution planning down to LBOs, particularly focusing on “Category III” firms with $250 billion to $700 billion in total assets. The main focus of the ANPR is on whether LBOs ought to be required to issue long-term debt similar to the total loss-absorbing capacity (“TLAC”) requirements for GSIBs. The ANPR notes that the Fed and FDIC are considering “whether an extra layer of loss-absorbing capacity could increase the FDIC’s optionality in resolving the insured depository institution,” but also costs associated with such a requirement.

The ANPR flows logically from remarks made by Acting Comptroller Hsu at the Wharton Conference on Financial Regulation in April (and which we discussed in a previous issue), and that Acting Comptroller Hsu noted in his statement when he voted in favor of the ANPR at the FDIC Board meeting.

As noted above, in the same press release announcing the ANPR, the FRB announced the approval of the application by U.S. Bancorp to acquire MUFG Union Bank. The FRB’s order noted that upon consummation, U.S. Bancorp’s consolidated assets would total approximately $698.7 billion, and noting the close proximity to becoming a “Category II” firm over $700 billion in assets imposed a unique commitment to give quarterly implementation plans for complying with Category II requirements. The commitment by U.S. Bancorp also could trigger a need for U.S. Bancorp to comply with Category II requirements by December 31, 2024, even if its asset size has not gone above the $700 billion threshold. FRB Governor Michelle Bowman issued a statement supporting both the issuance of the ANPR and the approval of U.S. Bancorp’s application, but questioned the appropriateness of imposing Category II requirements on a one-off basis. The OCC’s approval was conditioned, among other things, on U.S. Bank making plans for its possible operability in the event of a resolution in order to facilitate its sale to more than one acquiring institution.

Article By Daniel Meade of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

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

© Copyright 2022 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

FinCEN Issues Final Rule on the Corporate Transparency Act Requiring Businesses to Report Beneficial Ownership Information

On September 30, 2022, the U.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) published its final rule implementing Section 6403 of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”). The final rule, which will take effect on January 1, 2024, will require “tens of millions” of companies doing business in the U.S. to report certain information about their beneficial owners. The reporting companies created or registered before January 1, 2024, will have until January 1, 2025, to file their initial beneficial ownership reports with FinCEN. Reporting companies created or registered on or after January 1, 2024, will be required to file initial beneficial ownership reports within 30 days of formation.

The CTA was passed by Congress on January 1, 2021, as part of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. After publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and receiving public comments, FinCEN adopted the proposed rule largely as proposed, with certain modifications intended to minimize unnecessary burdens on reporting companies.

What Entities are Reporting Companies? The final rule describes two types of reporting companies: domestic and foreign.

  • A domestic reporting company is any entity that is a corporation, a limited liability company, or other entity (such as limited liability partnerships, limited liability limited partnerships, business trusts, and most limited partnerships and business trusts) created by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any similar office under the law of a state or American Indian tribe.

  • A foreign reporting company is any corporation, limited liability company, or other entity formed under the law of a foreign country and registered to do business in any state or tribal jurisdiction by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any similar office under the law of a state or American Indian tribe.

What Entities are Exempt? The final rule exempts twenty-three separate categories of entities from the definition of the reporting company. Many of the exempted entities are already subject to federal or state regulations requiring disclosure of beneficial ownership information, such as banks, credit unions, depositary institutions, investment advisors, securities brokers and dealers, accounting firms, governmental entities, tax-exempt entities, and entities registered with the SEC under the Exchange Act of 1934. Additionally, the rules set forth an exemption for “large operating companies” that can demonstrate each of the following factors:

  • Employ more than 20 full-time employees in the U.S.

  • Have an operating presence at a physical office within the U.S.

  • Filed a federal income tax or information return in the U.S. for the previous year demonstrating more than $5 million in gross receipts or sales (excluding gross receipts or sales from sources outside the U.S.)

Finally, under the so-called “subsidiary exemption,” entities whose ownership interests are controlled or wholly owned by one or more exempt entities may also qualify for exemption. If a reporting company was formerly exempt but loses its exemption, it must file an updated report that announces the change and includes all the information required in a reporting company’s initial report.

Who are Beneficial Owners? The final rule requires reporting companies to report each individual who is a beneficial owner of such reporting company. A “beneficial owner” is any individual who, directly or indirectly, either exercises substantial control over the reporting company or owns or controls at least 25 percent of the ownership interests of the reporting company. An individual exercises “substantial control” if such individual:

  • Serves as a senior officer (except for corporate secretary or treasurer)

  • Has authority over the appointment or removal of any senior officer or a majority of the board of directors (or similar body)

  • Directs, determines, or has substantial influence over important decisions made by the reporting company

  • Has any other form of substantial control over the reporting company

Additionally, an individual may exercise substantial control over a reporting company, directly or indirectly, including as a trustee of a trust or similar arrangement, through:

  • Board representation

  • Ownership or control of a majority of the voting power or voting rights of the reporting company

  • Rights associated with any financing arrangement or interest in a company

  • Control over one or more intermediary entities that separately or collectively exercise substantial control over a reporting company

  • Arrangements or financial or business relationships, whether formal or informal, with other individuals or entities acting as nominees

  • Any other contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship, or otherwise

The final rule exempts five categories of individuals from the definition of beneficial owner: (i) minors, (ii) nominees, intermediaries, custodians, and agents, (iii) certain employees who are not senior officers, (iv) heirs with a future interest in the company, and (v) certain creditors.

Who are Company Applicants? In addition to the beneficial owner information, the final rule requires reporting companies created or registered on or after January 1, 2024, to report identifying information about each “company applicant.” A “company applicant” is:

  • Any individual who directly files the document to create a domestic reporting company or register a foreign reporting company with a secretary of state or similar office in the U.S.

  • Any individual who is primarily responsible for directing or controlling such filing if more than one individual is involved in the filing

The final rule provides further clarification as to certain individuals who, by virtue of their formation roles, fall under the definition of “company applicants.” For example:

  • If an attorney oversees the preparation and filing of incorporation documents and a paralegal files them, the reporting company would report both the attorney and paralegal as company applicants.

  • If an individual prepares and self-files documents to create the individual’s own reporting company, the reporting company would report the individual as the only company applicant.

The final rule removes the requirements that i) entities created before the effective date report company applicant information and ii) reporting companies update their company applicant information (except to correct inaccuracies), each of which were set forth in the proposed rules.

When are Initial Reports Due? When an initial report must be filed depends on the status of the reporting company as of January 1, 2024:

  • If Created or Registered on or after January 1, 2024 – It must file a report within 30 calendar days from the earlier of: i) the date on which the company receives actual notice that its creation or registration has become effective, or ii) the date a secretary of state or similar office first provides public notice, such as through a publicly accessible registry, that the company has been created or registered.

  • If Created or Registered Prior to January 1, 2024 – It must file a report not later than January 1, 2025.

What Information Must be Reported? An initial report must include the following information with respect to the reporting company:

  • The full legal name of the reporting company

  • Any trade name or “doing business as” name of the reporting company

  • The street address of the principal place of business of the reporting company (if outside the U.S., the street address of the primary location in the U.S. where it conducts business)

  • The state, tribal, or foreign jurisdiction of formation of the reporting company (a foreign reporting company must also report the state or tribal jurisdiction where it first registers)

  • The IRS Taxpayer Identification Number (“TIN”) of the reporting company (including the EIN of the reporting company, or if a foreign reporting company without a TIN, a tax identification number issued by a foreign jurisdiction and the name of such jurisdiction)

For each company applicant (of a reporting company registered or created on or after January 1, 2024) and each beneficial owner of a reporting company, the following information must be reported:

  • The full legal name of the individual

  • The date of birth of the individual

  • The current business street address (for a company applicant who forms or registers an entity in the course of such company applicant’s business) or residential street address (for all other individuals including beneficial owners)

  • A unique identifying number from, and image of, an acceptable identification document (e.g., a passport)

If a reporting company is directly or indirectly owned by one or more exempt entities and an individual is a beneficial owner of the reporting company exclusively by virtue of such individual’s ownership interest in the exempt entity, the reporting company’s report may list the name of the exempt entity in lieu of the beneficial ownership information set forth above.

When do Companies have to Report Changes? If there is any change with respect to required information previously submitted to FinCEN concerning a reporting company or its beneficial owners, including any change with respect to who is a beneficial owner or information reported for any particular beneficial owner, the reporting company is required to file an updated report within 30 calendar days of when the change occurred.

What are the Penalties for Violations? The final rule provides for a fine of up to $10,000.00 and/or imprisonment of up to two years for any person who willfully: (i) provides or attempts to provide false or fraudulent beneficial ownership information, or (ii) fails to report complete or updated beneficial ownership information to FinCEN. The penalties may also extend to individuals causing a reporting company’s failure to report or update information and senior officials of a reporting company at the time such failure occurs.

What is Coming Next from FinCEN? FinCEN is expected to publish the forms and instructions to be used for reporting beneficial ownership information well in advance of the effective date. FinCEN will further establish a secure nonpublic database for storage of the beneficial ownership information. Finally, FinCEN will issue rules on who may access the information (a limited group of governmental authorities and financial institutions), under what circumstances, and how the parties would generally be required to handle and safeguard the information.

What Should Reporting Companies be Doing Now? Existing companies should begin evaluating whether they are a “reporting company” and if so, determining who are their beneficial owners. Such reporting companies, including any other reporting companies that may be created or registered before the effective date, will have until January 1, 2025, to file an initial report. As noted, reporting companies created or registered on or after the effective date will have 30 calendar days after the date of creation or registration to file an initial report.

Article By Thomas G. Appleman, Arthur L. Griem, and Vera S. Hansen of Miller Canfield

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

© 2022 Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone PLC

SEC Awards $825,000 to Whistleblower

On October 11, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced a $825,000 whistleblower award issued to an individual who voluntarily provided the agency with original information about securities fraud.

The SEC Whistleblower Program offers monetary awards to qualified whistleblowers whose disclosures contribute to the success of enforcement actions. SEC whistleblower awards are for 10-30% of the funds collected by the government in the relevant enforcement action.

According to the SEC award order, the whistleblower “expeditiously provided detailed information that prompted the opening of the investigation.” Furthermore, the whistleblower “thereafter met with Commission staff in person and provided additional information after submitting the initial TCR.”

In addition to monetary awards, the SEC Whistleblower Program offers anti-retaliation protections to whistleblowers, including confidentiality. Thus, the SEC does not disclose any information that could identify a whistleblower.

Since the whistleblower program was established in 2010, the SEC has awarded more than $1.3 billion to over 280 individual whistleblowers. In August 2021, SEC Chair Gary Gensler stated that the program “has greatly aided the Commission’s work to protect investors” and noted that “the SEC has used whistleblower information to obtain sanctions of over $5 billion from securities law violators” and “return over $1.3 billion to harmed investors.”

Article By Mary Jane Wilmoth of Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto. Geoff Schweller also contributed to this article.

For more criminal law and business crimes legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP 2022. All Rights Reserved.

IRS Delays Additional Amendment Deadlines for Major Retirement Legislation

The IRS has extended additional deadlines for required retirement plan amendments, similar to the extensions we discussed last month found here. Notice 2022-45 extends the deadline for amending qualified retirement plans to comply with certain provisions of:

  • The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”)

  • The Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2020 (“Relief Act”)

Notice 2022-45 specifically extends the amendment deadlines for Section 2202 of the CARES Act and Section 302 of the Relief Act. Section 2202 of the CARES Act permitted plans to: (1) provide coronavirus-related distributions, (2) increase retirement plan loan sizes, and (3) pause retirement plan loan payments. Section 302 of the Relief Act permitted qualified disaster distributions.

Notice 2022-45 extends the amendment deadlines relating to the applicable provisions in the CARES and Relief Acts for non-governmental qualified plans and 403(b) plans to December 31, 2025. Governmental plans (including qualified plans, 403(b) plans maintained by public schools, and 457(b) plans) are granted further delays depending on the underlying circumstances of the plan sponsor.  These extended deadlines under Notice 2022-45 align with the previous deadline extensions under Notice 2022-33. Accordingly, most plan sponsors will be able to adopt a single amendment to comply with the SECURE Act, BAMA, the CARES Act, and the Relief Act.

Notably, tax-exempt 457(b) plans do not appear to be covered by the relief granted by either Notice 2022-33 or Notice 2022-45. Accordingly, these plans remain subject to a December 31, 2022, amendment deadline.

Article By Brian T. Gallagher, Samantha A. Kopacz, and Samuel L. Parks of Miller Canfield

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

© 2022 Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone PLC

CFPB Plans to Increase Regulation over “Buy Now, Pay Later” Lenders

The Consumer Financial Protect Bureau (CFPB) issued a release on September 15, 2022, announcing its intent to issue additional interpretive guidance or rules to ensure “Buy Now, Pay Later” (BNPL) lenders comply with the same or similar regulations already established for credit cards following a study on the industry.

In its press release, the CFPB Director Rohit Chopra noted the rapidly growing use of “Buy Now, Pay Later is a rapidly growing type of loan that serves as a close substitute for credit cards.” While credit cards include interest charges, BNPL loans do not, making them more attractive to consumers. Instead, these loans allow consumers to purchase a product and repay the purchase price through several installment payments. As a result, BNPL loans have become prominent over the past several years, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. These previously niche loans, typically used for apparel and beauty purchases, are now used in almost all consumer-facing industries.

The CFPB noted several highlights of BNPL loans found through the study, which include:

  • Increased loan approval rates year over year;
  • Increased occurrences of late fee charges;
  • Increased product returns by consumers; and
  • Shrinking profit margins by BNPL lenders.

As a result of the study, the CFPB outlined the following concerns with the BNPL industry, mainly because the marketing of these loans leads consumers to believe the loans are a “zero-risk credit option.”

  • Limited Consumer Protections: While BNPL loans are used as an alternative to credit cards, they lack the standard credit disclosures, dispute resolution rights, etc., that similar consumer credit transactions often require.
  • Data Harvesting: Lower profit margins associated with BNPL loans have pushed the industry to monetize consumer data, potentially impacting consumer privacy.
  • Debt Accumulation: According to the CFPB, BNPL loans encourage consumers to purchase more products and borrow more, resulting in consumers becoming overleveraged. While the CFPB notes that the lenders in this space do not furnish credit data to credit reporting companies, the CFPB is concerned about this industry extending credit to consumers who may not be able to repay the debt.

Takeaways

The CFPB has yet again reinforced its commitment to regulate lenders that extend consumer credit. The CFPB’s decision to either enforce existing consumer laws (i.e., the Truth in Lending Act disclosures already required for credit cards and other consumer loans) or create new rules on the growing BNPL industry is not unexpected. However, the CFPB’s release shows a renewed focus on protecting consumers’ privacy rights and ensuring that consumers can afford to repay their credit lines before offers of credit are extended, and demonstrates once more that the Bureau will seek to regulate emerging forms of consumer credit.

Article By David T. Long Jr. and Andrew J. Narod of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

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

© 2022 Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

OFAC Offers Guidance in the Wake of Tornado Cash Sanctions

The U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) updated its “frequently asked questions” (FAQs) Tuesday, providing guidance relating to the sanctions against Tornado Cash, the Ethereum “mixer” it blacklisted in August, following allegations that North Korea used Tornado Cash to launder stolen digital assets. The updated information from OFAC comes as a welcome snippet of communication, allowing for clarity on the scope of the action taken against Tornado Cash, as well as providing guidance for U.S. persons affected by the blacklisting who, through no fault of their own, were caught up in federal action.

The updated FAQs provide guidance on four points: (1) the ability to withdraw funds from wallets associated with the Tornado Cash blacklist; (2) whether the OFAC reporting obligations apply to “dusting” transactions; (3) whether U.S. persons can engage in transactions involving addresses implicated in the blacklist without a license; and (4) what, more generally, is prohibited in the wake of the OFAC blacklisting of Tornado Cash.

(1)        Withdrawing Funds

If a U.S. person sent virtual currency to Tornado Cash, but did not complete the mixing transaction or otherwise withdraw such virtual currency prior to August 8, 2022 (the effective date of the OFAC blacklist), such person can request a specific license from OFAC to engage in transactions involving that virtual currency (assuming such person conducts the contemplated transactions within U.S. jurisdiction).

In order to obtain this license, such persons will need to provide, “at a minimum, all relevant information regarding these transactions with Tornado Cash, including the wallet addresses for the remitter and beneficiary, transaction hashes, the date and time of the transaction(s), as well as the amount(s) of virtual currency.”

OFAC indicates that they will embrace a favorable licensing policy towards such applications, so long as the contemplated transactions did not involve conduct that it deems to be otherwise sanctionable, and that licensing requests can be submitted by visiting the following link: https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/ofac-license-application-page.

(2)        “Dusting” Transactions

Dusting is the act of sending unsolicited and nominal amounts of virtual currency or other digital assets to third parties. This can be done in order to cause consternation on the part of the recipient, particularly in a situation where there is confusion as to the legality of receiving such funds or actions.

OFAC indicates that it has been made aware of Dusting involving virtual currency or other virtual assets from Tornado Cash, and indicates that while, technically, OFAC’s regulations would apply to these transactions, to the extent that these Dusting transactions have no other sanctions associated with them other than Tornado Cash, “OFAC will not prioritize enforcement against the delayed receipt of initial blocking reports and subsequent annual reports of blocked property from such U.S. persons.”

In short, while not a desirable transaction to take place, OFAC does not intend to pursue action against persons simply because they are the target of Dusting.

(3)        Engaging in Transactions With Tornado Cash

OFAC clarified that, without explicit license from OFAC, U.S. persons are prohibited from engaging in any transaction involving Tornado Cash, including any transaction done via currency wallet addresses OFAC has identified as part of the blacklist.

Specifically, “[i]f U.S. persons were to initiate or otherwise engage in a transaction with Tornado Cash, including or through one of its wallet addresses, such a transaction would violate U.S. sanctions prohibitions, unless exempt or authorized by OFAC.”

(4)        Further Tornado Cash Guidance

Referencing FAQs 561 and 562, OFAC reemphasized their authority to include as identifiers on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) specific virtual currency wallet addresses associated with blocked persons, and that such SDN List entry for Tornado Cash included as identifiers certain virtual currency wallet addresses associated with Tornado Cash, as well as the URL address for Tornado Cash’s website.

While the Tornado Cash website has been deleted, it remains available through certain Internet archives, and accordingly OFAC emphasized that engaging in any transaction with Tornado Cash or its blocked property or interests in property is prohibited for U.S. persons.

Interacting with open-source code itself, in a way that does not involve a prohibited transaction with Tornado Cash, is not prohibited. By way of example, “U.S. persons would not be prohibited by U.S. sanctions regulations from copying the open-source code and making it available online for others to view, as well as discussing, teaching about, or including open-source code in written publications, such as textbooks, absent additional facts.  Similarly, U.S. persons would not be prohibited by U.S. sanctions regulations from visiting the Internet archives for the Tornado Cash historical website, nor would they be prohibited from visiting the Tornado Cash website if it again becomes active on the Internet.”

While this update to FAQs come as a welcome bit of clarity, Web3 investors, entrepreneurs, and users should continue to tread carefully when engaging with opportunities and technologies on the periphery of Tornado Cash and the accompanying OFAC action. When questions arise, it is important to seek out informed counsel, to discuss the risks of proposed actions and how best to mitigate that risk while working to pioneer new and emerging technologies.

Article By David A. Lopez-Kurtz of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

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

© 2022 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

Accounting Cases Involving SPACs

The Accounting Class Action Filings and Settlements—2021 Review and Analysis report features a spotlight section on accounting-related SPAC cases.

Special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) have become an increasingly popular way for private companies to become publicly traded. The process typically proceeds through four phases:

  1. The SPAC initial public offering (IPO), when the SPAC becomes public as a shell company;
  2.  the search for a merger target, which typically involves a definitive time period (e.g., two years);
  3. the merger closing, during which time the SPAC sponsor and target company announce the merger, file a proxy statement, and solicit shareholder approval; and
  4. the period when the equity of the combined company becomes publicly traded, often referred to as the “De-SPAC” period.

Commentators have cited various reasons for the popularity of SPACs, including the perception of market participants that a private company may have more certainty as to pricing and control over the deal terms through a SPAC as compared to a traditional IPO.1 During 2021, there were 613 SPAC IPOs—nearly twice the number of traditional IPOs—and the $144.5 billion of capital raised was record-setting.2

SPAC filings that include accounting allegations tripled in 2021 as compared to the prior year.

SEC Statements Regarding Financial Accounting and Reporting

The increased popularity of SPACs has led to certain concerns from regulators. For example, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued an investor bulletin on SPACs highlighting that the increased number of SPACs seeking to acquire an operating business may result in fewer attractive initial acquisitions.3 As of December 31, 2021, 575 SPACs were still searching for a merger target.4

The SEC has also highlighted concerns related to financial accounting and reporting issues that SPACs may face. For example, the SEC’s Acting Chief Accountant, Paul Munter, issued a statement on March 31, 2021, that raised questions about whether private company targets have the people and processes in place and the time that is needed to successfully transition to public company reporting requirements. Mr. Munter highlighted examples of complex financial accounting and reporting issues, including accounting for complex financial instruments and the need to comply with public company requirements for reporting on internal controls.5

Shortly after his March 31 statement, Mr. Munter and John Coates, the Acting Director of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance, issued a statement on April 12, 2021, that addressed accounting and reporting considerations for warrants issued by SPACs.6 The statement resulted in almost 500 SPACs restating their accounting for warrants by June 22, nearly all of which identified a material weakness in internal controls.7

Recent Trends in SPACs Involving Accounting Issues

During 2019 and 2020, only a handful of federal securities class actions involving SPACs were filed, but in 2021, federal filings involving SPACs became the dominant filing trend.8 Consistent with that overall trend, SPAC filings that include accounting allegations tripled in 2021 as compared to the prior year.

There are several trends in SPAC cases involving accounting issues over the past three years:

  • Approximately one in three initial complaints involving SPACs from 2019 through 2021 included accounting issues.
  • Three law firms—The Rosen Law Firm, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, and Pomerantz LLP—were associated with almost 80% of accounting case filings involving SPACs from 2019 through 2021.
  • Short-seller reports were commonly cited in cases involving SPACs. However, those reports were cited over one and a half times more often in accounting cases as compared with non-accounting cases filed during 2019 through 2021.
  • The median filing lag after a De-SPAC transaction was much greater in 2019–2020 (450 days) than it was in 2021 (106 days) for accounting case filings from 2019 through 2021 involving SPACs.
  • Inappropriate revenue recognition and weaknesses in internal controls were the most common allegations in SPAC accounting cases, followed by allegedly omitted disclosures of related-party transactions.

Because filings of SPAC cases have largely occurred very recently, based on our research only one of these cases had reached settlement as of the end of 2021, and this case included accounting allegations. As more of these cases progress, SPAC cases may play a role in future accounting case settlement trends.

1     “What You Need to Know About SPACs – Updated Investor Bulletin,” U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, May 25, 2021, https://www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alerts-and-bulletins/what-you-need-know-about-spacs-investor-bulletin.

2     Jay R. Ritter, “Initial Public Offerings: Updated Statistics,” Warrington College of Business, University of Florida, p. 48, https://site.warrington.ufl.edu/ritter/files/IPO-Statistics.pdf, accessed April 8, 2022.

3   “What You Need to Know About SPACs – Updated Investor Bulletin,” U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, May 25, 2021, https://www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alerts-and-bulletins/what-you-need-know-about-spacs-investor-bulletin.

4   SPACs still searching for a target are those that have completed their IPO but not yet announced a De-SPAC transaction target. See SPAC Insider.

5  Paul Munter, Acting Chief Accountant, “Financial Reporting and Auditing Considerations of Companies Merging with SPACs,” U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, March 31, 2021, https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/munter-spac-20200331.

6  John Coates, Acting Director, Division of Corporation Finance, and Paul Munter, Acting Chief Accountant, “Staff Statement on Accounting and Reporting Considerations for Warrants Issued by Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (‘SPACs’),” U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, April 12, 2021, https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/accounting-reporting-warrants-issued-spacs.

7   See Will SPAC Restatement Wave Trigger Shareholder Litigation?, Cornerstone Research (2021), for further discussion.

8   See Securities Class Action Filings—2021 Year in Review, Cornerstone Research (2022), for further discussion.

Article By Elaine M. Harwood, Laura E. Simmons, Frank T. Mascari, and Sally Bai of Cornerstone Research

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

Copyright ©2022 Cornerstone Research

Large Corporate Bankruptcy Filings Continue to Decrease through First Half of 2022

Most industry groups saw bankruptcy filings decline from mid-2020 pandemic highs.

New York—Following the spike in large corporate bankruptcy filings triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, filings in 2021 and the first half of 2022 fell to levels below historical averages, according to a Cornerstone Research report released today.

The report, Trends in Large Corporate Bankruptcy and Financial Distress—Midyear 2022 Update, examines trends in Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings by companies with assets of $100 million or higher. It finds that 70 large companies filed for bankruptcy in 2021, down significantly from 155 in 2020 and below the annual average of 78 filings since 2005. In the first half of 2022, only 20 large companies filed for bankruptcy, compared to midyear totals of 43 in 1H 2021 and 89 in 1H 2020. The 20 bankruptcies in 1H 2022 were the lowest midyear total since the second half of 2014.

“U.S. government stimulus programs, low borrowing rates, and high debt forbearance helped disrupt predictions of continued growth in the number of bankruptcy filings,” said Nick Yavorsky, a report coauthor and Cornerstone Research principal. “Looking ahead, however, there are some concerns that increased corporate debt levels, rising interest rates and inflation, and a potential global recession may contribute to an increase in bankruptcy filings.”

In 2021, there were 20 “mega bankruptcies”—bankruptcy filings among companies with over $1 billion in reported assets—a substantial decline from the 60 mega bankruptcy filings in 2020. The first half of 2022 saw four Chapter 11 mega bankruptcy filings, compared to nine in the first half of 2021 and at a pace significantly lower than the annual average of 22 filings in 2005–2021.

Most industry groups saw bankruptcy filings decrease in 2021 and the first half of 2022, including those industries with the highest number of filings following the pandemic’s onset: Mining, Oil, and Gas; Retail Trade; Manufacturing; and Services.

Read the full report here.

Article By Allie Schwartz, Joseph B. “J.B.” Doyle, Nicholas D. Yavorsky, and Diego Vega San Martin of Cornerstone Research

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

Copyright ©2022 Cornerstone Research