Category: Financial Services Law

Freddie Mac Addresses Cryptocurrency in Mortgage Lending Criteria

On December 1, 2021, Freddie Mac published Bulletin 2021-36 for Freddie Mac sellers to provide updated guidance on eligibility criteria for qualifying mortgages. Freddie Mac publishes such bulletins on a regular basis for loan originators who wish to resell mortgages to Freddie Mac, and Bulletin 2021-36 covers a number of routine topics such as 2022 conforming loan limits, certain credit underwriting criteria and document custody. The bulletin is notable, however, because it specifically addresses requirements related to cryptocurrency’s use in the mortgage qualification process.

The bulletin announces that, due to a “high level of uncertainty associated with cryptocurrency,” Freddie Mac has updated its credit underwriting criteria for qualifying mortgages as follows:

  • Income paid to a borrower in cryptocurrency may not be used to qualify for a mortgage;
  • For income types that require evidence of sufficient remaining assets to establish likely continuance (e.g., retirement account distributions, trust income and dividend and interest income), those assets may not be in the form of cryptocurrency;
  • Cryptocurrency may not be included in the calculation of assets as a basis for repayment of obligations;
  • Monthly payments on debts secured by cryptocurrency must be included in a borrower’s debt payment-to-income ratio and are not subject to other criteria regarding installment debts secured by financial assets; and
  • Cryptocurrency must be exchanged for US dollars if it will be needed for the mortgage transaction (i.e., any funds required to be paid by a borrower and any borrower reserves).

The bulletin also notes that Freddie Mac will continue to monitor cryptocurrency developments and may update its requirements as appropriate in the future. The new cryptocurrency criteria are effective immediately.

Copyright © 2021, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.

Article By Scott H. Kimpel of Hunton Andrews Kurth

For more articles on crypto, visit the NLR Financial Institutions & Banking section.

Federal Regulators Issue New Cyber Incident Reporting Rule for Banks

On November 18, 2021, the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued a new rule regarding cyber incident reporting obligations for U.S. banks and service providers.

The final rule requires a banking organization to notify its primary federal regulator “as soon as possible and no later than 36 hours after the banking organization determines that a notification incident has occurred.” The rule defines a “notification incident” as a “computer-security incident that has materially disrupted or degraded, or is reasonably likely to materially disrupt or degrade, a banking organization’s—

  1. Ability to carry out banking operations, activities, or processes, or deliver banking products and services to a material portion of its customer base, in the ordinary course of business;
  2. Business line(s), including associated operations, services, functions, and support, that upon failure would result in a material loss of revenue, profit, or franchise value; or
  3. Operations, including associated services, functions and support, as applicable, the failure or discontinuance of which would pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States.”

Under the rule, a “computer-security incident” is “an occurrence that results in actual harm to the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of an information system or the information that the system processes, stores, or transmits.”

Separately, the rule requires a bank service provider to notify each affected banking organization “as soon as possible when the bank service provider determines it has experienced a computer-security incident that has materially disrupted or degraded or is reasonably likely to materially disrupt or degrade, covered services provided to such banking organization for four or more hours.” For purposes of the rule, a bank service provider is one that performs “covered services” (i.e., services subject to the Bank Service Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1861–1867)).

In response to comments received on the agencies’ December 2020 proposed rule, the new rule reflects changes to key definitions and notification provisions applicable to both banks and bank service providers. These changes include, among others, narrowing the definition of a “computer security incident,” replacing the “good faith belief” notification standard for banks with a determination standard, and adding a definition of “covered services” to the bank service provider provisions. With these revisions, the agencies intend to resolve some of the ambiguities in the proposed rule and address commenters’ concerns that the rule would create an undue regulatory burden.

The final rule becomes effective April 1, 2022, and compliance is required by May 1, 2022. The regulators hope this new rule will “help promote early awareness of emerging threats to banking organizations and the broader financial system,” as well as “help the agencies react to these threats before they become systemic.”

Copyright © 2021, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.
For more articles on banking regulations, visit the NLR Financial Securities & Banking section.

Don’t Use “Build Back Better” to Sabotage the False Claims Act

Congress is on the verge of setting a dangerous precedent.  As part of the Build Back Better Act, it has added two provisions equivalent to a “get out of jail free card” for Big Banks that violate federal law when they hand out billions in federal mortgage-related benefits.   The two provisions create exemptions to False Claims Act liability by creating blanket immunity from liability when banks fail to exercise due diligence, violate FHA housing regulations, or even directly violate federal laws such as the Truth in Lending Act.

It is obvious why banks want to have their federally sponsored mortgage practices immunized from exposure to the False Claims Act (“FCA”).  The FCA works remarkably well and is widely recognized as “the most powerful tool the American people have to protect the government from fraud.”   The law has directly recovered over $64.450 billion in sanctions from fraudsters since Congress modernized it in 1986.  During the debates on the massive trillion-dollar infrastructure laws enacted or debated this year, corporate lobbyists have been extremely active in successfully preventing Congress from adding any new anti-fraud measures to protect taxpayers from fraud.  As part of these efforts, they targeted the False Claims Act as enemy #1 and already have blocked one key amendment needed to close some weaknesses in that law.

With the Build Back Better Act, these corporate lobbyists have taken their opposition to effective anti-fraud laws to a higher level.  Instead of trying to repeal the FCA, they are simply exempting Big Banks from liability under that law in two new programs.  It is obvious why the Big Banks want the exemption from FCA liability.  As a result of illegal or irresponsible lending and foreclosure practices, such as those that fueled the 2008 financial collapse, banks have had to pay billions in sanctions to the United States.

Two words explain why the FCA is “the most powerful tool” protecting taxpayers from fraud:  Whistleblowers and sanctions.  If you accept federal taxpayer monies, you are required to spend that money according to your contractual agreement or the law.  The FCA’s first secret weapon is whistleblowers.  The law encourages whistleblowers, known as qui tam “relators,” to report violations of the FCA.  Whistleblowers disclosures trigger the overwhelming majority of FCA cases, and the law incentivizes employees to risk their careers to serve the public interest. The second secret weapon is how you prove liability.  Second, when an institution accepts federal monies (such as banks that operate various federally sponsored loan programs), liability can attach if the institution acts in “deliberate ignorance of the truth” when spending federal dollars.  Similarly, if payments are made with “reckless disregard of the truth,” liability can attach.  In other words, corporations (including banks) that accept federal money must ensure that these monies are spent as required by law, regulation, or contract.  Safeguards must be in place to prevent fraud.  If a bank does not have adequate compliance programs to protect against fraud, it cannot plead ignorance when the law is broken and taxpayers are ripped off.

These two key elements of the False Claims Act are precisely what the banking lobby is attempting to undermine through the Build Back Better Act.  The tactics employed by the Big Banks are somewhat devious.  They are doing an end-run around the False Claims Act by exempting themselves from having to engage in any due diligence when spending billions in federal dollars.  The banks are seeking to add language to the Build Back Better Act that will immunize themselves from liability under the False Claims Act when they make payments in “reckless disregard” to the legality of those payments.  The immunities they are seeking legalize “deliberate ignorance” in the use of taxpayer money, in complete defiance of the False Claims Act. Thus, whistleblowers who report these frauds will be stripped of protections they have under the False Claims Act, and the federal government will have no effective way to recover damages from these frauds.

What language in the Build Back Better Act creates an exemption to False Claims Act liability?

Two highly technical provisions are deeply buried within the 2135 pages of the Build Back Better Act’s legislative text. The provisions are sections 40201 and 40202 of the Build Back Better Act.  These two sections establish helpful programs that will provide needed financial support to first-generation homebuyers.  Section 40201(d)(5) would provide $10 billion in down payment assistance. Section 40202(f) would give an interest rate reduction on new FHA 20-year mortgage products to first-time homeowners with a potential value of $60 billion.  But the banking lobby has corrupted these otherwise well-meaning programs. The exemptions obtained by the banks are incubators for massive fraud.  It permits the Big Banks to escape any liability when they abuse the generosity of taxpayers and dole out billions to unqualified individuals.

How do the exemptions work?  To qualify for these taxpayer-financed benefits, an applicant simply has to “attest” that they are first-time/first-generation homebuyers.  That would be the end of the inquiry a bank would need to approve making a payment from the billions allocated in these two programs. Anyone could simply stroll into a bank and “attest” to being such a first-time homebuyer and would thereafter qualify for the federal benefits.  The banks would not be required to do any diligence of their own to confirm the borrower’s eligibility.  Willful ignorance would be legalized.  Reckless disregard in the handling of taxpayer monies would be permitted under this law.  Safeguards, such as requiring banks to adhere to the Truth in Lending Act, which requires verification of a borrower’s statements, would not apply.

Under Sections 40201(d)(5) and 40202(f), banks will not be held liable once they are lied to, even if the bank has reason to know that the borrower is not eligible for the federal payout.  Banks can spend taxpayer money even if the information on an applicant’s loan application directly contradicts the borrower’s attestation that they are a first-time homeowner.  Given the lack of any compliance standards, the temptation to engage in fraud in these programs will be overwhelming.

Permitting banks to escape liability under the False Claims Act opens the door to paying billions of dollars in benefits to unqualified persons.  Such payments rip off the taxpayers and severely hurt all honest first-generation homebuyers denied benefits.  For every fraudster who benefits from this program, an honest homebuyer will be left in the cold due to the reckless disregard of the banks.

Congress should never use a back-door procedure to undermine the False Claim Act, as it sets a dangerous precedent.  It is a devious way to undermine America’s “most effective” anti-fraud law.  Instead of undermining the False Claims Act by granting immunities to Big Banks, Congress should be strengthening anti-fraud laws to protect the taxpayers and ensure that the trillions of dollars spent on COVID-19 relief programs and infrastructure improvement are lawfully spent in the public interest.

Copyright Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP 2021. All Rights Reserved.
For more articles about banking and finance, visit the NLR Financial, Securities & Banking section.

New Report Highlights Need for Coordinated and Consistent U.S. Policy to Address Possible Impacts to Financial Stability Due to Climate Change

“Climate change is an emerging threat to the financial stability of the United States.” So begins a recently issued Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) Report, identifying climate change as a financial risk and threat to U.S. financial stability and highlighting a need for coordinated, stable, and clearly communicated policy objectives and actions in order to avoid a disorderly transition to a net-zero economy.

The FSOC’s members are the top regulators of the financial system in the United States, including the heads of the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Their charge is to identify risks facing the country’s financial system and respond to them. This new Report supports steps being taken by various financial regulators in the U.S.

The Report suggests four steps necessary to facilitate an orderly transition to a net-zero economy.

  1. Regulators must develop and use better tools to help policymakers. “Council members recognize that the need for better data and tools cannot justify inaction, as climate-related financial risks will become more acute if not addressed promptly.” The FSOC Report highlights the tool of scenario analysis, “a forward-looking projection of risk outcomes that provides a structured approach for considering potential future risks associated with climate change.” The FSOC recommends the use of sector- and economy-wide scenario analysis as particularly important because of the interrelated and unpredictable development of climate impacts and technologies necessary to address them. Each of these technologies may have an unexpected impact on a part of the economy.
  2. Climate-related financial risk data and methodologies for filling gaps must be addressed.  The FSOC Report noted that its members lacked the ability to effectively access and use data that may be present in the financial system. The FSOC Report also noted potential risks to lenders, insurers, infrastructure, and fund managers caused by physical and transitional risks of climate change and the need to develop tools to better understand those risks.
  3. As has been highlighted by the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) movement, disclosure by companies of their climate-related risks is a key piece of data not only for investors but also for regulators and policymakers. Disclosure regimes that promote comparable, consistent, or decision-useful data and impacts of climate change are necessary, according to the Report, and also regimes that cover both public and private entities. The Report highlights various ongoing discussions on this topic, including possible regulations by the SEC.
  4. To assess and mitigate climate-related risks on the financial system, methods of analyzing the interrelated aspects of climate change are necessary. The Report details the developing thoughts around scenario analysis as a tool to help predict the many aspects of climate change on the financial system but notes that clearly defined objectives and planning are essential for decision-useful analysis.

How to Improve Cities After COVID-19: What to Know About the Revitalizing Downtowns Act

In July, Democratic Senators Gary Peters and Debbie Stabenow (along with Democratic  Representatives Dan Kildee, John Larson, and Jimmy Gomez) introduced the Revitalizing Downtowns Act (“The Act”) to Congress. With the goal of reviving urban districts and downtown commerce, the Act would establish a new federal tax credit that encourages property developers to convert unused office space into residential or mixed-use space.

The Act defines an obsolete office structure as a building at least 25 years old, and at least 20 percent of the residential conversion must be dedicated to affordable housing. If these criteria are met, 20 percent of the conversion expenses will be covered by the tax credit. The Act has  growing support from economic development organizations across the country, including the International Downtown Association and the Federal City Council. Together, 37 organizations formed the Revitalize Our Cities coalition, committed to reenergizing downtown spaces and strengthening the U.S. economy.

The Act presents a substantial opportunity to improve American cities of all sizes. Justin P. Weinberg, Partner in Charge at Taft Stettinius & Hollister’s Minneapolis office, said of the Act, “It’s an opportunity to revitalize and reenergize existing spaces. Giving new purpose – and attracting new tenants – to buildings that would otherwise be vacant means more people, customers, and workers to build and sustain a strong community and business district where there wasn’t one before.”

How Can Federal Tax Credits Help Unused Office Space Redevelopment?

With employees still working from home and a permanent return to the office for countless businesses seeming more uncertain as the COVID-19 pandemic continues, many office buildings may remain vacant and unused, leaving downtowns with fewer opportunities for investment and revenue generation.

“This Act would be huge in encouraging all types of business to invest in downtown markets. It would be most helpful though if the tax credit provided could be used in conjunction with other credits, such as historic tax credits, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (“LIHTCs”) and/or new markets and also incentivized business owners to open. Residential development works best if it is in conjunction with other retail, services and other amenities and, of course, plenty of parking,” said Kelly Rushin Lewis, partner in Jones Walker’s tax practice and leader of the firm’s tax credit finance team.

For buildings needing a lot of work, tax credits are essential to ensuring the project has the necessary financing. Without them, many projects requiring a lot of renovations and updates may not be able to move forward, Ms. Lewis said.

“Tax incentives are a key tool in attracting private capital in neighborhoods or towns in need of revitalization. These conversions can be much more challenging than building from the ground up, especially if dealing with vacant buildings that may have environmental, zoning, code compliance, or other latent issues that may be expensive to correct. The projects often are just not financially feasible and will not get done without those incentives,” she said. “A credit or some other incentive for potential tenants in the commercial spaces would be helpful – many business owners may be reluctant to be the first or one of few to open in what may be an otherwise quiet downtown. Tax incentives would encourage them to come and hopefully give them a cushion while the neighborhood is being revitalized.”

Another potential impact of the bill would be the increased investment in affordable housing. With many cities large and small struggling to provide enough affordable housing, the Act would create an opportunity to develop vacant buildings into much-needed affordable housing developments.

“Now more than ever, investment in affordable housing is critical.  Housing costs are at an all-time high with demand outpacing supply. The costs of acquiring housing is high and the cost of building it is as well,” Ms. Lewis said. “Affordable housing developments do so much more than create housing – they create jobs and careers in everything from construction, accounting, legal work, property management, and more.”

In addition to creating jobs, the creation of affordable housing has the potential to slow down the gentrification affecting many large cities, said Lacy Clay, a former congressman from Missouri and a Senior Policy Advisor at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.

“If you can convert these older buildings into affordable housing units, then you will slow down the gentrification process taking place in quite a few of these urban centers. You can look at any major city now and see that low to moderate income families and people of color are being pushed out of those cities, and then to further into the suburbs,” he said. “This would help reverse those trends.”

How Investing in Affordable Housing Actually Can Help with the Current Labor Shortage.

The Revitalizing Downtowns Act is a timely piece of legislation for investing in urban centers during the COVID-19 pandemic. For many industries, it appears that widespread remote work is here to stay, and it is critical that American cities reflect that new reality. By providing incentives for developers and property owners, the Act makes these necessary overhauls far more viable. “Tax incentives reduce investors’ financial risk,” explained Mr. Weinberg. “[This makes] taking on such a project highly attractive.”

The bill’s emphasis on affordable housing is especially notable. Through this provision, legislators hope to provide equal footing for renters and thereby attract young talent to fill employment needs.

“I want to compliment Senator Stabenow and Gary Peters and Dan Kildee for coming up with this innovative way to be able to bring populations back in a way that does not exclude communities of color, but will include communities of color,” Mr. Clay said. “If you build enough affordable housing units, according to the legislation, at least 20 percent of any of those redevelopments have to be dedicated to affordable housing.”

Through investing in affordable housing, downtowns would benefit from an increased flow of commerce, as well as a buffer against the ongoing U.S. labor shortage and or talent mismatch.

“The trick is to prioritize affordable housing without eliminating or displacing families in market-rate housing that do not otherwise qualify for affordable housing,” said Mr. Weinberg. “But if done well, a city that strikes the right balance of available affordable housing benefits from additional economic stability and makes itself a sustainable destination for business, families, and communities.”

Copyright ©2021 National Law Forum, LLC
For More Articles on Real Estate, visit the NLR Construction & Real Estate section.

A Flurry of CFTC Actions Shock the Cryptocurrency Industry

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) sent shockwaves across the cryptocurrency industry when it issued a $1.25 million settlement order with Kraken, one of the industry’s largest market participants. The next day, the CFTC announced that it had charged each of 14 entities for offering cryptocurrency derivatives and margin trading without registering as a futures commission merchant (FCM). While the CFTC has issued regulatory guidance in the past and engaged in some regulatory enforcement activities, it has now established itself as a key regulator of the industry along with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the US Department of the Treasury (Treasury). Market participants should be aware that the CFTC will continue to take a more active role in regulation and enforcement of commodities and derivatives transactions moving forward.

The CFTC alleged that each of the defendants were acting as an unregistered FCM. Under Section 1a(28)(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act (the Act), 7 U.S.C. § 1(a)(28)(A), an FCM is any “individual, association, partnership, or trust that is engaged in soliciting or accepting orders for the purchase or sale of a commodity for future delivery; a security futures product; a swap . . . any commodity option authorized under section 6c of this title; or any leverage transaction authorized under section 23 of this title.” In order to be considered an FCM, that entity must also “accept[] money, securities, or property (or extends credit in lieu thereof) to margin, guarantee, or secure any trades or contracts that result or may result therefrom.” (See: 7 U.S.C. § 1(a)(28)(A)(II).) 7 U.S.C. § 6d(1), requires FCMs to be registered with the CFTC.

IN DEPTH

THE KRAKEN SETTLEMENT

On September 28, 2021, the CFTC issued an order, filing and settling charges against respondent Payward Ventures, Inc. d/b/a Kraken for offering margined retail commodity transactions in cryptocurrency—including Bitcoin—and failing to register as an FCM. Kraken is required to pay a $1.25 million civil monetary penalty and to cease and desist from further violations of the Act. The CFTC stated that, “This action is part of the CFTC’s broader effort to protect U.S. customers.”

The CFTC’s order finds that from approximately June 2020 to July 2021, Kraken violated Section 4(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6(a)(2018) by offering to enter into, entering into, executing and/or confirming the execution of off-exchange retail commodity transactions with US customers who were not eligible contract participants or eligible commercial entities. The CFTC also found that Kraken operated as an unregistered FCM in violation of Section 4d(a)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6d(a)(1) (2018). According to the order, Kraken served as the sole margin provider and maintained physical and/or constructive custody of all assets purchased using margins for the duration of a customer’s open margined position.

Margined transactions worked as follows: The customer opened an individual account at Kraken and deposited cryptocurrency or fiat currency into the account. The customer then initiated a trade by selecting (1) the trading pair they wished to trade, (2) a purchase or sale transaction and (3) a margin option. All trades were placed on Kraken’s central limit order book and executed individually for each customer. If a customer purchased an asset using margin, Kraken supplied the cryptocurrency or national currency to pay the seller for the asset. If a customer sold an asset using margin, Kraken supplied the cryptocurrency or national currency due to the buyer. Trading on margin allowed the customer to establish a position but also created an obligation for the customer to repay Kraken at the time the margined position was closed. The customer’s position remained open until they submitted a closing trade, they repaid the margin or Kraken initiated a forced liquidation based on the occurrence of certain triggering events, including limitations on the duration of an open margin position and pre-set margin thresholds. Kraken required customers to exit their positions and repay the assets received to trade on margin within 28 days, however, customers could not transfer assets away from Kraken until satisfying their repayment obligation. If repayment was not made within 28 days, Kraken could unilaterally force the margin position to be liquidated or could also initiate a forced liquidation if the value of the collateral dipped below a certain threshold percentage of the total outstanding margin. As a result, actual delivery of the purchased assets failed to occur.

The CFTC asserted that these transactions were unlawful because they were required to take place on a designated contract market. Additionally, by soliciting and accepting orders for, and entering into, retail commodity transactions with customers and accepting money or property (or extending credit in lieu thereof) to margin these transactions, Kraken was operating as an unregistered FCM.

Coinciding with the release of the enforcement action against Kraken, CFTC Commissioner Dawn D. Sump issued a “concurring statement.” In it, she appeared to be calling upon the CFTC to adopt more specific rules governing the products that are the subject of the enforcement action. Commissioner Sump seemed to indicate that it would be helpful to cryptocurrency market participants if the CFTC clarified its position on the applicability of the Act, as well as registration requirements. The CFTC will likely issue guidance or rules to clarify its position on which cryptocurrency-related products trigger registration requirements.

CFTC CHARGES 14 CRYPTOCURRENCY ENTITIES

On September 29, 2021, the CFTC issued a press release and 14 complaints against cryptocurrency trading platforms. The CFTC is seeking a sanction “directing [the cryptocurrency platforms] to cease and desist from violating the provisions of the Act set forth herein.” Each of the platforms have 20 days to respond.

All of the complaints are somewhat similar in that the CFTC alleges that each of the cryptocurrency platforms “from at least May 2021 and through the present” have offered services to the public “including soliciting or accepting orders for binary options that are based off the value of a variety of assets including commodities such as foreign currencies and cryptocurrencies including Bitcoin, and accepting and holding customer money in connection with those purchases of binary options.”

The CFTC has taken the position that “binary options that are based on the price of an underlying commodity like forex or cryptocurrency are swaps and commodity options as used in the definition of an FCM.” (The CFTC has previously taken the position that Bitcoin and Ethereum constitute “commodities,” doing so in public statements and enforcement actions.) In a prominent enforcement action previously filed by the CFTC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the court held that “virtual currency may be regulated by the CFTC as a commodity” and that it “falls well-within the common definition of ‘commodity’ as well as the CEA’s definition of commodities.” (See: CFTC v. McDonnell, et al., 287 F. Supp. 3d 213, 228 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2018); CFTC v. McDonnell, et al., No. 18-cv-461, ECF No. 172 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2018).) In the action the CFTC filed against BitMEX in October of 2020, it alleged that “digital assets, such as bitcoin, ether, and litecoin are ‘commodities’ as defined under Section 1a(9) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(9). (See: CFTC v. HDR Global Trading Limited, et al., No. 20-cv-8132, ECF 1, ¶ 23 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2020).)

The CFTC has previously taken the position that Bitcoin, Ethereum and Litecoin are considered commodities. However, in these recently filed complaints, the CFTC did not appear to limit the cryptocurrencies that would be considered “commodities” to just Bitcoin, Ethereum and Litecoin. Instead, the CFTC broadly referred to “commodities such as foreign currencies and cryptocurrencies including Bitcoin.” It remains to be seen which of the hundreds of cryptocurrencies on the market will be considered “commodities,” but it appears that the CFTC is not limiting its jurisdiction to just three. It is also an open question as to whether there are certain cryptocurrencies or cryptocurrency referencing financial products that the SEC and CFTC will determine are subject to the overlapping jurisdiction of both regulators, similar to mixed swaps under the derivatives rules.

The CFTC also singled out two of these cryptocurrency platforms, alleging that they issued false statements to the effect that it “is a registered FCM and RFED with the CFTC and member of the NFA.” The CFTC noted that neither of these entities were ever registered with the National Futures Association (NFA) and one of the NFA ID numbers listed “identifies an individual who was once registered with the CFTC but has been deceased since 2009.”

WHAT’S NEXT

While the SEC, Treasury and DOJ are often considered the most prominent federal regulators in the cryptocurrency space, this recent sweep by the CFTC is not the first time it has flexed its muscles. The CFTC went to trial and won in 2018, accusing an individual of operating a boiler room. In October 2020, the CFTC filed a case against popular cryptocurrency exchange BitMEX for failing to register as an FCM, among other counts. However, unlike those one-off enforcement actions, the recent actions targeting multiple market participants within two days is a big step forward for the CFTC. Cryptocurrency derivative trading has been rising in popularity over the last few years and it is unsurprising that the CFTC is taking a more active enforcement role.

It is expected that regulatory activity within the cryptocurrency space will increase from all US regulators, including the CFTC, SEC, Treasury and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, especially as cryptocurrency products are increasingly classified as financial products subject to regulation. While the CFTC and other regulators have issued some regulatory guidance, regulators appear to be taking a “regulatory guidance by enforcement action” strategy. Market participants will need to thoughtfully consider all relevant regulatory regimes in order to determine what compliance activities are necessary. As we describe, multiple classifications are possible.

© 2021 McDermott Will & Emery
For more on cryptocurrency litigation, visit the NLR Cybersecurity, Media & FCC section.

Wealth Planning in 2021: Preparing For a Changing Tax Landscape

Since President Biden took office at the beginning of this year, there has been much buzz and conjecture regarding what the tax policy under the Biden-Harris Administration would look like.  In light of the recently released Department of Treasury’s General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2022 Revenue Proposals, commonly known as the “Green Book,” we now have a better idea of the proposed tax law changes that the Administration will focus on implementing in the coming year.

While the Green Book contains various tax proposals that could significantly affect estate planning, it interestingly does not include a proposal to decrease the estate and gift tax exemption, which was a major topic of discussion during last year’s election cycle (click here to review our advisory on Estate Planning and the 2020 Election).  However, some Democrats in Congress nonetheless continue to argue for this reduction.  For example, Senator Bernie Sanders’ proposed legislation, For the 99.5% Act, would reduce the gift tax exemption to $1 million per person and the estate tax exemption to $3.5 million per person and would also impose new progressive estate tax rates ranging from 45% to 65%.

In any event, the Green Book contains the proposed tax laws that reflect the Administration’s top priorities and are more likely to be enacted than those proposals not included in the Green Book.  The Green Book proposals seek to reverse many of the tax laws included in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted under former President Trump, such as a proposed increase to individual income tax rates and an end to certain capital gains tax preferences, discussed in further detail below.

Green Book Proposals That Would Affect High Net Worth Clients:

Increase Top Marginal Individual Income Tax Rate for High-Income Earners.  The top marginal income tax rate would increase from 37% to 39.6% for taxable income in excess of the top bracket threshold.  For taxable years beginning January 1, 2022, this would apply to income in excess of $509,300 for married individuals filing jointly and $452,700 for single filers, and thereafter be indexed for inflation.

Tax Capital Gains for High-Income Earners at Ordinary Income Tax Rates.  For taxpayers with adjusted gross income of more than $1 million, long-term capital gains and qualified dividends tax rates would increase to match the proposed ordinary income tax rates.  To the extent that a taxpayer’s income exceeds $1 million, rates would go from 20% (or 23.8% including the net investment income tax (“NIIT”)) to 39.6% (or 43.4% including NIIT).  This proposal currently includes a retroactive effective date of April 28, 2021.

Treat Transfers of Appreciated Property by Gift or at Death as Realization Events.  This proposal would eliminate the so called “step up in basis loophole,” which allows for an asset transferred at death to be “stepped up” to fair market value for cost basis purposes resulting in no capital gains tax imposed on the asset’s appreciation through date of death.  Instead, the transfer of an appreciated asset by gift or at death would be treated as sold for fair market value at the time of the transfer, creating a taxable gain realization event for the donor or deceased owner.  There would, however, be a $1 million per person (or $2 million per married couple) exemption from recognition of capital gains on property transferred by gift or at death, indexed for inflation.  In addition, certain exclusions would apply, including:

  • Residence.  $250,000 per person (or $500,000 per married couple) would be excluded from capital gain on the sale or transfer of any residence.
  • Surviving spouse.  Transfers by a decedent to a U.S. citizen spouse would carry over the basis of the decedent and capital gain recognition would be deferred until the surviving spouse dies or otherwise disposes of the asset.
  • Charity.  Appreciated property transferred to charity would not generate a taxable gain; however, the transfer of appreciated assets to a split-interest charitable trust would generate a taxable gain as to the share of the value transferred attributable to any non-charitable beneficiary.
  • Tangible personal property.  No capital gain would be recognized on transfers of tangible personal property (excluding collectibles).

Although the tax imposed on gains deemed realized at death would be deductible on the estate tax return of the decedent’s estate, deductions are not equivalent to tax credits and in high tax states such as New York, the additional tax could be substantial.

Impose Gain Recognition on Property Transferred to or Distributed from an Irrevocable Trust.  Any transfers of property into, and distributions in kind from, an irrevocable trust would be treated as deemed recognition events subject to capital gains tax.  In addition, while the generation-skipping transfer (“GST”) tax exempt status of a trust would not be affected, gain would automatically be recognized on property held in an irrevocable trust which has not otherwise been subject to a taxable recognition event within the prior 90 years.  The first possible recognition event would be December 31, 2030 for any trust in existence on January 1, 1940.  This proposal would also apply to transfers to, and distributions in kind from, partnerships and other non-corporate entities.  Elimination of Valuation Discounts.  The valuation of partial interests in property contributed to a trust would be equal to the proportional share of the fair market value of all of such property.  In other words, no discounts for lack of marketability or minority interests would be allowed in valuing transfers of partial interests in LLCs, corporations, partnerships or real property.

Summary

The legislative text of the Administration’s tax proposals will likely not be available until the fall.  It is important to note that any proposed tax law changes face a split 50-50 Senate, which means that the prospect of passing any tax reform at all is uncertain.  Commentators believe that the Green Book proposals will be the subject of extensive negotiation over the next several months, including significant opposition to large increases in capital gains tax rates.  In the meantime, we at Wiggin and Dana [link to PCS attorneys page] are available to discuss the Green Book proposals in more detail and to make proactive, tailored recommendations in light of the current changing tax law landscape.

© 1998-2021 Wiggin and Dana LLP

Article by Michael T. Clear, Veronica R.S. Bauer, Robert W. Benjamin, Daniel L. Daniels, and Helen C. Heintz with Wiggin and Dana LLP.

For more articles on taxes, visit the NLR Tax section.

Agencies and Regulators Focus on AML Compliance for Cryptocurrency Industry

This year, regulators, supported by a slate of new legislation, have focused more of their efforts on AML violations and compliance deficiencies than ever before. As we have written about in the “AML Enforcement Continues to Trend in 2021” advisory, money laundering provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2021 (the NDAA) expanded the number of businesses required to report suspicious transactions, provided new tools to law enforcement to subpoena foreign banks, expanded the AML whistleblower program, and increased fines and penalties for companies who violate anti-money laundering provisions. The NDAA, consistent with Treasury regulations, also categorized cryptocurrencies as the same as fiat currencies for purposes of AML compliance.

In addition, as discussed in the “Businesses Must Prepare for Expansive AML Reporting of Beneficial Ownership Interests” advisory, the NDAA imposed new obligations on corporations, limited liability companies, and similar entities to report beneficial ownership information. Although the extent of that reporting has not yet been defined, the notice of proposed rulemaking issued by FinCEN raises serious concerns that the Treasury Department may require businesses to report beneficial ownership information for corporate affiliates, parents and subsidiaries; as well as to detail the entity’s relationship to the beneficial owner. Shortly after passage of the NDAA, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen stressed that the Act “couldn’t have come at a better time,” and pledged to prioritize its implementation.

Money laundering in the cryptocurrency space has attracted increased attention from regulators and the IRS may soon have an additional tool at its disposal if H.R. 3684 (the bipartisan infrastructure bill) is signed into law. That bill includes AML provisions that would require stringent reporting of cryptocurrency transactions by brokers. If enacted, the IRS will be able to use these reports to identify large transfers of cryptocurrency assets, conduct money laundering investigations, and secure additional taxable income. Who qualifies as a “broker,” however, is still up for debate but some fear the term may be interpreted to encompass cryptocurrency miners, wallet providers and other software developers. According to some cryptocurrency experts, such an expansive reporting regime would prove unworkable for the industry. In response, an anonymous source from the Treasury Department told Bloomberg News that Treasury was already working on guidance to limit the scope of the term.

In addition to these legislative developments, regulators are already staking their claims over jurisdiction to conduct AML investigations in the cryptocurrency area. This month, SEC Chair Gary Gensler, in arguing that the SEC had broad authority over cryptocurrency, claimed that cryptocurrency was being used to “skirt our laws,” and likened the cryptocurrency space to “the Wild West . . . rife with fraud, scams, and abuse” — a sweeping allegation that received much backlash from not only cryptocurrency groups, but other regulators as well. CFTC Commissioner Brian Quintez, for example, tweeted in response: “Just so we’re all clear here, the SEC has no authority over pure commodities . . . [including] crypto assets.” Despite this disagreement, both regulatory agencies have collected millions of dollars in penalties from companies alleged to have violated AML laws or BSA reporting requirements. Just last week, a cryptocurrency exchange reached a $100 million settlement with FinCEN and the CFTC, stemming from allegations that the exchange did not conduct adequate due diligence and failed to report suspicious transactions.

With so many governmental entities focused on combatting money laundering, companies in the cryptocurrency space must stay abreast of these fast-moving developments. The combination of increased reporting obligations, additional law enforcement tools, and heightened penalties make it essential for cryptocurrency firms to institute strong compliance programs, update their AML manuals and policies, conduct regular self-assessments, and adequately train their employees. Companies should also expect additional regulations to be issued and new legislation to be enacted in the coming year. Stay tuned.

©2021 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

SBA Will No Longer Require PPP Loan Necessity Questionnaire

In a notice sent to lenders in early July, the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) informed lenders that it is eliminating the Loan Necessity Questionnaires (the “Questionnaires”) for Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans of $2 million or greater.

The SBA’s notice stated that it would no longer request either Form 3509 (for for-profit borrowers) or SBA Form 3510 (for not-for-profit borrowers). Moreover, Questionnaires previously requested by the SBA are no longer required to be submitted and lenders have been advised to close any open requests for additional information related to Questionnaires.

The changes are effective immediately, but the SBA said it would release an FAQ shortly with more details.

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California
For more articles on PPP loans, visit the NLRCoronavirus News section.

10 Retailers to Watch for a Bankruptcy Filing in the Second Half of 2021

The tide has turned from last year! Slowly, the global pandemic is coming to an end. In its wake, the retail industry has been forever changed with technological innovations and advancements, including online ordering and delivery/pickup, warehousing, automation, and mobile self-check-out. Although most landlords and tenants have worked together during the adversity, there are still a number of problem tenants that may not be able to recover or who may now use the bankruptcy process to get rid of debt and actually restructure.

Following is our top 10 retailers to watch for possible Chapter 11 filing(s) in the year ahead.

  1. AMC – Why Go to the Movies When You Can Stream? According to the Motley Fool, despite the more than $917 million in cash infusion from the investors at the beginning of the year, there is still numerous obstacles for the movie theater company. The rise in streaming services, slow return of consumers to theaters, as well as a significant portion of their current debt being nonconvertible are all signs that there is a high likelihood of a bankruptcy filing to restructure the debt.

  2. Nine West – Footwear Company Walking into a Chapter 22? The women’s footwear company owned by Premier Brands Group Holdings previously filed for bankruptcy in 2018. At the time it reduce debt and sold the Anne Klein trademark. However according to Business Insider, the pandemic is caused a significant drop in revenue. The company looks poised for a Chapter 22 filing – a second Chapter 11 bankruptcy within a few years of the first filing.

  3. LA Fitness – A Footprint Reduction? The Wall Street Journal reports that although gyms are now re-open, the pandemic upended the fitness industry. However, out of all the gyms that suffer through the pandemic, LA Fitness seems to be in the best position to use the bankruptcy process to reduce its footprint and renegotiate leases.

  4. Jo-Ann Stores – Private Equity Debt. According to USA Today, the private-equity owned company has significant debt. This scenario is a classic reason for filing for bankruptcy – remember Toys R’ Us.

  5. Regal Entertainment Group – Significant Rent Arrears. CNBC reports that Regal’s reopening of approximately 500 locations on April 2 to limited capacity was a significant decision for the theater chain. However, like AMC, its owner, Cineworld Group PLC faces significant debt, streaming services and slow return of customers. In addition, numerous outlets report significant rent arrears to landlords.

  6. Barnes and Noble – Can It Survive? The acquisition of Paper Source was meant to create synergies between the two. However, the company is heavily reliant on food concessions as well as in-store customers. Have buyer habits changed for good due to the Pandemic? Forbes still has it on its list of specialty retailers to watch for a Chapter 11 filing.

  7. Rite Aid – A Healthier Population Hurts Business. com notes that the US pharmacy chain with 2,500 stores in 19 states, had a rough go during the Pandemic, as fewer people came down with colds or coughs as they sheltered at home. According to Moody’s, the company is in danger of default as it holds $1.5 billion in outstanding high-risk debt.

  8. Equinox – Another Gym Filing? According to Crain’s New York, landlords are pursuing the private health club for more than $6 million in back rent. Bloomberg noted in February 2021 that the company reached a deal that released it from a limited guarantee of SoulCycle’s $265 million credit facility with lender HPS Investment Partners. Still, the heavy back rent, multiple locations and other debt issues make the gym a perfect candidate for a Chapter 11 restructuring.

  9. The Children’s Place – Losses Keep Piling Up. According to the Forbes, the pandemic accelerated apparel filings. One retailer listed at the top of the list for this year is The Children’s Place. The largest children apparel retailer is on track to close more than 300 stores. Although the company negotiated about $13 million in rent abatements in the fourth quarter 2020 for the COVID-closure period, it may not be enough to avoid a filing.

  10. The Gap – Fall Into Bankruptcy? S. News & World Report’s notes that the company’s long-term debt increased from 1.24 billion to 2.21 billion in 2000 due to the pandemic. Although its business is expected to recover as malls reopened and shoppers return, there is still a concern of the decline in mall traffic long-term.

COPYRIGHT © 2021, STARK & STARK
For more articles on bankruptcy, visit the NLRBankruptcy & Restructuring section.