Category: Financial Services Law

The Libor Scandal: What’s Next? Re: London Interbank Offered Rate

GT Law

The London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor) is calculated daily by the British Banking Association (BBA) and published by Thomson Reuters. The rates are calculated by surveying the interbank borrowing costs of a panel of banks and averaging them to create an index of 15 separate Libor rates for different maturities (ranging from overnight to one year) and currencies. The Libor rate is used to calculate interest rates in an estimated $350 trillion worth of transactions worldwide.

The Libor Scandal

The surveyed banks are not required to provide actual borrowing costs. Rather, they are asked only for estimates of how much peer financial institutions would charge them to borrow on a given day. Because they are not required to substantiate their estimates, banks have been accused of Libor “fixing,” or manipulating the Libor rate by submitting estimates that are exaggeratedly higher or lower than their true borrowing costs. This scandal has resulted in the firing and even arrest of bank employees.

Libor’s reputation came under fire in June 2012 when Barclays PLC agreed to pay over $450 million to settle allegations that some traders fixed their reported rates to increase profits and make the bank appear healthier than it was during the financial crisis. In the wake of this settlement, investigative agencies around the world began to look deeper into Libor rate fixing, leading to a $750 million settlement by the Royal Bank of Scotland and a record-setting $1.5 billion settlement by UBS AG. To date, there have been over $2.5 billion in settlements, with many more investigations ongoing. One investment bank estimates that, in total, legal settlements could amount to as much as $35 billion by the time investigations conclude.

Replacing the Libor

In the wake of the Libor scandal, international and domestic agencies have advocated for its replacement. The BBA, the group responsible for setting Libor since the 1980s, voted to relinquish that authority, and a committee of the UK’s Financial Reporting Council is currently vetting bids from other independent agencies interested in administering the new rate.

The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) Task Force on Benchmark Rates, led by the head of the UK Financial Services Authority Martin Wheatley and the US Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler, released a report last month saying that the new system should be based on data from actual trades in order to restore creditability. Wheatley and Gensler agree on the need to create a transaction-based rate, but disagree on how to transition from Libor to the new system.

Wheatley proposes that: the estimate-based Libor system be kept in place while a new transaction based rate is introduced to run alongside it under a “dual-track” system (so as to avoid disrupting existing transactions), and that the decision as to if and when to abandon Libor be left to market participants as opposed to regulators.

Gensler proposes a wholesale replacement of Libor as soon as possible and cautions that its continued use undermines market integrity and threatens financial stability.

IOSCO is also pushing for a code of conduct that would hold banks to a higher standard of honesty in reporting and setting index rates, while other agencies, including the Financial Stability Board and the European Union, are working on the development of other potential solutions including stricter regulations and greater penalties for rate-fixing conduct.

The future of Libor is unclear, but it is certain that whomever is chosen to replace the BBA will be under immense pressure and scrutiny from the international financial community.

Recommendations

To stay prepared, parties to financial transactions should view existing and future contracts with an eye towards potential benchmark changes. Parties should perform contractual due diligence to establish the range of Libor definitions and benchmarks to which they are exposed. In addition, parties should review the fallback provisions dealing with change or discontinuance of Libor and other benchmark rates to understand the potential impact of such changes.

Going forward, parties should include fallback provisions in their contracts to allocate risk and set up alternatives to mitigate the uncertainty that could arise in the event of any changes to the Libor system or other relevant benchmarks.

Article By:

 of

FATCA Implementation Summit – June 17, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming FATCA Implementation Summit.

FACTA

When:

June 17 – 18, 2013

Where:

The Princeton Club
15 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
212-596-1200

The final regulations are out and FATCA implementation dates are closer than ever! The compliance ball is rolling and funds should have their implementation plans already underway. The FATCA Implementation Summit will examine what funds should have done so far, what is next on the list, and what is still unknown. Our expert speaking faculty is prepared to answer all of your FATCA-related questions – including significant changes revealed in the final regulations, timelines, best practices and procedural benchmarks, new and updated forms, and so much more!

This is the ONLY industry event that addresses the unique challenges alternative funds face under the sweeping FATCA regime. We’ll dig deep into questions about how FATCA is playing out in practice – operational challenges, due diligence and on-boarding requirements, responsible parties, outsourcing– and more!

You can’t afford to miss this essential event!

This event is part of a two-day compliance intensive. For information on day two, Preparing for the AIMFD, click here. Register for both events to receive a discounted rate.

Topics at a Glance –

  • FATCA Today: Overview and Timeline of the Final Regulations
  • Who is Affected by FATCA? – Update on Definitions and Classifications
  • Entering into the FFI Agreement: Registering as an FFI with the IRS
  • Managing Your Clients: Due Diligence in Identifying Existing Investors and Developing On-Boarding Processes for New Investors
  • Reporting and Withholding Obligations Under the FATCA Regime
  • Determining FATCA Compliance with IGA Countries
  • Practical Implementation – Putting it all Together
  • Outsourcing – The Risks and the Rewards

The Stockton Saga Continues: Untouchable Pensions on the Chopping Block?

Sheppard Mullin 2012

Judge Christopher M. Klein’s decision to accept the City of Stockton’s petition for bankruptcy on April 1, 2013 set the stage for a battle over whether public workers’ pensions can be reduced through municipal reorganization.

Stockton’s public revenues tumbled dramatically when the recession hit, leaving Stockton unable to meet its day-to-day obligations. Stockton slashed its police and fire departments, eliminated many city services, cut public employee benefits and suspended payments on municipal bonds it had used to finance various projects and close projected budget gaps. Stockton continues to pay its obligations to California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”) for its public workers’ pensions. Pension obligations are particularly high because during the years prior to the recession, city workers could “spike” their pensions—by augmenting their final year of compensation with unlimited accrued vacation and sick leave—in order to receive pension payments that grossly exceeded their annual salaries.

When Judge Klein accepted Stockton’s petition April 1, 2013, he reasoned that Stockton could not perform its basic functions “without the ability to have the muscle of the contract impairing power of federal bankruptcy law.” Judge Klein noted that his decision to “grant an order for relief … is merely the opening round in a much more complicated analysis.” The question looming is whether the contract-impairing power of federal bankruptcy law is strong enough to adjust state pension obligations.

Stockton will have the opportunity to present a plan of adjustment, which must be approved through the confirmation process. No plan of adjustment can be confirmed over rejection by a particular class of creditors unless the plan (1) does not discriminate unfairly, and (2) is fair and equitable with respect to each class of claims that is impaired under or has not accepted a plan. Judge Klein said that if Stockton “makes inappropriate compromises, the day of reckoning will be the day of plan confirmation.”

Stockton’s plan of adjustment will likely propose periods of debt service relief and interest-only payments for some municipal bonds, followed by amortization. Stockton intends to actually impair other municipal bonds, potentially paying only cents on the dollar. However, Stockton does not intend to reduce its pension obligations to CalPERS under the plan. Provisions of the California Constitution and state statutes prohibit the reduction of public workers’ pensions, even in bankruptcy proceedings. These California state law provisions were thought to make public pensions virtually untouchable. Yet, the plan may not be confirmable if it impairs Stockton’s obligations to bondholders but not its obligations to CalPERS. Bondholders and insurers will surely vote against and object to the plan, claiming it unfairly discriminates against them, and Judge Klein will have to decide whether the treatment constitutes unfair discrimination. The unfair discrimination claim may have merit, because an overarching goal of federal bankruptcy law is to equitably allocate losses among competing creditors. Federal bankruptcy law often trumps state laws, but there is no precedent for how federal bankruptcy law applies to California’s pension provisions.

For now, cash-strapped municipalities around the country—and their creditors—are watching to see just how Stockton will restructure its obligations.

 of

California Requires Many Foreign Corporations To Send Annual Financial Statements To Shareholders

AM logo with tagline

California is a net exporter of corporate charters, but it remains home to many corporations. As a result, the California Corporations Code has a preternatural concern with foreign corporations.

One example is Section 1501(a) which requires the board to cause an annual report to be sent to shareholders.  This report must include a balance sheet as of year end and an income statement and statement of cash flows for the year.  The statute doesn’t require that the statements be audited, but if an independent accountant has issued a report, then that report must be sent along as well.  If there is no report, then the report must include a certificate of an authorized officer that the statements were prepared without audit from the books and records of the corporation.  If the corporation has fewer than 100 holders of record (determined in accordance with Section 605), the financial statements need not be prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles if the statements reasonably set forth the assets and liabilities and income and expense of the corporation and disclose the accounting basis used in their preparation.

The report must be sent not later than 120 days after the close of the fiscal year and must be sent at least 15 days (or, if sent by third class mail, 35 days) prior to the annual meeting of shareholders held during the following fiscal year.  Cal. Corp. § 1501(a)(1) & (2).

This requirement applies to domestic corporations, a term that embraces any corporation formed under the laws of California.  Cal. Corp. § 1501(g).  Thus, it includes corporations not formed under the General Corporation Law. See Cal. Corp. Code § 167.  However, a corporation with less than 100 holders of record (determined in accordance with Section 605) may include a bylaw provision that waives the annual report requirement.

The statute also applies to any foreign corporation if the corporation has its principal executive offices in California or it customarily holds meetings of its board in California.  Cal. Corp. § 1501(g).

Publicly traded companies are not exempted per se from this requirement.  However, corporations with an outstanding class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 will satisfy the annual report requirement if they comply with Rule 14a-16 (17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-16).  Cal. Corp. § 1501(a)(4).  [Note that this statute purports to include future amendments and this may give rise to a constitutional problem, see Why Incorporation May Be Unconstitutional.]

Here is a flow-chart describing the application of the statute.  This is probably a good time to remind readers that this blog does not provide legal advice.  There are other requirements in Section 1501 (including possible quarterly reporting requirements) that are not covered in today’s post.  Moreover, there are other nuances that I’ve not mentioned.

Article By:

 of

Takeover Code Amendments Extend the Rights of Pension Scheme Trustees

Morgan Lewis logo

Amendments include new requirements regarding offerors’ intentions, documents provided to trustees, trustees’ opinions on offers, and publication of agreements between offerors and trustees.

On 22 April, the Code Committee of the UK Panel on Takeovers and Mergers (the Panel) published response statement RS 2012/2 (the Response Statement), which introduces amendments to the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (the Code).[1] The Response Statement follows a consultation to consider extending the rights of trustees of offeree company pension schemes. Broadly, the amendments to the Code provide the following:

  • An offeror is required to state its intentions with regard to the offeree company’s pension scheme.
  • Certain information is required to be published in the offer document or otherwise provided to pension scheme trustees.
  • Trustees are allowed to provide an opinion on the effects of an offer on the company’s pension scheme.
  • Agreements between an offeror and pension scheme trustees that relate to pension scheme funding may be required to be published if they are material.

Background

On 19 September 2011, significant changes were made to the Code, including an extension of the obligations of the offeror and offeree in relation to information to be provided to, and the obligation to publish opinions of, the offeree company’s employees and employee representatives. During the Panel’s consultation on those changes, the pensions industry lobbied significantly for similar provisions to be added to the Code in relation to trustees of pension schemes. Proposed amendments to the Code were published in public consultation paper PCP 2012/2 (the PCP)[2] on 5 July 2012, and a period of consultation followed. The Response Statement sets out the Panel’s response to that consultation and the resulting changes to be made to the Code. Although many of the changes will be adopted as originally proposed in the PCP, certain modifications have been made.

In determining the new regime, the Panel has been mindful that the intended effect of the changes is to create a framework within which the effects of an offer on an offeree company’s pension scheme can become (i) a debating point during the course of the offer and (ii) a point on which the relevant parties can express their views.

Application of New Code Provisions to Defined Benefit Schemes

The new provisions of the Code are limited to funded pension schemes sponsored by the offeree (or any of its subsidiaries) that (i) provide pension benefits (either in whole or in part) on a defined benefit basis—and (ii) have trustees (or managers, in the case of non-UK schemes). The Code provisions are not limited to UK pension schemes and apply to all such schemes, regardless of size or materiality in the context of the offeree’s group.

The new provisions do not apply to pension schemes that provide pension benefits only on a “defined contribution” basis, as the Panel believes that the provisions of the Code granting rights to employees and employee representatives already create an appropriate framework for discussion in relation to the impact of an offer, and the offeror’s intentions, in relation to such schemes.

Publication of Offeror’s Intentions in Relation to Pension Scheme

An offeror will now be required to include in the offer document a statement of its intentions with regard to relevant offeree pension schemes, including with respect to employer contributions and arrangements for deficit funding, benefits accruals for current members, and the admission of new members to the scheme. However, the Panel has not required that the offeror include a statement on the likely repercussions of its strategic plans for the offeree company on relevant pension schemes. Similarly, the Panel has confirmed that such statements do not need to include an assessment of the future ability of the offeree company to meet its funding obligations to its pension scheme.

The Panel also confirmed that the general rule under Note 3, Rule 19.1 of the Code will apply to statements of intention made in respect of pension schemes. This means that an offeror will be considered to be committed by any such statements for 12 months after the offer ends (or such other period of time as is specified in the offeror’s statement), unless there has been a material change of circumstances.

Under the PCP, the Panel originally proposed to require the offeree to include in its offeree circular its views on the effects of the implementation of the offer—and the offeror’s strategic plans for the offeree—on the offeree’s pension schemes. However, following the consultation, the Panel did not make these changes but did confirm that the offeree board may include its views on these subjects in the offeree circular should it wish to do so.

Provision of Information to Pension Scheme Trustees

The amendments to the Code provide that trustees of the offeree company’s pension scheme will be entitled to receive the same documents that offerors and offerees are required to make available to employee representatives. These documents include the following:

  • The announcement that commences the offer period
  • The announcement of a firm intention to make an offer
  • The offer document
  • The offeree board circular in response to the offer document
  • Any revised offer document
  • The offeree board circular in response to any revised offer document

Pension Scheme Trustees’ Opinion on the Offer

Under the revised Code, pension scheme trustees will have the right to require the offeree’s board of directors to publish the trustees’ opinion on the effects of the offer on the pension scheme, and the offeree will be obliged to notify such trustees of this right at the commencement of the offer. As with employee representatives’ opinions, if the trustees’ opinion is received in good time, the opinion must be appended to the offeree board circular. If it is not received in good time, it must be published on a website, with such publication to be announced on a Regulated Information Service.[3] The Panel has confirmed that the trustees’ opinion may cover more than the impact of the offer on the benefits that the scheme provides to members (and other matters to be included in the offeror’s statement in the offer document) and that the opinion may also extend to the trustees’ views on the impact of the offer on the post-offer ability of the offeree company to make future contributions to the pension scheme (i.e., the strength of its funding covenant).

Unlike employee representative opinions, the offeree will only be responsible for the costs incurred in the publication of the trustees’ opinion and not for any other costs incurred in relation to its preparation or verification.

Agreements Entered into Between an Offeror and Pension Scheme Trustees

The revised Code also contains certain provisions relating to any agreements between an offeror and the trustees of an offeree pension scheme, for example, in relation to the future funding of that scheme. Following the consultation, the Panel determined that any such agreements should be treated in the same manner as any other offer-related agreement, with certain variations. As a result, the amendments contain the following requirements for agreements between offerors and pension scheme trustees:

  • Where any such agreement is a material contract for the offeror within the meaning of the Code, it should be published on a website in the same manner as any other material contract.
  • Where such an agreement is not material, but is nevertheless referred to in the offer document, there will be no requirement to publish it on a website.
  • Where such an agreement relates only to the future funding of the pension scheme, it will be excluded from the general prohibition on offer-related agreements contained in Rule 21.2(a).[4]

Pensions Regulator

The Panel has confirmed, following discussions with the UK Pensions Regulator, that there will be no obligation under the Code for the offeror or offeree to send offer-related documentation to the Pensions Regulator, nor will there be any obligation on the Panel to notify the Pensions Regulator of takeover offers. Accordingly, it is for the offer parties (and any other interested parties) to decide whether they wish to engage with, or seek clearance of the offer from, the Pensions Regulator.

Entry into Force

The amendments introduced by the Response Statement will take effect on 20 May 2013, and an amended version of the Code will be published on this date.

[1]. View the Response Statement here.

[2]. View the PCP here.

[3]. The UK Financial Conduct Authority has published a list of information services that are approved Regulated Information Services in Appendix 3 of the Listing Rules, which is available here.

[4]. The Panel, however, emphasised that any obligations or restrictions on the trustees regarding any other offeror or potential offeror would not be permissible.

Article By:

 of

Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) Liability And Private Equity Firms

DrinkerBiddle

Last month’s decision out of the Delaware District Court in Woolery, et al. v. Matlin Patterson Global Advisers, LLC, et al. was an eye opener for private equity firms and other entities owning a controlling stake in a faltering business.  Breaking from the norm, the Court refused to dismiss private equity firm MatlinPatterson Global Advisers, LLC (“MatlinPatterson”) and affiliated entities from a class action WARN Act suit alleging that the 400-plus employees of Premium Protein Products, LLC (“Premium”), a Nebraska-based meat processer and MatlinPatterson portfolio company, hadn’t received the statutorily-mandated 60 days advance notice of layoffs.

According to the plaintiffs, Premium’s performance began to decline in 2008 and, upon the downturn, the defendants became more and more involved in Premium’s day-to-day operations, including by making business strategy decisions (e.g., to enter the kosher food market), terminating Premium’s existing President, and installing a new company President.  Things got bad enough that, in June 2009, the defendants decided to “furlough” all of Premium’s employees with virtually no notice and close the plant.  The defendants then, in November 2009, converted the furlough to layoffs, and Premium filed for bankruptcy.  According to the plaintiffs, Premium’s head of HR raised WARN Act concerns back in June, when the decision to close the plant and furlough the employees was made, and the defendants ignored the issue.

With Premium in bankruptcy, the plaintiffs, unsurprisingly, turned to MatlinPatterson and the other defendants as the targets of their WARN Act claim, asserting that they and Premium were a “single employer.”  The Court then applied the Department of Labor’s five-factor balancing test, namely (1) whether the entities share common ownership, (2) whether the entities share common directors or officers, (3) the existence of de facto exercise of control by the parent over the subsidiary, (4) the existence of a unity of personnel policies emanating from a common source, and (5) the dependency of operations between the two entities.  This test often favors private equity firms, and on balance it did so in Woolery too, with the Court finding that the plaintiffs had made no showing as to three of the five factors.  The Court nevertheless refused to grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that the complaint alleged that the defendants had exercised de facto control over Premium and then essentially giving that factor determinative weight.

No one should be surprised by the decision given the plaintiffs’ allegations, which had to be accepted as true at the motion to dismiss stage.  They presented an ugly picture of a private equity firm dictating the most critical decisions (to close plant, layoff employees) and then attempting to duck the WARN Act’s dictates. The decision is nevertheless a cautionary tale for private equity firms and at first blush it presents a catch 22: (a) do nothing and watch your investment sink or (b) get involved and risk WARN Act liability.

So what is a private equity firm, lender or majority investor to do?  Obviously, the best scenario is to build in the required 60-day notice period or, if applicable, utilize WARN Act exceptions, including the “faltering company” and “unforeseen business circumstances” exceptions.  Even where that’s not possible, private equity firms and other controlling investors need not take a completely hands off approach.  They would, however, be best-served (at least for WARN Act purposes) to do the following:

  • Provide only customary board-level oversight and allow the employer’s officers and management team to run the employer’s day-to-day operations
  • Although Board oversight and input can occur, continue to work through the management team on major decisions, including layoffs and potential facility closures
  • Avoid placing private equity firm or lender employees or representatives on the employer’s management team
  • Have the employer’s management team execute employment contracts with the employer, not the private equity firm or lender, and have the contracts, for the most part, create obligations only to the employer
  • Allow the employer to maintain its own personnel policies and practices, as well as HR oversight and function

What the courts are primarily concerned with in these cases are (a) a high degree of integration between the private equity firm or lender and the actual employer, particularly as to day-to-day operations, and (b) who the decision-maker was with regard to the employment practice giving rise to the litigation (typically the layoff or plant closure decision).  Private equity firms and lenders that have refrained from this level of integration have had, and should continue to have, success in avoiding WARN Act liability and returning the focus of the WARN Act discussion to the actual employer.

Article By:

 of

District Court Grants Motion to Compel Against Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC), Holding that “Facts” Are Not Work Product In SEC Confidential Witness Interviews

Sheppardlogo

In a recent Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”) investigation, the SEC interviewed three persons who had proffer agreements with the SEC and United States Attorney. In a subsequent SEC enforcement action, a defendant served interrogatories asking the SEC to identify the factual information disclosed in those proffer sessions. The SEC objected, and the defendant moved to compel. The SEC opposed the motion to compel, arguing that defendant sought information protected by the attorney work product doctrine, had not shown substantial need and unavailability, and had not deposed any of the witnesses, despite their identification in Rule 26 disclosures more than a year before. The magistrate judge granted defendant’s motion to compel, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California confirmed the ruling. SEC v. Sells, No. C 11-4941 CW, 2013 WL 1411247 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2013).

There had already been an order in the case directing the SEC to answer identical interrogatories about another third-party witness. The SEC had acknowledged it was relying upon that witness’s statements as a basis for the allegations against the same defendant. The court rejected the SEC’s attorney work product objection because the interrogatories sought factual information, and not an attorney’s strategies or mental impressions. The court relied on an earlier decision, In re Convergent Technologies, 122 F.R.D. 555, 558 (N.D. Cal. 1988), in which the court reiterated the well-established principle that “the law does not permit counsel or litigants to use the work product doctrine to hide the facts themselves.” Nor does it shield from discovery the identities of the persons from whom an attorney learned such facts or the existence or non-existence of documents.

An interesting side note about the three witnesses is that their interviews were not recorded, unlike the other fourteen witnesses in this case. Because of this, any inconsistencies, disclosures of motives for their proffers or other potential impeachment evidence were not “otherwise available” to defense counsel. The SEC also advised the court that the three witnesses might testify at trial.

The lesson of this case is not to underestimate the value to defendants in SEC enforcement proceedings of specific, simply stated interrogatories. The SEC was not ordered to turn over its attorneys’ notes. Instead, it was ordered to answer interrogatories. This case also reminds lawyers not to give up, even when your adversary is far more powerful. In the words of the magistrate judge who handled “every possible objection” that the SEC had asserted to avoid answering, “Sunshine is ordinarily the best medicine for a party that is keeping discoverable information hidden in the dark. But where, as here, one party is repeatedly withholding relevant information, stronger medicine may be required.”

Article By:

 of

Where Do Your Interests Lie Under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code?

Mintz Logo

Determining a foreign debtor’s “center of main interests” and its effect on creditors’ rights

When doing business with a foreign company, it is important to identify the company’s “center of main interests” (“COMI”) as creditors may find themselves bound by the laws of the COMI locale. If a company initiates insolvency proceedings outside the U.S., it must petition a U.S. court under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code for recognition of the foreign proceeding. If the foreign proceeding is found to be a “foreign main proceeding” (i.e., a proceeding pending where the debtor has its COMI), Chapter 15 provides certain automatic, nondiscretionary relief, including an automatic stay of all proceedings against the debtor in the U.S. Therefore, when faced with a foreign insolvency proceeding, U.S. creditors’ rights will often be determined in the jurisdiction where the debtor’s COMI is located. However, despite its significance, COMI is left undefined by the statute, which prompted the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Morning Mist Holdings Ltd. v. Krys, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7608 (2nd Cir. April 16, 2013) to determine the relevant factors for locating a COMI and the appropriate time frame to consider those factors.

In Morning Mist, Miguel Lomeli and Morning Mist Holdings Limited (collectively, “Morning Mist”) filed a derivative action in New York state court against Fairfield Sentry Limited (the “Debtor”). The Debtor was one of Bernie Madoff’s largest “feeder funds,” having invested over $7 billion in the scheme. Shortly after the commencement of the derivative action, the Debtor initiated liquidation proceedings in the British Virgin Islands (the “BVI”). Then, in accordance with Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtor petitioned the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York for recognition of the BVI liquidation proceeding. The bankruptcy court granted the Chapter 15 petition, recognizing the BVI liquidation as a “foreign main proceeding” and imposing an automatic stay on all proceedings against the Debtor in the U.S., including the derivative action. The district court upheld the bankruptcy court’s decision, and Morning Mist appealed to the Second Circuit, arguing that the lower courts improperly found the BVIs to be the Debtor’s COMI.

To determine the Debtor’s COMI, the Second Circuit examined which factors should be considered and over what time period. Tackling the temporal element first, the Court concluded that the Chapter 15 petition filing date is the relevant review period, subject to an inquiry into whether the process has been manipulated. To offset a debtor’s ability to manipulate its COMI, a court may also review the period between the initiation of the foreign liquidation proceeding and the filing of the Chapter 15 petition. The Court squarely rejected Morning Mist’s suggestion that courts must consider a debtor’s entire operational history.

As for the appropriate factors to consider in locating a COMI, the Second Circuit held that any relevant activities, including liquidation activities and administrative functions, may be considered in a COMI analysis. Elaborating, the Court held that Chapter 15 creates a rebuttable presumption that the country where the debtor has its registered office will be its COMI, but recognized that courts have focused on a variety of other factors as well, including the location of the debtor’s headquarters, the location of those who actually manage the debtor, the location of the debtor’s primary assets, the location of the majority of the debtor’s creditors or the majority of the creditors who would be affected by the case, and/or the jurisdiction whose law would apply to most disputes. However, the Second Circuit emphasized that consideration of these factors is neither required nor dispositive.

Finally, Morning Mist argued that Chapter 15’s public policy exception (“Nothing in this chapter prevents the court from refusing to take an action governed by this chapter if the action would be manifestly contrary to the public policy of the United States.”) applied because the BVI proceedings were confidential and therefore “cloaked in secrecy.” The Second Circuit quickly dismissed this argument explaining that the public policy exception should be read restrictively and invoked only under exceptional circumstances concerning matters of fundamental importance for the enacting State. Recognizing that court pleadings can be sealed in U.S. cases, including bankruptcy cases, the Second Circuit found that the confidentiality of the BVI bankruptcy proceedings did not offend U.S. public policy.

The Morning Mist case adds some clarity to a significant issue in cross border insolvencies by highlighting the importance of understanding the internal operations and structure of foreign companies—factors that could affect the ability of U.S. creditors to seek redress in U.S. courts.

Article By:

of

The Good Angel Investor (Part 1): Doing the Deal

Michael Best Logo

At a time when lean startups often require considerably less than $1 million dollars to develop the proverbial minimum viable product and even validate the same with some customers, angel investors are playing an increasingly important role in startup financings.  And that’s a good thing, particularly in places outside of the major venture capital centers, where institutional venture capital is scarce.

Most startups successfully launched with angel capital will want to tap deeper pools of capital later on, often from traditional venture capital investors.  That being the case, entrepreneurs and their angel investors should make sure that the structure and terms of angel investments are compatible with the likely needs of downstream institutional investors.  Herewith, some of the issues entrepreneurs and angels should keep in mind when they sit down and negotiate that first round of seed investment.

  1. Don’t get hung up on valuation.  Seed stage opportunities are difficult to put a value on, particularly where the entrepreneur and/or the investor have limited experience.  Seriously mispricing a deal – whether too high or too low – can strain future entrepreneur/investor relationships and even jeopardize downstream funding.  If you and your seed investor are having trouble settling in on the “right” price for your deal, consider structuring the seed round as convertible debt, with a modest (10%-30%) equity kicker.  Convertible debt generally works where the seed round is less than one-half the size of the subsequent “A” round and the A round is likely to occur within 12 months of the seed round based on the accomplishment of some well-defined milestone.
  1. Don’t look for a perfect fit in an off-the-shelf world.  In the high impact startup world, probably 95% of seed deals take the form either of convertible debt (or it’s more recent twin convertible equity) or “Series Seed/Series AA” convertible preferred stock (a much simplified version of the classic Series A convertible preferred stock venture capital financing).  Unless you can easily explain why your deal is so out of the ordinary that the conventional wisdom shouldn’t apply, pick one of the two common structures and live with the fact that a faster, cheaper, “good enough” financing is usually also the best financing at the seed stage.
  1. On the other hand, keeping it simple should not be confused with dumbing it down.  If the deal is not memorialized in a mutually executed writing containing all the material elements of the deal, it is not a “good enough” financing.  The best intentioned, highest integrity entrepreneurs and seed investors will more often than not recall key elements of their deal differently when it comes time to paper their deal – which it will at the A round, if not before.  And the better the deal is looking at that stage, the bigger those differences will likely be.
  1. Get good legal advice.  By “good” I mean “experienced in high impact startup financing.”  Outside Silicon Valley, the vast majority of reputable business lawyers have little or no experience representing high impact entrepreneurs and their investors in financing transactions.  When these “good but out of their element” lawyers get involved in a high impact startup financing the best likely outcome is a deal that takes twice as long, and costs twice as much, to close.  More likely outcomes include unconventional deals that complicate or even torpedo downstream financing.  This suggestion is even more important if your deal is perchance one of those few that for some reason does need some custom fitting.
  1. Finally, a pet peeve.  If you think your startup’s future includes investments by well regarded institutional venture capital funds, skip the LLC tax mirage and just set your company up as a Delaware “C” corporation.  If you want to know why, ask one of those “experienced high impact startup lawyers” mentioned in point 4 above.
Article By:

 of

Investment Regulation Update – April 2013

GT Law

The Investment Regulation Update is a periodic publication providing key regulatory and compliance information relevant to broker-dealers, investment advisers, private funds, registered investment companies and their independent boards, commodity trading advisers, commodity pool operators, futures commission merchants, major swap participants, structured product sponsors and financial institutions.

This Update includes the following topics:

  • SEC Adopts Rules to Help Protect Investors from Identity Theft
  • Increased Attention to Broker-Dealer Registration in the Private Fund World
  • SEC Issues Guidance Update on Social Media Filings By Investment Companies
  • AIFMD — Effect on U.S. Fund Managers
  • SEC Announces 2013 Examination Priorities
  • Reminder — Upcoming Form PF Filing Deadline
  • Reminder — Upcoming Dodd-Frank Protocol Adherence Deadline
  • Are you a Lobbyist?
  • Recent Events

SEC Adopts Rules to Help Protect Investors from Identity Theft

On April 10, 2013, SEC Chairman Mary Jo White’s official first day on the job, the SEC, jointly with the CFTC, adopted rules and guidelines requiring broker-dealers, mutual funds, investment advisers and certain other regulated entities that meet the definition of “financial institution” or “creditor” under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to adopt and implement written identity theft prevention programs designed to detect, prevent and mitigate identify theft in connection with certain accounts. Rather than prescribing specific policies and procedures, the rules require entities to determine which red flags are relevant to their business and the covered accounts that they manage to allow the entities to respond and adapt to new forms of identity theft and the attendant risks as they arise. The rules also include guidelines to assist entities subject to the rules in the formulation and maintenance of the required programs, including guidelines on identifying and detecting red flags and methods for administering the program. The rules also establish special requirements for any credit and debit card issuers subject to the SEC or CFTC’s enforcement authority to assess the validity of notifications of changes of address under certain circumstances. Chairman White stated, “These rules are a common-sense response to the growing threat of identity theft to all Americans who invest, save or borrow money.” The final rules will become effective 30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register and the compliance date will be six months thereafter.

Increased Attention to Broker-Dealer Registration in the Private Fund World

The role of unregistered persons in the sale of interests in privately placed investment funds is an area of great interest for the SEC and the subject of recent enforcement actions. On March 8, 2013, the SEC filed and settled charges against a private fund manager, Ranieri Partners, LLC, one of the manager’s senior executives and an external marketing consultant regarding the consultant’s failure to register as a broker-dealer. The Ranieri Partners enforcement actions are especially interesting for two reasons: (i) there were no allegations of fraud and (ii) the private fund manager and former senior executive, in addition to the consultant, were charged.

On April 5, 2013, David Blass, the Chief Counsel to the SEC’s Division of Trading and Markets, addressed a subcommittee of the American Bar Association. His remarks have been posted on the SEC website. Mr. Blass referenced a speech by the former Director of the Division of Investment Management, who expressed concern that some participants in the private fund industry may be inappropriately claiming to rely on exemptions or interpretive guidance to avoid broker-dealer registration.

In addition, Mr. Blass noted Securities Exchange Act Rule 3a4-1’s safe harbor for certain associated persons of an issuer generally is not or cannot be used by private fund advisers. He suggested that private fund managers should consider how they raise capital and whether they are soliciting securities transactions, but he did acknowledge that a key factor in determining whether someone must register as a broker-dealer is the presence of transaction-based compensation. The Chief Counsel also raised the question of whether receiving transaction-based fees in connection with the sale of portfolio companies’ required broker-dealer registration. He suggested that private fund managers may receive fees additional to advisory fees that could require broker-dealer registration, e.g., fees for investment banking activity.

On a related note, in two recent “no-action” letters, the SEC has established fairly clear rules regarding how Internet funding network sponsors may operate without being required to register as broker-dealers. On March 26 and 28, 2013, the SEC’s Division of Trading and Markets addressed this narrow, fact-specific issue in response to requests from FundersClub Inc. and AngelList LLC seeking assurances that their online investment matchmaking activities would not result in enforcement action by the SEC. The April 10, 2013 GT Alert—SEC Clarifies Position on Unregistered Broker-Dealer Sponsors of Internet Funding Networks is availablehere.

SEC Issues Guidance Update on Social Media Filings by Investment Companies

On March 15, 2013, the SEC published guidance from the Division of Investment Management (IM Guidance) to clarify the obligations of mutual funds and other investment companies to seek review of materials posted on their social media sites. This report stems from the SEC’s awareness of many mutual funds and other investment companies unnecessarily including real-time electronic materials posted on their social media sites (interactive content) with their Financial Industry Regulatory Authority filings (FINRA). In determining whether a communication needs to be filed, the content, context, and presentation of the communication and the underlying substantive information transmitted to the social media user and consideration of any other facts and circumstances are all taken into account, such as whether the communication is merely a response to a request or inquiry from the social media user or is forwarding previously-filed content. The IM Guidance offers examples of interactive content that should or should not be filed with FINRA. The IM Guidance is the first in a series of updates to offer the SEC’s views on emerging legal issues and to provide transparency and enhance compliance with federal securities laws and regulations. You may find a link to the SEC Press Release and IM Guidance here.

On a related note, on April 2, 2013, the SEC released a report of an investigation regarding whether the use of social media to disclose nonpublic material information violates Regulation FD. The SEC has indicated that, in light of evolving communication technologies and habits, the use of social media to announce corporate developments may be acceptable; however, public companies must exercise caution and undertake careful preparation if they wish to disseminate information through non-traditional means. The April 5, 2013 GT Alert—Social Media May Satisfy Regulation FD But Not Without Risk and Preparation by Ira Rosner is available here.

AIFMD – Effect on U.S. Fund Managers

New European Union legislation that regulates alternative asset managers who manage or market funds within the EU comes into force on July 22, 2013. The Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) will have a significant impact on U.S. fund managers if they actively fundraise in Europe after July 21, 2013 (or if they manage EU-domiciled fund vehicles). Historically, U.S. private equity firms raising capital in Europe have relied on private placement regimes that essentially allowed marketing to institutions and high net worth investors. Beginning July 22, 2013, U.S. fund managers may continue to rely on private placement regimes in those EU jurisdictions that continue to operate them; however, they will now be under an obligation to meet certain reporting requirements and rules set out in the AIFMD relating to:

  • transparency and disclosure, and
  • rules in relation to the acquisition of EU portfolio companies.

The transparency and disclosure rules require, for the most part, the disclosure of information typically found in a PPM; however, additional items are likely to be required such as the disclosure of preferential terms to particular investors and level of professional indemnity cover. The rules also require reports to be made to the regulator in each jurisdiction in which the fund has been marketed. The reports will need to include audited financials, a description of the fund’s activities, details of remuneration and carried interest paid, and details of changes to material disclosures. Acquisitions of EU portfolio companies also lead to reporting obligations on purchase – an annual report – and a rule against “asset stripping” for 24 months after the acquisition of control. Firms with less than €500 million in assets under management are exempt from the reporting requirements and reverse solicitation is potentially an option, as the directive does not prevent an EU institution from contacting the U.S. fund manager, but in practice it may be difficult to apply systematically.  Fund managers may choose to register in the EU on a voluntary basis from late 2015. This will allow marketing across all EU member states on the basis of a single registration. However, registration will come with a significant compliance burden. If you plan to market in the EU after July 23, 2013, ensure that you review your marketing materials, evaluate your likely reporting obligations and consider how the portfolio company acquisition rules are likely to impact your transactions.

SEC Announces 2013 Examination Priorities

On February 21, 2013 the SEC’s National Examination Program (NEP) published its examination priorities for 2013. The examination priorities address issues market-wide, as well as issues relating to particular business models and organizations. Market-wide priorities include fraud detection and prevention, corporate governance and enterprise risk management, conflicts of interest, and technology controls.  Priorities in specific program areas include: (i) for investment advisers and investment companies, presence exams for newly registered private fund advisers, and payments by advisers and funds to entities that distribute mutual funds; (ii) for broker-dealers, sales practices and fraud, and compliance with the new market access rule; (iii)for market oversight, risk-based examinations of securities exchanges and FINRA, and order-type assessment; and (iv) for clearing and settlement, transfer agent exams, timely turnaround of items and transfers, accurate recordkeeping, and safeguarding of assets, and; (iv) for clearing agencies, designated as systemically important, conduct annual examinations as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. The priority list is not exhaustive. Importantly, priorities may be adjusted throughout the year and the NEP will conduct additional examinations focused on risks, issues, and policy matters that are not addressed by the release.

Reminder—Upcoming Form PF Filing Deadline

SEC registered investment advisers who manage at least $150 million in private fund assets with a December 31st fiscal year end should be well underway in preparing their submissions for the approaching April 30, 2013 deadline. Filings must be made through the Private Fund Reporting Depository (PFRD) filing system managed by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). As a reminder, advisers to three types of funds must file on Form PF: hedge funds, liquidity funds and private equity funds. Hedge funds are generally defined as a private fund that has the ability to pay a performance fee to its adviser, borrow in excess of a certain amount or sell assets short. Liquidity funds are defined as a private fund seeking to generate income by investing in short-term securities while maintaining a stable net asset value for investors. Private equity funds are defined in the negative as not a hedge fund, liquidity fund, real estate fund, securitized asset fund or venture capital fund and does not generally provide investors with redemption rights. When classifying its funds, advisers should carefully read the fund’s offering documents and definitions on Form PF and should seek assistance of counsel. Particularly, we have seen the broad definition of hedge fund cause a fund considered a private equity fund by industry-standards to be a hedge fund for purposes of Form PF, thus subjecting the fund to more expansive reporting requirements. As is the case with filing Form ADV through IARD, the $150 Form PF filing fee is paid through the same IARD Daily Account and must be funded in advance of the filing. FINRA recently updated their PFRD System FAQs. The SEC has also posted new Form PF FAQs, which should be referred to for upcoming filings.

Reminder — Upcoming Dodd-Frank Protocol Adherence Deadline

All entities, including private funds, engaged in swap transactions must adhere to the ISDA Dodd-Frank Protocol no later than May 1, 2013 in order to engage in new swap transactions on or after May 1. Adherence to the Dodd-Frank Protocol will result in an entity’s ISDA swap documentation being amended to incorporate the business conduct rules that are applicable to swap dealers under Dodd-Frank.  Adherence to the Protocol involves filling out a questionnaire to ascertain an entity’s status under Dodd-Frank (e.g., pension plan, hedge fund and corporate end-user).  Further information on adherence to the Protocol can be obtained at ISDA’s website by clicking here.

Are you a lobbyist?

Over the last decade, many state and municipal governments have enacted new laws regarding how businesses may interact with government officials. These laws often establish new rules expanding the activities that are deemed to be “lobbying,” who is required to be registered as a lobbyist and what information must be publicly disclosed. Approximately half of the states, and countless municipalities, now define lobbying to include attempts to influence government decisions regarding procurement contracts – including contracts for investment advisors and placement agents – and impose steep penalties for companies that fail to register and disclose their “lobbying” activities and expenditures. Although some lobbying laws include exceptions for communications that occur as part of a competitive bidding process, the rules are inconsistent and not always clear. For example, although New York City’s lobbying law long included procurement lobbying, in 2010 the City’s Corporation Counsel and the City Clerk issued letters warning businesses that “activities by placement agents and other persons who attempt to influence determinations of the boards of trustees by the City’s . . . pension funds” are likely to be considered lobbying activity that requires registration and disclosure. Similarly, California’s lobbying law was expanded in 2011 to expressly include persons acting as “placement agents” in connection with investments made by California retirement systems, or otherwise seek to influence investment by local public retirement plans. Greenberg Traurig’s Investment Regulation Group, in conjunction with our Political Law Compliance team, is available to assist clients with questions regarding how to navigate increasingly complex lobby compliance laws and rules across the country and beyond. GT has a broad range of experience in advising to some of the world’s leading corporations, lobbying firms, public officials and others who seek to navigate lobbying and campaign finance laws.

Recent Events

On April 18, 2013, GT hosted the seminar, “The Far Reaching Impact of FATCA Across Borders and Across Industries” as both a webinar and live program in NY and Miami. The seminar explored the latest FATCA regulations and key intergovernmental agreements as well as their applications to a variety of industries. Click here to view the presentation.

On April 10, 2013, GT sponsored Artisan Business Group’s EB-5 Finance seminar at our NYC office. The program exposed participants to a unique alternative financing opportunity for projects that lend themselves to the EB-5 immigrant investor program and featured several GT speakers, including Steve Anapoell and Genna Garver, Co-Chair of the Investment Regulation Group, who provided a securities law update and considerations in the EB-5 area. Guest speakers included Jeff Carr from EPR, Phil Cohen from the EB-5 Resource Center, and Reid Thomas from NES Financial.

On April 2, 2013, GT co-hosted a Global Compliance seminar with Dun & Bradstreet on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) issues. The program included an overview of the FCPA, with a specific emphasis on the Department of Justice’s recently released Resource Guide to the FCPAand recent enforcement activities. A link to the Resource Guide can be found here.

Article By: