Category: Financial Services Law

What ERISA Plans Should Know about Money Market Reform

Drinker Biddle Law Firm

Most U.S. money market funds will begin restructuring their operations beginning in 2014 and throughout 2015 and 2016 as a result of the SEC’s adoption of wide ranging changes to the rules regulating these funds.  Since many plan participants invest in money market funds, ERISA plan sponsors, recordkeepers and investment consultants and other advisers will need to plan for operational, contractual, disclosure and other changes in connection with these new rules.

Floating and Stable NAV Funds

One of the biggest rule changes involves how money market funds will be allowed to value their shares.  Currently, money market funds generally offer shares at a stable net asset value (“NAV’) of $1.00.  Under the SEC’s new money market rules, only government and “retail” money market funds can offer their shares at a stable NAV.  Government money market funds are those funds that hold at least 99.5% of their investments in government securities, cash or repurchase agreements collateralized by government securities.  Money market funds that don’t qualify to offer shares at a stable NAV because of the nature of their shareholder base (i.e., institutional money market funds) will have to float their NAVs, meaning the share price will fluctuate from day to day.

Retail money market funds are funds that restrict investors only to beneficial owners that are natural persons.  A beneficial owner is any person who has direct or indirect, sole or shared voting and/or investment power.  Under the new rules, retail money market funds will be required to reasonably conclude that beneficial owners of intermediaries are natural persons.  The SEC stated that tax-advantaged savings accounts and trusts, such as (i) participant-directed defined contribution plans; (ii) individual retirement accounts; (iii) simplified employee pension arrangements, and other similar types of arrangements, would qualify for the natural person test.  On the other hand, defined benefit plans, endowments and small businesses are not considered “natural persons” and would not be eligible to invest in a retail money market fund.

It is widely expected that the SEC’s new money market rules will result in many changes in fund offerings.  For example:

  • Money market funds that currently have both institutional and natural persons as holders may spin off the institutional holders into separate floating NAV funds;

  • Some institutional funds may decide to liquidate or merge with other funds;

  • Some advisers may begin offering new money fund-“like” products that only hold short term securities (60 days or less maturity) and therefore value fund holdings at amortized cost; and

  • Some prime money market funds may change their investment strategies to operate as a government money market fund in order to steer clear of the floating NAV and liquidity fee and gate rules (discussed below).

Effect on ERISA Plans.  The SEC provided examples of how funds could satisfy the natural person definition with intermediaries, including through: contractual arrangements, periodic certifications and representations or other verification methods.  Accordingly, ERISA service providers who hold fund shares in omnibus accounts may expect to be contacted by retail money market funds to provide these certifications or representations and/or to enter into new agreements with funds for this purpose.

ERISA plan sponsors and investment consultants and advisers will also need to be alert to potential changes to existing money market funds currently offered in plans to which they provide services and/or new fund offerings that may be appealing to and/or better serve the best interests of participants.

Liquidity Fees and Redemption Gates

All money market funds, except government money market funds, will be subject to the SEC’s new rules with respect to the imposition of liquidity (or redemption) fees and redemption gates during periods when a money market fund’s weekly liquid assets dip below certain thresholds.  Under these new rules a fund board may impose up to a 2% liquidity fee and a gate on fund redemptions if weekly liquid assets fall below 30% of total assets.  The fund board must impose a 1% liquidity fee if weekly liquid assets fall below 10% of total assets, unless the board decides otherwise.  Of course, if 10% of a money market fund’s assets are below 10% of a fund’s total assets, it would be unlikely that a board would not impose liquidity fees and redemption gates.  The redemption gates can last no longer than 10 days and cannot be imposed more than once in a 90-day period.

Effect on ERISA Plans.  The liquidity fee and gate requirements will usually only be triggered in times of extreme market stress.  But they are features that many ERISA participants and ERISA service providers will not find appealing.  For that reason, there may be more demand from participants for government money market funds, which may, but are not required to, comply with the fee and gate rules.  It is not expected that government money market funds will opt to become subject to these fee and gate rules.

The liquidity fee and redemption gate rules will require recordkeepers to make technical changes in their operations.  These operational changes could be expensive and time consuming to implement especially for smaller plans.  In particular, it should be noted that liquidity fees may vary in amount depending on a fund board’s determination and redemption gates may vary in the amount of days and will need to be removed quickly upon notice by a fund board.  Additionally, there may be contractual impediments to implementation of liquidity fees and gates, which are discussed below.

Many commenters on the proposed money market rules raised questions with the SEC regarding possible conflicts caused by the application of the fee and gate rules to funds in ERISA and other tax-exempt plans.  Specifically, commenters mentioned the following issues with the fee and/or gate rules:

  • possible violations of certain minimum distribution rules that could be interfered with by the gate rule;

  • potential taxation as a result of the inability to process certain mandatory refunds on a timely basis;

  • delays in plan conversions or rollovers;

  • possible conflicts with the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) qualified default investment (“QDIA”) rules; and

  • conflicts with plan fiduciaries’ duties regarding maintenance of adequate liquidity in their plans.

The SEC’s response generally was that these concerns either were unlikely to materialize or could be mitigated by ERISA plan sponsors or service providers.  For example, with respect to QDIAs, the SEC suggested that a plan sponsor or service provider could (i) loan funds to a plan for operating expenses to avoid the effects of a gate, or (ii) pay a liquidity fee on behalf of a redeeming participant.  In connection with rollovers or conversions, the SEC likewise pointed out that if the liquidity fee caused a hardship on a participant, then the ERISA fiduciary or its affiliate could simply pay the liquidity fee; failing that, the SEC suggested that the fiduciary consider a government money market fund for investment purposes, which is not required to comply with the fee and gate rules.

The SEC continues to work with the DOL on these and other ERISA-and tax exempt specific issues but thus far has not provided any relief from its fee and gate rules for these types of plans and accounts.  Thus, ERISA fiduciaries and plan sponsors may need to consider money market fund offerings in their plans in light of these issues.

Contractual Issues

As noted above, the “natural person” requirements for retail money market funds will require these funds to ascertain information regarding beneficial ownership of fund shares from ERISA intermediaries.  Retail money market funds may ask ERISA intermediaries to make representations about their customers through revised service agreements containing representations about the nature of the intermediaries’ customers.  These funds may also use periodic certifications or questionnaires to obtain this information.

In addition, many existing contracts between money market funds and intermediaries have restrictions in them regarding the imposition of redemption fees and may restrict a fund’s right to delay effecting redemptions thereby putting them in conflict with the new liquidity fee and redemption gate rules.  Recordkeepers who contract with retail or institutional money market funds may therefore be asked by these funds to amend or otherwise revise their servicing agreements with the funds to provide for liquidity fees and redemption gates.

Pricing Changes

The new money market rules will require all floating NAV money market funds to price their shares to four decimal places (e.g., $1.0000).  Recordkeepers will need to adjust their systems to accommodate the four-decimal place pricing system.

Disclosure and Education/Training

ERISA service providers will need to train and educate their personnel on the new money market rules and fund options so that they can answer participants’ questions.  ERISA service providers will need to develop disclosure for ERISA participants that clearly describes the risks and differences in money market funds and new fund options.

Compliance Dates

The new money market rules take effect in various stages over the next two years.  Importantly, the floating NAV, decimal pricing, and liquidity fee and gate rules become effective on October 14, 2016.  That said, the mutual fund industry appears to be moving quickly to prepare to comply, and it is probable that investment advisers to money market funds will begin to make some changes, for example, creating new funds and separating retail and institutional shareholders into different funds well ahead of the 2016 compliance date.  Therefore, ERISA service providers will need to be alert to the possibility that their operations may need to be adjusted as these changes occur.

The SEC’s new money market rules will usher in many changes to money market funds over the next 18-24 months that will affect ERISA and tax-exempt participants who invest in these vehicles and ERISA service providers.  ERISA service providers should begin preparing for these changes by assessing their systems, as applicable, to evaluate whether they can comply with the new rules and, if not, what other investment options might be available to address participants’ short-term investment needs.  ERISA service providers may also want to consider whether non-government money market funds or other short-term liquidity vehicles should be offered to ERISA participants in light of the new fee and gate rules.

ARTICLE BY

Diana E. McCarthy
OF
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Register today for the ABA's Consumer Financial Services Basics 2014 – October 6-7 in Baltimore

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming American Bar Association event, the 5th Annual Consumer Financial Services Basics 2014 conference.

ABA Oct. 2014 Consumer Financial

This live meeting is designed to expose practitioners to key areas of consumer financial services law, whether you need a primer or a refresher. In the pressure cooker of today’s financial services industry, the breadth and complexity of the issues you are facing will dominate any seminar dissecting recent developments alone.  It is time to take a step back and think through some of these complex issues with a faculty that combines decades of practical experience with law school analysis. The classroom approach is used to review the background, assess the current policy factors, step into the shoes of regulators, and develop an approach that can be used to interpret and evaluate the scores of laws and regulations that affect your clients.

Join the ABA on October 6-7 in Baltimore: Consumer Financial Services Basics 2014

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming American Bar Association event, the 5th Annual Consumer Financial Services Basics 2014 conference.

ABA Oct. 2014 Consumer Financial

This live meeting is designed to expose practitioners to key areas of consumer financial services law, whether you need a primer or a refresher. In the pressure cooker of today’s financial services industry, the breadth and complexity of the issues you are facing will dominate any seminar dissecting recent developments alone.  It is time to take a step back and think through some of these complex issues with a faculty that combines decades of practical experience with law school analysis. The classroom approach is used to review the background, assess the current policy factors, step into the shoes of regulators, and develop an approach that can be used to interpret and evaluate the scores of laws and regulations that affect your clients.

Register for the ABA Consumer Financial Services Basics 2014 – October 6-7, University of Maryland, Baltimore

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming American Bar Association event, the 5th Annual Consumer Financial Services Basics 2014 conference.

ABA Oct. 2014 Consumer Financial

This live meeting is designed to expose practitioners to key areas of consumer financial services law, whether you need a primer or a refresher. In the pressure cooker of today’s financial services industry, the breadth and complexity of the issues you are facing will dominate any seminar dissecting recent developments alone.  It is time to take a step back and think through some of these complex issues with a faculty that combines decades of practical experience with law school analysis. The classroom approach is used to review the background, assess the current policy factors, step into the shoes of regulators, and develop an approach that can be used to interpret and evaluate the scores of laws and regulations that affect your clients.

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) Proposes Anti-Money Laundering Rules

Vedder Price Law Firm

On July 23, 2014, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would amend existing Bank Secrecy Act regulations with respect to customer due diligence (CDD) requirements for certain covered financial institutions, including mutual funds, brokers or dealers in securities and futures commission merchants and introducing brokers in commodities. The proposed rules would formalize certain CDD requirements and also require that covered financial institutions “identify and verify the beneficial owners of legal entity customers.” FinCEN’s proposal includes a standard certification form that covered financial institutions would be required to use for documenting the beneficial ownership of their legal entity customers. An individual may qualify as a “beneficial owner” of a legal entity customer if the individual either (1) owns 25% or more of the equity interests of the entity, or (2) has significant management responsibilities within the entity. As proposed, covered financial institutions would be exempted from identifying the beneficial owners of an intermediary’s underlying clients if the covered financial institution has no customer identification program obligation with respect to those underlying clients.

Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are due by October 3, 2014.

ARTICLE BY

Investment Services Group
OF
Vedder Price

New York Proposes First State Bitcoin Regulations

Proskauer Law firm

One might have thought the biggest news in the digital currency world lately was Dell announcing that it was now accepting bitcoin. However, after a series of highly-publicized hearings in January, New York State rolled out its proposed regulations surrounding bitcoin and virtual currency – the first state in the nation to propose licensing requirements for virtual currency businesses.

 

The July 23rd New York State Register includes a Notice of Proposed Rule Making from the New York State Department of Financial Services (the “NYSDFS”) regarding the regulation of virtual currency (“Regulation of the Conduct of Virtual Currency Businesses,” No. DFS-29-14-00015-P). The proposed rule calls for the creation of the “bitlicense” which the NYSDFS has hinted at in the past. The state agency goals are two-fold: to protect New York consumers and users and ensure the safety and soundness of New York licensed providers of virtual currency products and services. Virtual currency is still a nascent industry that is generally unregulated outside of federal anti-money laundering regulations, and while anti-establishment bitcoin pioneers may revel in the “wild west” atmosphere of the digital currency, the NYSDFS feels that their proposed regulations will protect consumers from undue risk, encourage prudent practices for those engaged in virtual currency business activity and foster the growth of the New York financial sector.

 

The Notice, which refers to the full text of the proposed rule originally made available by NYSDFS on July 17th, marks the beginning of a 45-day window for public comment on the proposed rule. Interestingly, the NYSDFS concurrently released a copy of the proposed regulations on the social news site Reddit to elicit debate (note, Ben Lawsky, Superintendent of Financial Services at the NYSDFS, participated in a Reddit AMA (“Ask Me Anything”) session in February as the agency was developing the rules).

 

The proposed rule appears to be drafted to carefully exclude merchants and bitcoin miners from the scope of the licensing requirement, but include exchanges, digital wallet services, merchant service providers and others in the virtual currency ecosystem. It imposes many of the same types of requirements that we already have in the area of money transmission and clearing house services, including capital requirements, anti-money laundering safeguards, and “know your customer” type issues. It also includes requirements with respect to business continuity and cyber security issues.

 

This alert will outline some of the major elements of the “bitlicense” regulations.

 

Who’s Covered?

 

Under the proposed regulations, “Virtual Currency Business Activity” means any one of the following activities involving New York or a New York resident:

 

(1) receiving Virtual Currency for transmission or transmitting the same;

(2) securing, storing, holding, or maintaining custody or control of Virtual Currency on behalf of others;

(3) buying and selling Virtual Currency as a customer business;

(4) performing retail conversion services, including the conversion or exchange of Fiat Currency or other value into Virtual Currency, the conversion or exchange of Virtual Currency into Fiat Currency or other value, or the conversion or exchange of one form of Virtual Currency into another form of Virtual Currency; or

(5) controlling, administering, or issuing a Virtual Currency.

 

Such “virtual currency businesses” would have to obtain a license from the agency before engaging in any such business activity, though persons chartered under the New York Banking Law to conduct exchange services and are approved by the NYSDFS to engage in virtual currency business activity would be exempt. As previously mentioned, the proposed rules seemingly excludes consumers who buy goods and services with digital currency, merchants who accept digital currency and bitcoin miners from the scope of the licensing requirement, but explicitly include digital currency exchanges, digital wallet apps and services, merchant service providers, virtual currency issuers,  and other similarly situated businesses.  Specially, the agency is not seeking to regulate virtual currency used solely on online gaming platforms or digital units used exclusively for customer affinity or rewards program, but cannot be converted into fiat currency.

 

Other Important Requirements

 

  • Application Details:  Applicants would have to submit financial, insurance and banking particulars; organization charts and background reports for the principal officers and stockholders (along with fingerprints for officers, principals and employees); and an explanation of the methods used to calculate the value of virtual currency in fiat currency, among other things. Upon filing of an application, the agency will investigate the financial condition and responsibility of the applicant before issuing the bitlicense, and may revoke the license on sufficient grounds. Moreover, if the licensee wants to make a “material change” to an existing product or service, it would need the NYSDFS’s prior approval; similar approval would be required in the event of any changes of control or mergers and acquisitions.
  • Compliance: Applicants would have to comply with all federal and state laws and regulations, appoint a compliance officer to monitor activity within the business, and maintain written compliance policies relating to anti-fraud, anti-money laundering, cybersecurity, and privacy and data security. In addition, virtual currency businesses would have to submit quarterly financial statements and audited annual financial statements to the NYSDFS.
  • Capital Requirements: The proposed regulations do not outline specific capital requirements. Rather, the text suggests that licensee shall maintain levels of capital as the NYSDFS determines is sufficient to ensure financial stability, taking into account basic financial barometers. The proposed regulations also would require licensees to only invest earnings in high-quality investments with maturities of up to one year, such as certificates of deposit regulated under U.S. law, money market funds, state or municipal bonds, or U.S. Gov’t securities.
  • Anti-Money Laundering: Each licensee would be expected to enforce an anti-money laundering program with adequate internal controls and training, as well as a written policy reviewed and approved by the licensee’s board. Under the regulations, virtual currency records would have to include records containing the identity and physical addresses of the parties involved, the amount of the transaction, the method of payment, the date(s) on which the transaction was initiated and completed, a description of the transaction, and special reports of any aggregate daily transactions that exceed $10,000 or otherwise involve suspicious activity. Covered businesses would also have to conduct adequate due diligence on new customers, with enhanced scrutiny for foreign entities. Such regulations are presumably similar to the March 2013 Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) Guidance (FIN-2013-G001), which clarified that federal anti-money laundering regulations covering  “money services businesses” also applied to virtual currency exchanges.
  • Examinations: Each licensee would have to permit the NYSDFS to examine the licensee’s accounting and operations at least once every two years to determine financial stability, business soundness and compliance.
  • Cybersecurity: Under the bitlicense regulations, each licensee would have to establish an effective cybersecurity program for their electronic systems and maintain a written cybersecurity policy that covers data and network security, data governance, access controls, business continuity and disaster recovery, customer privacy, vendor management, and incident response, among others. Licensees would also have to appoint a Chief Information Security Officer responsible for implementing the cybersecurity program and also submit an annual report assessing the cybersecurity program.
  • Protection of Customer Assets: The regulations would require each licensee to maintain a bond or trust account for the benefit of its customers in an amount acceptable to the NYSDFS, and hold virtual currency of the same type and amount the licensee is storing for a customer. The licensee would be prohibited from selling or encumbering virtual currency assets stored on behalf of a customer.
  • Consumer Protection: The proposed regulations require certain disclosures before a consumer may enter into a transaction, including disclosure of the material risks associated with digital currency (e.g., digital currency is not legal tender, transactions are generally irreversible, values may fluctuate, and cyberattacks are a real concern), the general terms and conditions of conducting business with the licensee, and a detailed receipt following the completion of any transaction.

 

Looking Ahead

 

All entities involved in or planning on being involved in virtual currency-related businesses should study this proposed rule carefully. There is still an opportunity to voice concerns and have the final rule reflect any issues that the NYSDFS views as important (for example, some commentators have suggested that the regulations should contain exemptions for smaller digital currency start-ups that handle small transactions, while the Bitcoin Foundation suggests that the comment period should be open for a longer period of time to allow the industry to digest the proposal). It is likely that whatever is enacted in New York will be used as a model in other states that wish to enact a similar virtual currency licensing structure. Moreover, the regulations, as they stand today, require that any entity engaged in a “virtual currency business activity” would have to apply for a license within 45 days of the effective date of the regulations or risk being deemed to be conducting an unlicensed virtual currency business, further suggesting the importance in getting up to speed with the emerging digital currency regulatory environment in New York. It remains to be seen how onerous the final regulations and compliance obligations will be to both established digital currency service providers and start-ups alike.

Article By:

Robert. J Cleary
James P Gerkis
Martin T Hamilton
Arnold S Jacobs
Jeffrey D Neuburger
Dietrich L Snell
Of:
Proskauer Rose LLP

 

Update on USCIS Processing Time for I-526, I-829 and I-924 Petitions

Greenberg Traurig Law firm

On July 17, 2014, USCIS released updated processing times for EB-5 related petitions. The following chart provides the average processing times for cases being adjudicated by the Immigrant Investor Program Office (IPO), as May 31, 2014:

Form Processing Timeframe
as of May 31, 2014

I-526, Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur

 13.2 months

I-829, Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions

 7.9 months
I-924, Application for Regional Center 5.4 months

USCIS reminds I-526 applicants that case status can be checked online at www.uscis.gov or through an email to USCIS.ImmigrantInvestorProgram@uscis.dhs.gov.

Article By:

Ali Brodie
Of:
Greenberg Traurig, LLP

The Supreme Court of the United States Holds that ESOP Fiduciaries are not Entitled to a Presumption of Prudence, Clarifies Standards for Stock Drop Claims

Dickinson Wright Logo

On June 25, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that there is no special presumption of prudence for fiduciaries of employee stock ownership plans (“ESOPs”). Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, No. 12-751, 573 U.S. ___ (June 25, 2014) (slip op.).

Background

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”) imposes legal duties on fiduciaries of employee benefit plans, including ESOPs.[1] Specifically, ERISA requires the fiduciary of an employee benefit plan to act prudently in managing the plan’s assets.[2] In addition, ERISA requires the fiduciary to diversify plan assets.[3]

ESOPs are designed to be invested primarily in employer securities.[4] ERISA exempts ESOP fiduciaries from the duty of diversify plan assets and from the duty to prudently manage plan assets, but only to the extent that prudence requires diversification of plan assets.[5]

The recent financial crisis generated a wave of ERISA “stock drop” cases, which were filed after a precipitous drop in the value of employer securities held in an ESOP. Generally, the plaintiff alleged that the ESOP fiduciary breached its duty of prudence by investing in employer securities or continuing to offer employer securities as an investment alternative. Defendant fiduciaries defended on the ground that the plaintiff failed to rebut the legal presumption that the fiduciary acted prudently by investing in employer securities or continuing to offer employer securities as an investment alternative.

The Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals that had considered the issue adopted the rebuttable presumption of prudence but split on the issues of (1) whether the legal presumption applied at the pleadings stage of litigation or whether the legal presumption was evidentiary in nature and did not apply at the pleadings stage of litigation and (2) the rebuttal standard that the plaintiff of a stock drop action must satisfy.[6]

Dudenhoeffer held that ESOP fiduciaries are not entitled to a legal presumption that they acted prudently by investing in employer securities or continuing to offer employer securities as an investment alternative.[7]

The Dudenhoeffer Case

Fifth Third Bancorp maintained a defined contribution plan, which offered participants a number of investment alternatives, including the company’s ESOP. The terms of the ESOP required that its assets be “invested primarily in shares of common stock of Fifth Third [Bancorp].”[8] The company offered a matching contribution that was initially invested in the ESOP. In addition, participants could make elective deferrals to the ESOP.

ESOP participants alleged that the ESOP fiduciaries knew or should have known on the basis of public information that the employer securities were overvalued and an excessively risky investment. In addition, the ESOP fiduciaries knew or should have known on the basis of non-public information that the employer securities were overvalued. Plaintiffs contended that a prudent ESOP fiduciary would have responded to this public and non-public information by (1) divesting the ESOP of employer securities, (2) refraining from investing in employer securities, (3) cancelling the ESOP investment alternative, and (4) disclosing non-public information to adjust the market price of the employer securities.

Procedural Posture

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, holding that ESOP fiduciaries were entitled to a presumption of prudence with respect to their collective decisions to invest in employer securities and continue to offer employer securities as an investment alternative.[9] The District Court concluded that presumption of prudence applied at the pleadings stage of litigation and that the plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption.[10]

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court judgment, holding that the presumption of prudence is evidentiary in nature and does not apply at the pleadings stage of litigation.[11] The Sixth Circuit concluded that the complaint stated a claim for a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence.[12]

ESOP Fiduciaries Not Entitled to Presumption of Prudence

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the United States held that ESOP fiduciaries are not entitled to a presumption of prudence with regard to their decisions to invest in employer securities and continue to offer employer securities as an investment alternative; rather, ESOP fiduciaries are subject to the same duty of prudence that applies to other ERISA fiduciaries, except that ESOP fiduciaries need not diversify plan assets.[13]

The Court began its analysis b
y acknowledging a tension within the statutory framework of ERISA. On the one hand, ERISA imposes a duty on all fiduciaries to discharge their duties prudently, which includes an obligation to diversify plan assets. On the other hand, ERISA recognizes that ESOPs are designed to invest primarily in employer securities and are not intended to hold diversified assets. The Court concluded that an ESOP fiduciary is not subject to the duty of prudence to the extent that the legal obligation requires the ESOP fiduciary to diversify plan assets. The Court found no special legal presumption favoring ESOP fiduciaries.

New Standards for Stock Drop Claims

Although the Court rejected the presumption of prudence, it vacated the judgment of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (which held that the complaint properly stated a claim) and announced new standards for lower courts to observe in evaluating whether a complaint properly pleads a claim that an ESOP fiduciary breached its fiduciary duty of prudence by investing in employer securities or continuing to offer employer securities as an investment alternative.

Public Information

First, the Court concluded that “where a stock is publicly traded, allegations that a fiduciary should have recognized from publicly available information alone that the market was over- or undervaluing the stock are implausible as a general rule, at least in the absence of special circumstances.”[14] In other words, a plaintiff generally cannot state a plausible claim of imprudence based solely on publicly available information. An ESOP fiduciary does not necessarily act imprudently by observing the efficient market theory, which holds that a major stock market provides the best estimate of the value of employer securities. To be clear, the Court did not rule out the possibility that a plaintiff could properly plead imprudence based on publicly available information indicating special circumstances affecting the reliability of the market price.

Non-Public Information

Second, the Court concluded that “[t]o state a claim for breach of the duty of prudence on the basis of inside information, a plaintiff must plausibly allege an alternative action that the [fiduciary] could have taken that would have been consistent with [applicable Federal and state securities laws] and that a prudent fiduciary in the same circumstances would not have viewed as more likely to harm the [ESOP] than to help it.”[15]

The Court reasoned that where a complaint alleges imprudence based on an ESOP fiduciary’s failure to act on non-public information, a lower court’s analysis should be guided by three considerations. First, ERISA does not require a fiduciary to violate applicable Federal and state securities laws. In other words, an ESOP fiduciary does not act imprudently by declining to divest the ESOP of employer securities or by prohibiting investments in employer securities on the basis of non-public information. Second, where a complaint faults fiduciaries for failing to decide, on the basis of non-public information, to refrain from making additional investments in employer securities or for failing to disclose non-public information to correct the valuation of the employer securities, lower courts should consider the extent to which the duty of prudence conflicts with complex insider trading and corporate disclosure requirements imposed by Federal securities laws or the objectives of such laws. Third, lower courts should consider whether the complaint has plausibly alleged that a prudent fiduciary could not have concluded that discontinuing investments in employer securities or disclosing adverse, non-public information to the public, or taking any other action suggested by the plaintiff would result in more harm than good to the ESOP by causing a drop in the value of the employer securities.

Quantifying the Unknowns

Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer will undoubtedly reshape the landscape of ERISA litigation and, specifically, stock drop litigation. To fully understand the decision’s impact, a number of questions must still be answered, including the correct application of the standards espoused by the Court. In addition, Dudenhoeffer involved a publicly-traded company; it is unclear what application, if any, the decision will have in the context of employer securities of a privately held company.

Article By:

Christopher T. Horner
Eric W. Gregory
 
Of: 
Dickinson Wright PLLC

 

[1] See generally, ERISA § 404(a).

[2] ERISA § 404(a)(1)(B).

[3] ERISA § 404(a)(1)(C).

[4] Code § 4975(e)(7)(A).

[5] ERISA § 404(a)(2).

[6] See e.g. Moench v. Robertson, 62 F.3d 553, 571 (3d Cir. 1995); In re Citigroup ERISA Litig., 662 F.3d 128, 138 (2d Cir. 2011); Kirschbaum v. Reliant Energy, Inc., 526 F.3d 243, 254 (5th Cir. 2008); Kuper v. Iovenko, 66 F.3d 1447 (6th Cir. 1995); White v. Marshall & Ilsley Corp., Case No. 11-2660, 2013 WL 1688918 (7th Cir. Apr. 19, 2013); Quan v. Computer Sciences Corp., 623 F.3d 870, 881 (9th Cir. 2010);Lanfear v. Home Depot, Inc., 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012).

[7] No. 12-751, 573 U.S. ____ at 1-2.

[8] Id.

[9] Dudenhoeffer v. Fifth Third Bancorp, Inc., 757 F. Supp. 2d 753, 759 (S.D. Ohio 2010).

[10] Id. At 762.

[11] Dudenhoeffer v. Fifth Third Bancorp, 692 F. 3d 410, 418-19 (2012).

[12] Id. At 423.

[13] Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, No. 12-751, 573 U.S. ___ at 1-2.

[14] Id. At 16.

[15] Id. At 18.

Supreme Court: Checking in on Bank Fraud

Bracewell & Giuliani Logo

In Loughrin v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-316, the Supremes approved the application of the federal bank fraud statute to a relatively unsophisticated check cashing scheme, leading to the collective hand-wringing by a host of internet commentators who decried the federalization of state crimes and runaway prices at Whole Foods. The defendant in the underlying case was a pillar of the community named Kevin Loughrin, who stole and altered checks so that he could buy merchandise at his local Target stores, leading to six federal bank fraud charges. According the case record, Loughrin intended to buy merchandise with the checks and return them for cash refunds. Let’s face it, this was not the world’s most enterprising criminal.

What was enterprising, however, was Loughrin’s argument that he intended to target Target and not a federally-insured financial institution. According to Loughrin, a conviction for bank fraud required that prosecutors prove intent to defraud the banks on which the checks were drawn. Otherwise, suggested Loughrin, the federal bank fraud statute would extend to ordinary, unsophisticated frauds that simply involve payment by check – an area that was typically left to prosecution by the states.

Setting aside the debate between the breadth and scope of federal criminal laws (sorry, breathless internet commentators!), I’d instead like to talk about how bank fraud may not be bank fraud even though it’s bank fraud. Make sense? No? Hmm. Let me try again.

The Supremes cleared up that bank fraud applies to things like Loughren’s moronic basic check cashing scheme because of the use of checks, right? And this helps with the definition of what bank fraud actually is and what conduct bank fraud actually covers. But while the crime of bank fraud has become a little more clear, there is still absolutely no straightforward way of figuring out whether your local U.S. Attorney’s Office will actually prosecute the case or not.

“What?” you say indignantly. “But crime has been committed! Criminals must be punished! Heads must roll!” Oh, I agree. And you would be hard pressed to find people who do not agree (criminals have terrible lobbyists). But charging decisions are left entirely to the discretion of local U.S. Attorney’s offices, which must balance Department of Justice priorities with local priorities, office staff, and agency resources. So while a bank fraud of $30,000 in Billings, Montana may capture federal attention, the same fraud in Los Angeles, California, is likely going to be declined by federal prosecutors. The problem becomes more acute when the arbitrary lines bisect the same bustling metropolis, like what happens between the Northern and Eastern District of Texas or between the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. It is entirely possible, for example, that federal prosecution in the Dallas area depends on where a criminal decides to exit Highway 75.

Does that sound arbitrary? If so, it’s because it is. But it’s the system that we have. And because of that system, bank fraud may not be bank fraud . . . even though it’s bank fraud.

Article By:

Shamoil T. Shipchandler
Of:
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

Bank Regulators Require Changes to Tax Allocation Agreements

Dickinson Wright Logo

Acting in response to divergent results in recent court decisions, the Federal bankregulatory agencies have adopted an Addendum to their longstanding rules regardingincome tax allocation agreements between insured depository institutions (“IDI”) and their parent holding companies.[i] The Addendum requires holding companies and their IDI subsidiaries to review their existing income tax allocation agreements and to add a specified provision. The review and modifications must be effected as soon as reasonably possible, which the regulators expect to be prior to October 31, 2014.

Background

Most banks and thrift institutions holding deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) are subsidiaries in a holding company structure. The Federal and State income tax returns of these IDI, as members of a consolidated group, are usually filed by the holding company parent. Refunds and other tax benefits of the consolidated group attributable to the IDI subsidiaries received by a parent holding company must be allocated to the IDI subsidiaries.

Since 1998, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board”), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the FDIC (collectively, the “Agencies”) have applied uniform rules regarding such allocations. They are set forth in their Interagency Policy Statement on Income Tax Allocation in a Holding Company Structure (the “Policy”).[ii]

The Policy generally mandates that inter-corporate settlements between an IDI and its parent holding company be conducted in a manner that is no less favorable to the IDI than if it were a separate taxpayer. It also establishes a supervisory expectation that a comprehensive written tax allocation agreement will be entered into between a parent holding company and its IDI subsidiaries.

Among other things, the Policy specifies that a parent holding company that receives a tax refund from a taxing authority holds such funds as agent for the members of the consolidated group. It also requires that neither the tax allocation agreement nor the corporate policies of the parent holding company should purport to characterize refunds attributable to an IDI subsidiary received from a taxing authority as being property of the parent.

Addendum to the Policy

In several holding company bankruptcies since 2008, the FDIC has been unsuccessful in recovering for IDI subsidiaries tax refunds received and held by the parent holding company. In those cases, the courts have interpreted the applicable tax allocation agreement as creating a debtor-creditor relationship between the parent holding company and its IDI subsidiaries. Those courts have reached that result notwithstanding the Policy and its mandate that a parent holding company act as an agent for its IDI subsidiaries.[iii]Although other decisions have interpreted tax allocation agreements consistently with the Policy, the Agencies determined to modify the Policy and require additional action by holding companies and IDI with a view to avoiding such situations in future.

Under the Addendum to the Policy, each tax allocation agreement must be reviewed and revised to ensure that it explicitly acknowledges an agency relationship between the holding company and its subsidiary IDI with respect to tax refunds and does not contain any other language to suggest a contrary intent. A sample paragraph which the Agencies regard as sufficient is included in the Addendum.

The Addendum to the Policy also makes clear that tax allocation agreements are subject to the requirements of Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act. Among other things, this means that the parent holding company must promptly transmit tax refunds received from a taxing authority to its subsidiary IDI. An agreement that permits a parent holding company to hold and not promptly transmit tax refunds owed to an IDI may be regarded by the Agencies as inconsistent with Section 23B, and may subject the holding company and IDI to supervisory action. Similarly, an agreement that fails to clearly establish the agency relationship between the parent holding company and its IDI subsidiaries may be treated as subject to the loan collateralization and other requirements of Section 23A.

Conclusion

The Addendum the Agencies have made to the Policy does not represent a change in supervisory approach to these issues. It is a clarification in light of adverse bankruptcy experience and constitutes a reaffirmation of the Policy. Parent holding companies and IDI subsidiaries should arrange for a review of their existing tax allocation agreements and the inclusion in those agreements of the provision specified in the Addendum to the Policy. Action is required as soon as reasonably possible, but in any event before October 31, 2014.

Article By:

John K. Lawrence
Of:
Dickinson Wright PLLC

[i] Board Press Release (June 13, 2014). The Addendum will be published in the Federal Register.

[ii] 63 Fed. Reg. 64757 (Nov. 23, 1998).

[iii] See, e.g., FDIC v. Siegel (In re IndyMac Bancorp, Inc.), 2014 WL 1568759 (9th Cir., 2014).

© Copyright 2014 Dickinson Wright PLLC