Category: Financial Services Law

Federal Appeals Court Reinstates Injunction Against the CTA, Pending Appeal

At approximately 8:15 p.m. Eastern Time on December 26, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit) reversed course from its prior ruling in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., v. Garland to allow a lower court’s nationwide preliminary injunction stand against the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), pending the Government’s appeal. This means that, once again, the Government, including the United States Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), is barred from enforcing any aspect of the CTA’s disclosure requirements against reporting companies, including those formed before January 1, 2024. This decision prevents FinCEN from enforcing its recently announced deadline extension that would have deferred the compliance deadline for such existing entities from January 1, 2025, to January 13, 2025.

This abrupt about-face appears to be the result of a reassignment of Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., v. Garland from one three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit to another. The Fifth Circuit’s prior decision was issued by a “motions panel,” which decided only the Government’s motion to stay the lower court’s injunction. The motions panel also ordered that the case be expedited and assigned to the next available “merits panel” of the Fifth Circuit, which would be charged with deciding the merits of the Government’s appeal. Once the case was assigned to the merits panel, however, the judges on that panel (whose identities have not yet been publicized) appear to have disagreed with their colleagues. The new panel vacated the motions panel’s stay “in order to preserve the constitutional status quo while the merits panel considers the parties’ weighty substantive arguments.” The Government must now decide whether to seek relief from the United States Supreme Court, which may ultimately determine the fate of the CTA.

© 2024 Varnum LLP
For more on the Injunction Against the CTA, visit the NLR Financial Institutions

Corporate Transparency Act— Nationwide Injunction Update and Key Considerations

On December 3, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction halting enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”).1 In response, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) confirmed it will comply with the injunction while also appealing the decision. FinCEN also states on its website that reporting companies are not required to file beneficial ownership information during the injunction and will not incur penalties for failing to do so.

For so long as the injunction remains in place, it is safe not to make CTA filings. On the other hand, it is impossible to know whether and when the injunction may be lifted. And if it is lifted, there may be limited time for filings to be made before penalties accrue. Filers who choose not to file now may wish to assemble their information so they are ready to file on short notice should the need arise. We also recommend that filers who do not have particular privacy or other concerns consider filing notwithstanding the injunction to ensure that they are compliant no matter the outcome of the lawsuit.2 Ultimately, the decision to file is a personal and business decision that will vary by client.

Below are key points to consider:

  1. If you have already applied for a FinCEN Identifier, your sensitive information is already submitted, so there is less risk in proceeding with the filing.
  2. If privacy and business concerns are minimal, consider filing now to avoid a potential rush if the injunction is lifted and filings become due immediately.
  3. For entities formed in 2024 with a non-12/31 filing deadline, consider filing if privacy is less of a concern. Although FinCEN may provide an extension in these situations, penalties remain steep and the outcome is uncertain.

1See Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Merrick Garland, et al.

2We previously published some advisories on the general application of the CTA and its specific application for those with entities for estate planning purposes and the rules and guidelines are largely unchanged.

Copyright 2024 Goulston & Storrs PC.
For more on the CTA, visit the NLR Corporate Business Organizations section

BREAKING: Federal Court Enjoins Government from Enforcing Corporate Transparency Act

On December 3, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted a nationwide preliminary injunction that enjoins the federal government from enforcing the Corporate Transparency Act (the CTA).

The CTA, which went into effect January 1, 2024, requires “reporting companies” in the United States to disclose information about their beneficial owners — the individuals who ultimately own or control a company — to the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).

A group of six plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in May 2024 claiming that Congress exceeded its authority under the Constitution in passing the CTA. In a 79-page order issued by United States District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, the Court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims and, although the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction on behalf of only themselves and their members, the Court issued a nationwide injunction instead.

The Court’s order states that neither the CTA nor the implementing rules adopted by FinCEN may be enforced and that reporting companies need not comply with the CTA’s upcoming January 1, 2025 deadline for filing beneficial ownership reports.

The Court’s order is a preliminary injunction only and not a final decision. The Court’s order temporarily pauses enforcement of the CTA on a nationwide basis, but enforcement could resume if the Court’s order is overturned on appeal or the Government ultimately prevails on the merits.

© 2024 Foley & Lardner LLP
For more on the CTA, visit the NLR Corporate Business Organizations section

CFPB Imposes $95 Million Fine on Large Credit Union for Overdraft Fee Practices

On November 7, 2024, the CFPB ordered one of the largest credit unions in the nation to pay over $95 million for its practices related to the imposition of overdraft fees. The enforcement action addresses practices from 2017 to 2022 where the credit union charged overdraft fees on transactions that appeared to have sufficient funds, affecting consumers including those in the military community, in violation of the CFPA’s prohibition on unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices.

The Bureau alleges that the credit union’s practices, particularly in connection with its overdraft service, resulted in nearly $1 billion in revenue from overdraft fees over the course of five years. According to the Bureau, the credit union unfairly charged overdraft fees in two ways. First, it charged overdraft fees on transactions where the consumer had a sufficient balance at the time the credit union authorized the transaction, but then later settled with an insufficient balance. The Bureau noted that these authorize-positive/settle-negative violations have been a focus of federal regulators since 2015, and were the subject of a CFPB circular in October 2022. Second, when customers received money though peer-to-peer payment networks, the credit union’s systems showed the money as immediately available to spend. However, the credit union failed to disclose that payments received after a certain time of the day would not post until the next business day. Customers who tried to use this apparently available money were then charged overdraft fees

In addition to monetary fines, the CFPB’s order prohibits the credit union from imposing overdraft fees for authorize-positive, settle negative transactions, and also in cases where there was a delayed crediting of funds from peer-to-peer payment platforms.

The monetary penalties the consent order imposes consist of $80 million in consumer refunds for wrongfully charged overdraft fees and a $15 million civil penalty to be paid to the CFPB’s victims relief fund.

Putting It Into Practice: This order aligns with federal and state regulators’ recent focus on overdraft fees in a broader initiative to eliminate allegedly illegal “junk fees” (a trend we previously discussed here, here, and here). For companies operating in the financial sector or providing peer-to-peer payment services, this enforcement action serves as a critical reminder of the need for transparency and adherence to consumer financial protection laws. Regular audits of fee practices and disclosures can help identify and rectify potential compliance issues before they escalate. Companies aiming to impose overdraft or other types of fees should review agency guidance enforcements to ensure their internal policies and business practices do not land them in hot water.

Listen to this post

Copyright © 2024, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.
For more on the CFPB, visit the NLR Financial Institutions Banking section.

Lawsuit Challenges CFPB’s ‘Buy Now, Pay Later’ Rule

On Oct. 18, 2024, fintech trade group Financial Technology Association (FTA) filed a lawsuit challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) final interpretative rule on “Buy Now, Pay Later” (BNPL) products. Released in May 2024, the CFPB’s interpretative rule classifies BNPL products as “credit cards” and their providers as “card issuers” and “creditors” for purposes of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z.

The FTA filed its lawsuit challenging the CFPB’s interpretative rule in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The FTA alleges that the CFPB violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) notice-and-comment requirements by imposing new obligations on BNPL providers under the label of an “interpretive rule.” The FTA also alleges that the CFPB violated the APA’s requirement that agencies act within their statutory authority by ignoring TILA’s effective-date requirement for new disclosure requirements and imposing obligations beyond those permitted by TILA. The FTA also contends that the CFPB’s interpretive rule is arbitrary and capricious because it is “a poor fit for BNPL products,” grants “insufficient time for BNPL providers to come into compliance with the new obligations” imposed by the rule, and neglects “the serious reliance interests that [the CFPB’s] prior policy on BNPL products engendered.”

In a press release announcing its lawsuit, the FTA said the BNPL industry would welcome regulations that fit the unique characteristics of BNPL products, but that the CFPB’s interpretive rule is a poor fit that risks creating confusion for consumers. “Unfortunately, the CFPB’s rushed interpretive rule falls short on multiple counts, oversteps legal bounds, and risks creating confusion for consumers,” FTA President and CEO Penny Lee said. “The CFPB is seeking to fundamentally change the regulatory treatment of pay-in-four BNPL products without adhering to required rulemaking procedures, in excess of its statutory authority, and in an unreasonable manner.”

The FTA’s pending lawsuit notwithstanding, BNPL providers may wish to consult with legal counsel regarding compliance with the CFPB’s interpretive rule. Retailers marketing BNPL products should also consider working with legal counsel to implement third-party vendor oversight policies to enhance BNPL-partner compliance with the rule.

©2024 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.
For more on the CFPB, visit the NLR Financial Institutions Banking section.

Rytr or Wrong: Is the FTC’s Operation AI Comply a Prudent Defense Against Deception or an Assault on Innovation and Constitutional Free Speech?

In today’s rapidly evolving digital economy, new artificial intelligence tools promise to transform every industry. Sometimes, those promises are overblown or outright deceptive. So, as the AI hype cycle continues, regulators are left with the unenviable role of determining their duties to shape the impact of these developing tools on businesses and the public. Although the EEOC, SEC, DOJ and several State Attorneys General are issuing warnings and increasingly investigating the risks of AI, this tension is on full display with the Federal Trade Commission’s recent enforcement actions announced as part of its “Operation AI Comply,” which marks the beginning of its “new law enforcement sweep” against companies that are relying on AI “as a way to supercharge deceptive or unfair conduct that harms consumers.”1

Although many of the initial targets of Operation AI Comply were accused of conduct that plausibly violated Section 5, the FTC’s charges against an AI writing assistant, Rytr, drew strong dissents from two of the FTC Commissioners who accused their fellow commissioners of effectively strangling AI innovation in the crib. There are several important takeaways from Operation AI Comply, particularly if the dissenting commissioners have correctly identified that the FTC is pushing the boundaries of its authority in pursuit of AI.

The FTC and its Role in AI Regulation.

The FTC plays a critical role in protecting consumers from unfair or deceptive practices, and it has long been warning developers about how their algorithms and AI tools might violate one of its broadest sources of statutory authority: Section 5 of the FTC Act.2

In many respects, the FTC’s September 25, 2024, announcement of its “Crackdown on Deceptive AI Claims and Schemes” should not have come as a surprise, as most of the enforcement actions related to overhyping AI.3 For example, the FTC’s Complaint and proposed settlement with DoNotPay – which made bold claims about being “the world’s first robot lawyer” and that it could “generate perfectly valid legal documents in no time,” replacing “the $200-billion-dollar legal industry with artificial intelligence”4– turned on relatively straightforward false or unsubstantiated performance claims in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.5 Similarly, the FTC’s charges against Ascend Ecom,6 Ecommerce Empire Builders,7 and FBA Machine8 all relate to allegations of e-commerce business opportunity schemes that generally engaged in AI-washing – i.e., a tactic of exaggerating or falsely representing that a product uses AI in an effort to make the product or company appear more cutting edge than it actually is.9 Each of these four cases was unanimously supported by the Commission, receiving 5-0 votes, and is consistent with other actions brought by the FTC to combat unfair, deceptive, or discriminatory impacts of AI.10

However, with a 3-2 split among its commissioners, the FTC’s complaint against Rytr is a different story.11 Historically, unanimous decisions were more typical; however, split decisions are becoming more common as the FTC pursues more aggressive enforcement actions and reflect a broader ideological conflict about the role of regulation and market intervention.

Rytr: Creative Assistant or Assistant to Fraud?

Rytr is a generative AI writing assistant that produces unlimited written content for subscribers for over 43 use cases.12 At the core of the FTC’s complaint against Rytr is the risk that one of its use cases – a “Testimonial & Review” feature – can be used to create customer reviews that may be false or misleading.13

Based on limited user input, users can generate “genuine-sounding, detailed reviews quickly and with little user effort,” which the FTC believes “would almost certainly be false for users who copy the generated content and publish it online.”14 The FTC gives one example where a user provided minimal inputs of “this product” and “dog shampoo” to generate a detailed paragraph boasting how the dog shampoo smelled great, reduced shedding, improved the shine of their dog’s coat, and recommended the product.15 Based on example inputs and outputs like this, the FTC concluded that Rytr’s services “causes or is likely to cause substantial harm to consumers” and “its likely only use is to facilitate subscribers posting fake reviews with which to deceive consumers.”16 As such, the FTC’s complaint argues that Rytr – by offering a tool that could be readily used to generate false reviews — provided the “means and instrumentalities for deception” and engaged in unfair acts or practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.17

In other words, the majority of the FTC Commissioners were concerned about an infinite potential for inaccurate or deceptive product reviews by Rytr’s subscribers and did not recognize countervailing reasons to allow this use of technology. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the Complaint, Rytr agreed to a proposed settlement with the FTC by which Rytr would stop offering the Testimonial & Review use case at issue in this case18 – a pragmatic solution to avoid litigation with the government.

Dissents from the FTC’s Direction.

Commissioners Melissa Holyoak and Andrew Ferguson submitted two dissenting statements, criticizing the complaint against Rytr as an aggressive expansion of the FTC’s authority under Section 5 and cautioned against its chilling effect on a nascent industry.19

Commissioner Ferguson framed the internal conflict well: “Treating as categorically illegal a generative AI tool merely because of the possibility that someone might use it for fraud is inconsistent with our precedents and common sense. And it threatens to turn honest innovators into lawbreakers and risks strangling a potentially revolutionary technology in its cradle.”20 The dissenting statements identified three broad objections to the Rytr complaint.

First, as a threshold matter, the complaint failed to identify any evidence of actual harmful or deceptive acts stemming from Rytr’s product – a clear requirement under Section 5 of the FTC Act.21 Both dissents criticized the complaint for effectively treating draft outputs from Rytr as the final reviews published by users; however, “the Commission does not allege a single example of a Rytr-generated review being used to deceive consumers in violation of Section 5 [.]22 Both dissents criticized the complaint for ignoring the obvious benefits of generative AI in this context. Namely, that “much of the promise of AI stems from its remarkable ability to provide such benefits to consumers using AI tools. . . . If Rytr’s tool helped users draft reviews about their experiences that they would not have posted without the benefit of a drafting aid, consumers seeing their reviews benefitted, too.”23

Second, the dissenters rejected the complaint as “a dramatic extension of means-and-instrumentalities liability,”24 particularly in a case “where there is no allegation that Rytr itself made misrepresentations.”25 The complaint focused on the fact that Rytr “has furnished its users and subscribers with the means to generate written content for consumer reviews that is false and deceptive[,]” thus providing “the means and instrumentalities for the commissions of deceptive acts and practices.”26 However, the dissenters note that the “critical element for primary liability is the existence of a representation, either by statement or omission, made by the defendant.”27 The theory advanced against Rytr could be “true of an almost unlimited number of products and services: pencils, paper, printers, computers, smartphones, word processors, . . . etc.”28 Accordingly, both dissenting commissioners rejected this expansion of means-and-instrumentalities liability because a “knowledge requirement avoids treating innocent and productive conduct as illegal merely because of the subsequent acts of independent third parties.”29

Finally, the dissenters offered several reasons why the FTC’s complaint was not in the public’s interest. Both dissenters expressed concerns that this case was too aggressive and would undermine innovation in the AI industry.30 Commissioner Ferguson went further to note that the complaint could violate important First Amendment interests, noting that the complaint “holds a company liable under Section 5 for a product that helps people speak, quite literally.”31 He criticized the theory behind the complaint; “[y]et because the technology in question is new and unfamiliar, I fear we are giving short shrift to common sense and to fundamental constitutional values.”32

Conclusion

It bears repeating that the FTC Commissioners unanimously approved almost every case listed in Operation AI Comply; “[w]hen people use generative AI technology to lie, cheat, and steal, the law should punish them no differently than if they use quill and parchment.”33 So, the FTC’s warnings about marketing AI systems for professional services, using AI to engage in misleading marketing, or overstating a product’s AI integration should be heeded, especially with the FTC’s statements that this is only the beginning of its enforcement activity.34 In prepared remarks, Chair Lina Khan has stated that the FTC is “making clear that there is no AI exemption from the laws on the books[,]35 so companies should take care to protect against whether their AI and other automated tools are being used for unfair or deceptive purposes or have biased or discriminatory impacts. Just because a technology is new does not mean that it can ignore existing laws – and we’ve seen similar sentiments and disputes in other areas of emerging technology enforcement, such as the SEC’s view that, with respect to U.S. securities laws, “[t]here’s no reason to treat the crypto market differently just because different technology is used.”36

However, the Rytr case could be an indicator that the majority intends to pursue a broader theory of liability under Section 5 of the FTC Act to include tools that merely could be misused – without proof of actual harm or intent. If that continues to be the case, developers should be vigilant in identifying how their products and platforms could be misused for fraudulent purposes, as well-intentioned developers may become the target of investigations or other inquiries by the FTC. The FTC is accepting public comments on the proposed consent agreement with Rytr through November 4, 2024,37 which could develop the FTC’s position further.

1) FTC Announces Crackdown on Deceptive AI Claims and Schemes, Press Release, Federal Trade Commission (Sept. 25, 2024), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/09/ftc-announces-crackdown-deceptive-ai-claims-schemes.

2) See, e.g., Aiming for truth, fairness, and equity in your company’s use of AI, Elisa Johnson, Federal Trade Commission (April 19, 2021), available at https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2021/04/aiming-truth-fairness-equity-your-companys-use-ai.

3) Operation AI Comply: Detecting AI-infused frauds and deceptions, Alvaro Puig, Federal Trade Commission (Sept. 25, 2024), available at https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2024/09/operation-ai-comply-detecting-ai-infused-frauds-and-deceptions.

4) See, e.g., id.

5) In re DoNotPay, Inc., FTC Matter No. 2323042, Complaint available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/DoNotPayInc-Complaint.pdf.

6) FTC v. Ascend Capventures, Inc., et al., C.D. Ca. Case No. 2:24-CV-07660-SPG-JPR (Filed Sept. 9, 2024).

7) FTC v. Empire Holdings Group LLC, et al., E.D. Pa. Case No. 2:24-CV-04949 (Filed Sept. 18, 2024).

8) FTC v. TheFBAMachine Inc., et al., D. N.J. Case No. 2:24-CV-06635-JXN-LDW (Filed June 3, 2024).

9) See generally, FTC Announces Crackdown on Deceptive AI Claims and Schemes, supra.

10) The FTC aggregated several summaries for its recent cases related to AI and other automated tools, which can be found here: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/09/operation-ai-comply-continuing-crackdown-overpromises-ai-related-lies#:~:text=These%20cases%20are,CRI%20Genetics.

11) See generally Cases and Proceedings: Rytr, FTC Matter No. 2323052 (last updated Sept. 25, 2024), available at https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/rytr.

12) See, e.g., In re Rytr LLC, FTC Matter No. 2323052, Complaint ¶ 2, available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2323052rytrcomplaint.pdf.

13) Id. ¶ 6.

14) Id. ¶¶ 6-8.

15)  Id. ¶ 10.

16) Id. ¶ 14.

17) Id. ¶¶ 15-18.

18)  See In re Rytr LLC, Agreement Containing Consent Order, available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2323052rytracco.pdf.

19) See, e.g., Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Melissa Holyoak, Joined by Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson, In re Rytr LLC, FTC Matter No. 2323052 at p.1 (cautioning against settlements to “advance claims or obtain orders that a court is highly unlikely to credit or grant in litigation,” as it may encourage the use of “questionable or misguided theories or cases.”) [hereinafter, “Holyoak Dissent”].

20) Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson, Joined by Commissioner Melissa Holyoak, In re Rytr LLC, FTC Matter No. 2323052 at p.1 [hereinafter, “Ferguson Dissent”].

21) See 15 U.S.C. § 45(n) (prohibiting the FTC from declaring an act or practice unfair unless it “causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.”).

22) Ferguson Dissent at p.6; see also Holyoak Dissent at p.2.

23) Holyoak Dissent at p.3; see also Ferguson Dissent at p.7 (noting the challenges of writing a thoughtful review and that “a tool that produces a well-written first draft of a review based on some keyword inputs can make the task more accessible.”).

24) Ferguson Dissent at p.5.

25) Holyoak Dissent at p.4 (emphasis original).

26) Complaint ¶¶ 15-16.

27) Holyoak Dissent at p.4 (emphasis original) (cleaned up with citations omitted); see also Ferguson Dissent at pp.3-5 (discussing the circumstances in which means-and-instrumentalities liability arises).

28) Ferguson Dissent at p.5.

29) Ferguson Dissent at p.7; see also Holyoak Dissent at p.5 (“Section 5 does not categorically prohibit a product or service merely because someone might use it to deceive someone else.”).

30)  Holyoak Dissent at p.5 (“Today’s misguided complaint and its erroneous application of Section 5 will likely undermine innovation in the AI space.”); Ferguson Dissent at p.10 (“But we should not bend the law to get at AI. And we certainly should not chill innovation by threatening to hold AI companies liable for whatever illegal use some clever fraudster might find for their technology.”).

31) Ferguson Dissent at p.10.

32) Id.

33) Id. at p.9 (citing Concurring and Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson, A Look Behind the Screens: Examining the Data Practices of Social Media and Video Streaming Services, at pp.10-11 (Sept. 19, 2024)).

34) Operation AI Comply: Detecting AI-infused frauds and deceptions, supra.

35) A few key principles: An excerpt from Chair Khan’s Remarks at the January Tech Summit on AI, FTC (Feb. 8, 2024), available at https://www.ftc.gov/policy/advocacy-research/tech-at-ftc/2024/02/few-key-principles-excerpt-chair-khans-remarks-january-tech-summit-ai.

36) Prepared Remarks of Gary Gensler on Crypto Markets at Penn Law Capital Markets Association Annual Conference, Chair Gary Gensler, SEC (April 4, 2022), available at https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/gensler-remarks-crypto-markets-040422.

37) Rytr LLC; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment, Federal Register, available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/10/03/2024-22767/rytr-llc-analysis-of-proposed-consent-order-to-aid-public-comment.

Copyright ©2024 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

Preparing For the Return of Dealer Distress

Over the last five years, auto and equipment dealers experienced a period of low inventory levels with high margins on the limited inventory they had for sale and lease. Used automotive and equipment wholesale and retail prices surged. At the same time, merger and acquisition activity drove dealer valuations to record highs especially in the automotive segment.

Dealer merger and acquisition activity has started to cool even though valuations and activity remain elevated above pre-pandemic levels1. New automotive inventory levels have risen during 2024 to the point that Ford’s CFO, John Lawler, expressed worry regarding rising new car inventory levels in June2. Used automotive and equipment wholesale prices have declined from their pandemic era highs as well.

Record profits, low inventory levels, and strong merger and acquisition activity led to low delinquency and default levels in the dealer lending space, but current trends indicate those days may be coming to an end. For floor plan lenders, they should be thinking about dealer distress happening again. While times are still good, there are some steps lenders can take to prepare for distress down the road.

Review Your Documents and Security Interests

It is always easier to fix documentation and security interest deficiencies when times are good. Lenders should be checking to make sure their loan documents are correct and most importantly, their security interest position reflects their expectations. One area of particular concern is making sure no other parties have filed security interests against the dealer including merchant cash advance, factoring and other “short term” funding sources that might not show up as debt on financial statements. Even other lenders providing longer term debt financing secured by other assets like real estate may be taking a security interest in your inventory as well.

Insurance

As part of your documentation review, you should verify the dealer’s insurance meets the requirements of your loan documents, lists your interest properly, and is adequate for the dealer’s exposure. Insurance coverage tied to inventory levels can become insufficient if inventory levels rise faster than the coverage limits increase. Also ensuring the insurance covers all collateral locations is a requirement that might slip through the cracks especially if collateral locations change frequently.

Where is Your Collateral?

One benefit of low inventory levels was that dealers stopped storing inventory at satellite lots. The practice of old is starting to return as inventory levels build. Lenders want to make sure they know of these locations (they should if they are on top of the audits) and obtain landlord waivers if necessary to access the inventory upon a default.

Keeping Up on Audits

Anyone who knows the floor plan business knows the importance of audits. Low inventory levels and well performing dealers made audits easy. With increasing inventory levels, audit complexity is returning to pre-pandemic norms. Audit issues are often one of the first signs of dealer distress. A prominent example of a dealer issue recently being unearthed through audits involves a boat dealer who allegedly sold boats, but stored them for the customers and alleged the boats were still for sale3.

Financial Reporting and Covenants

Financial reporting deficiencies and financial covenant violations are also warning signs of potential distress on the horizon. Dealers rarely go bad overnight. Financial reporting and covenants going downhill are an obvious warning sign.

Taxes

Not just limited to dealers, but tax delinquencies are always a big red flag. Confirming the payment of taxes and the existence of no tax liens should be part of reviewing any dealer relationship especially one showing other signs of distress.

Used Inventory Levels and Advance Rates

During the pandemic when used vehicle and equipment prices shot through the roof, lenders became permissive of advancing beyond their standard advance rates. As used inventory values decline for vehicles4 and agricultural equipment5, dealers can be underwater on used inventory.

Manufacturer Specific Issues

Not all dealers are equal and the same is true for manufacturers. Monthly inventory level data from Cox Automotive6 shows inventory levels being substantially higher among some vehicle brands compared to others. Keeping an eye on your dealer and the average inventory levels of the brands they carry should be on your radar.

Explaining What You Do

As someone who spent a decade as lead counsel at two different financial institutions being lead counsel for floor plan businesses, I spent a lot of time explaining to others outside the floor plan businesses the nuances of floor plan lending. If things start going downhill with a dealer, be prepared for the inevitable basic questions from those not used to the dealer business.

Conclusion – Hope for the Best, Prepare For The Worst

One of the best credit people I ever worked with described a dealer failure as like a war. When a dealer failure occurs, most likely through a selling inventory out of trust, you don’t have time to learn what to do. You got to know what to do. You must have someone ready to take command and quarterback the response. You got to know who will help you accomplish your ends. If you don’t act quickly, your inventory will be gone and your losses can be in the millions within days.

1 “Dealership Buy-Sell Activity and Blue Sky Values are declining, but are elevated well above pre-pandemic levels”, The Haig Report, August 29, 2024 (2024-Q2-Haig-Report-Press-Release-FINAL.pdf (haigpartners.com))
2 “Ford CFO says growing dealer inventory ‘worries me’”, Breana Noble, The Detroit News, June 11, 2024 (Ford CFO John Lawler says growing dealer inventory ‘worries me’ (detroitnews.com))
3 “Lender Alleges Dealer Diverted Millions in Sales Proceeds”, Kim Kavin, Soundings Trade Only, April 16, 2024 (https://www.tradeonlytoday.com/manufacturers/lender-alleges-dealer-diverted-millions-in-sales-proceeds)
4 “Wholesale Used-Vehicle Prices Decrease in First Half of September”, Cox Automotive, September 17, 2024 (Wholesale Used-Vehicle Prices Decrease in First Half of September – Cox Automotive Inc. (coxautoinc.com))
5 “Lower Used Equipment Prices Are Another Sign of the Challenges in the Ag Sector”, Jim Wiesenmeyer, Farm Journal, August 14, 2024 (Lower Used Equipment Prices Are Another Sign of the Challenges in the Ag Sector | AgWeb).
6 “New-Vehicle Inventory Stabilizes as Sales Incentives Increase and Model Year 2025 Vehicles Arrive”, Cox Automotive, September 19, 2024 (New-Vehicle Inventory Stabilizes as Sales Incentives Increase and Model Year 2025 Vehicles Arrive – Cox Automotive Inc. (coxautoinc.com))

Copyright © 2024 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP All Rights Reserved.
For more on Dealers, visit the NLR Utilities Transport section

The Corporate Transparency Act Requires Reporting of Beneficial Owners

The Corporate Transparency Act (the “CTA”) became effective on January 1, 2024, requiring many corporations, limited liability companies, limited partnerships, and other entities to register with and report certain information to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) of the U.S. Department of Treasury (“Treasury”). The CTA marks a substantial increase in the reporting obligations for many U.S. companies, as well as for non-U.S. companies doing business in the United States.

IN SHORT:
Most corporate entities are now required to file a beneficial ownership information report (“BOI Report”) with FinCEN disclosing certain information about the entity and those persons who are “beneficial owners” or who have “substantial control.” BOI Reports for companies owned by trusts and estates may require significant analysis to determine beneficial ownership and substantial control.

The CTA imposes potential penalties on entities that fail to file BOI Reports with FinCEN by the prescribed deadline. For entities formed prior to January 1, 2024, a BOI Report must be filed by January 1, 2025. For entities formed on or after January 1, 2024, but prior to January 1, 2025, a BOI Report must be filed within 90 days of the entity’s formation. For entities formed on or after January 1, 2025, a BOI Report must be filed within 30 days of the entity’s formation.

Entities formed after January 1, 2024, must also report information regarding “company applicants” to FinCEN. If certain information within a BOI Report changes, entities are required to file a supplemental BOI Report within 30 days of such change.

While Winstead’s Wealth Preservation Practice Group will not be directly filing BOI Reports with FinCEN, our attorneys and staff will be available this year, by appointment, to answer questions regarding reporting requirements if scheduled by Friday, November 22, 2024. We strongly recommend that company owners begin analyzing what reporting obligations they may have under the CTA and schedule appointments with their professional advisors now to ensure availability.

BACKGROUND:
Congress passed the CTA in an effort to combat money laundering, fraud, and other illicit activities accomplished through anonymous shell companies. To achieve this objective, most entities operating in the United States will now be required to file BOI Reports with FinCEN.

The CTA applies to U.S. companies and non-U.S. companies registered to operate in the United States that fall within the definition of a “reporting company.” There are certain exceptions specifically enumerated in the CTA, which generally cover entities that are already subject to anti-money laundering requirements, entities registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission or other federal regulatory bodies, and entities that pose a low risk of the illicit activities targeted by the CTA.

REPORTING OBLIGATIONS:
Entity Information. Each reporting company is required to provide FinCEN with the following information:

  1. the legal name of the reporting company;
  2. the mailing address of the reporting company;
  3. the state of formation (or foreign country in which the entity was formed, if applicable) of the reporting company; and
  4. the employer identification number of the reporting company.

Beneficial Owner and Applicant Information. Absent an exemption, each reporting company is also required to provide FinCEN with the following information regarding each beneficial owner and each company applicant:

  1. full legal name;
  2. date of birth;
  3. current residential or business address; and
  4. unique identifying number from a U.S. passport or U.S. state identification (e.g., state-issued driver’s license), a foreign passport, or a FinCEN identifier (i.e., the unique number issued by FinCEN to an individual).

DEFINITIONS:
Reporting Company. A “reporting company” is defined as any corporation, limited liability company, or any other entity created by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any similar office under the law of a State. Certain entities are exempt from these filing requirements, including, but not limited to:

  1. financial institutions and regulated investment entities;
  2. utility companies;
  3. entities that are described in Section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code;
  4. inactive, non-foreign owned entities with no assets; and
  5. sizeable operating companies that employ more than 20 full-time employees in the United States that have filed a United States federal income tax return in the previous year demonstrating more than $5,000,000 in gross receipts or sales.

A reporting company that is not exempt must register with and report all required information to FinCEN by the applicable deadline.

Beneficial Owner. A “beneficial owner” is defined as any individual who, directly or indirectly, (i) exercises substantial control over such reporting company or (ii) owns or controls at least 25% of the ownership interests of such reporting company.

Substantial Control. An individual exercises “substantial control” over a reporting company if the individual (i) serves as a senior officer of the reporting company, (ii) has authority over the appointment or removal of any senior officer or a majority of the board of directors (or the similar body governing such reporting company), or (iii) directs, determines, or has substantial influence over important decisions made by the reporting company, including by reason of such individual’s representation on the board (or other governing body of the reporting company) or control of a majority of the reporting company’s voting power.

Company Applicant. A “company applicant” is any individual who (i) files an application to form the reporting company under U.S. law or (ii) registers or files an application to register the reporting company under the laws of a foreign country to do business in the United States by filing a document with the secretary of state or similar office under U.S. law.

DEADLINES:
Entities Formed Before January 1, 2024. A reporting company that was formed prior to the effective date of the CTA (January 1, 2024) is required to register with FinCEN and file its initial BOI Report by January 1, 2025.

Entities Formed After January 1, 2024, but Before January 1, 2025. A reporting company that was formed after the effective date of the CTA (January 1, 2024), but before January 1, 2025, must register with FinCEN and file its initial BOI Report within 90 calendar days of formation.
Entities Formed After January 1, 2025. A reporting company formed after January 1, 2025, will be required to register with FinCEN and file its initial BOI Report within 30 calendar days of formation.

Supplemental BOI Reports. If any information included in a BOI Report changes, a reporting company must file a supplemental report with FinCEN within 30 days of such change. This includes minor changes, such as an address change or an updated driver’s license for a beneficial owner or someone who has substantial control over the reporting company.

PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE:
The CTA and Treasury regulations impose potential civil and criminal liability on reporting companies and company applicants that fail to comply with the CTA’s reporting requirements. Civil penalties for reporting violations include a monetary fine of up to $500 per day that the violation continues unresolved, adjusted for inflation. Criminal penalties include a fine of up to $10,000 and/or two years in prison.

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO TRUSTS AND ESTATES:
When a trust or estate owns at least 25% of a reporting company or exercises substantial control over the reporting company, the BOI Report must generally include (i) the fiduciaries of the trust or estate (i.e., the trustee or executor), (ii) certain individual beneficiaries, and (iii) the settlor or creator of the trust. If the trust agreement gives other individuals certain rights and powers, however, such as a distribution advisor, trust protector, or trust committee member, the reporting company may also be required to disclose such individuals’ information in the BOI Report. Similarly, if a corporate trustee or executor is serving, the BOI Report must contain the names and information of the employees who actually administer the trust or estate on behalf of the corporation. Due to these nuances, it is often necessary to engage in additional analysis when a trust or estate is a beneficial owner of or has substantial control over a reporting company.

CONCLUDING REMARKS:
The CTA and its BOI Report filing requirement are still relatively new, and although FinCEN continues to publish additional guidance, many open questions remain. All companies formed or operating in the United States should carefully review whether they are required to file an initial BOI Report in accordance with the CTA, and take further steps to identify all individuals who must be included in such BOI Report.

© 2024 Winstead PC.
For more news on Corporate Transparency Act Reporting Requirements, visit the NLR Financial Institutions Banking section.

End of Summer Pool Party: CFTC Approves Final Rule Amending 4.7 Regulatory Relief for CPOs and CTAs

On 12 September 2024, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) published a Final Rule impacting registered commodity pool operators (CPOs) and commodity trading advisors (CTAs) relying on the regulatory relief provided under CFTC Regulation 4.7. “Registration light,” as Regulation 4.7 is sometimes known, provides reduced disclosure, reporting and recordkeeping obligations for CPOs and CTAs that limit sales activities to “qualified eligible persons” (QEPs).

The Final Rule amends Regulation 4.7 by:

  • Updating the QEP definition by increasing the financial thresholds in the “Portfolio Requirement” to account for inflation; and
  • Codifying certain CFTC no-action letters allowing CPOs of Funds of Funds to opt to deliver monthly account statements within 45 days of month-end.

For most asset managers, however, the most significant update is that the CFTC declined to adopt the proposed minimum disclosure requirements. Under existing Regulation 4.7, CPOs and CTAs are exempt from certain disclosure requirements when offering pools solely to QEPs. Without those exemptions, dually-registered managers would be burdened with duplicate or conflicting disclosure requirements under the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) rules. The Proposed Rule would have rescinded or narrowed certain of these exemptions. Commenters almost unanimously opposed the disclosure-related amendments, and the CFTC ultimately decided to take additional time to consider the concerns and potential alternatives.

The Final Rule doubled the Portfolio Requirement for the Securities Portfolio Test and the Initial Margin and Premium test to US$4,000,000 and US$400,000, respectively. Despite the increased suitability standards for QEPs, the Final Rule will not impact most private funds relying on Rule 506 of Regulation D, as those amounts are still less than the “Qualified Purchaser” threshold under the SEC’s rules.

Copyright 2024 K & L Gates
For more news on CFTC Final Rule, visit the NLR Antitrust Trade Regulation section.

Selection of Gov. Walz as VP Candidate Implicates SEC Pay-To-Play Rule

Kamala Harris’ selection of Tim Walz as running mate for her presidential campaign has implications under the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act (SEC Pay-to-Play Rule). In particular, certain political contributions to vice presidential candidate Tim Walz, who serves as Chair of the Minnesota State Board of Investment (SBI), and other actions by investment advisers and certain of their personnel could trigger a two-year “time-out” that would prevent an investment adviser from collecting fees from any of the statewide retirement systems or other investment programs or state cash accounts managed by the SBI. As a result, all investment advisers should consider reviewing their existing policies and procedures relating to pay-to-play and political contributions, and they should remind employees of these policies in connection with the 2024 election cycle.

A few key takeaways in this regard

  • The SEC Pay-to-Play Rule prohibits investment advisers, including exempt advisers and exempt reporting advisers,1 from receiving compensation for providing advisory services to a government entity client for two years after the investment adviser or certain personnel, including executive officers and employees soliciting government entities,2 has made a contribution to an “official”3 of the government entity.
    • Governor Walz is an “official” of the SBI under the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule because he serves on the board of the SBI.
    • An investment adviser was recently fined by the SEC for violations of the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule following a contribution by a covered associate to a candidate who served as a member of the SBI.4
  • As a result of Governor Walz’s role with regard to the SBI, any contributions by a covered adviser (or any PAC controlled by the adviser) or any contributions by its covered associates above the de minimis amount of US$3505 to the Harris/Walz campaign will trigger a two-year “time-out.” This may have implications for investment advisers that are not currently seeking to do business with the SBI but may in the future, as the “time out” period applies for the entirety of the two-year period, even if Governor Walz ceases to be an “official” of the SBI after the election.
  • Contributions by family members of covered associates and contributions to super PACs or multicandidate PACs (so long as contributions are not earmarked for the benefit of the Harris/Walz campaign) generally are not restricted under the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule, if not done in a manner designed to circumvent the rule.
  • In addition to the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule, financial services firms should be mindful of other restrictions under Municipal Securities Rule Making Board Rule G-37, Commodity Futures Trading Commission Regulation 23.451, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Rule 2030, and SEC Rule 15Fh-6.
  • Similar concerns were implicated when then-Governor Mike Pence of Indiana was the Republican vice presidential nominee in 20166; however, former President Donald Trump and current U.S. Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH) are not “officials” for purposes of the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule or other applicable pay-to-play rules, and contributions to the Trump/Vance campaign will not be restricted under these rules.

In addition to the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule and other federal pay-to-play rules noted above, many states and localities have also adopted pay-to-play rules that are applicable to persons who contract with their governmental agencies. Campaign contributions to other candidates may trigger disclosure obligations or certain restrictions under such rules. As political contributions can lead to unintended violations of the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule or other applicable pay-to-play rules, advisers should assess whether any of these rules present a business risk in the 2024 election cycle and take appropriate steps to protect themselves.

From a compliance standpoint, some investment advisers have implemented pre-clearance procedures for all employees, which can permit an investment adviser’s compliance team to confirm that political contributions by employees will not lead to unintended consequences. Compliance teams may also consider periodic checks of publicly available campaign contribution data to confirm contributions by employees are being disclosed pursuant to applicable internal policies.

Should you have any questions regarding the content of this alert, please do not hesitate to contact one of the authors or our other lawyers.

Footnotes

1 The rule applies to “covered advisers,” a term that includes investment advisers registered or required to be registered with the SEC, “foreign private advisers” not registered in reliance on Section 203(b)(3) of the Investment Advisers Act, and “exempt reporting advisers.”

2 The rule applies to “covered associates,” which are defined for this purpose as: (i) any general partner, managing member, executive officer, or other individual with a similar status or function; (ii) any employee who solicits a government entity for the investment adviser and any person who supervises, directly or indirectly, such employee; and (iii) any political action committee (PAC) controlled by the investment adviser or by any person described in parts (i) or (ii).

3 An “official” means any individual (including any election committee of the individual) who was, at the time of a contribution, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective office or holds the office of a government entity, if the office (i) is directly or indirectly responsible for, or can influence the outcome of, the hiring of an investment adviser by a government entity; or (ii) has authority to appoint any person who is directly or indirectly responsible for, or can influence the outcome of, the hiring of an investment adviser by a government entity.

4 Wayzata Investment Partners LLC, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 6590 (Apr. 15, 2024).

5 Under the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule, covered associates (but not covered advisers) are permitted to make a de minimis contribution up to a US$350 amount in an election in which they are able to vote without triggering the two-year “time-out.”

6 Clifford J. Alexander, Ruth E. Delaney & Sonia R. Gioseffi, Impact of Pay-to-Play Rules in the 2016 Election Cycle, K&L GATES (Aug. 18, 2016), https://www.klgates.com/Impact-of-Pay-to-Play-Rules-in-the-2016-Election-Cycle-08-18-2016.

Copyright 2024 K & L Gates
by: Ruth E. Delaney, Richard F. Kerr of K&L Gates
For more news on the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule, visit the NLR Securities SEC section.