Category: Financial Services Law

2023 Foreign Direct Investment Year End Update: Continued Expansion of FDI Regulations

As previously reported, regulations and restrictions on Foreign Direct Investment (“FDI”) have expanded quickly in the United States and in many of its trading partner countries around the world. FDI has been further complicated in the U.S. by the passage of individual State laws – often focused the acquisition of “agricultural land,” and in Europe by the passage of screening regimes by the individual Member States of the European Union (E.U.).

In 2023, fifteen U.S. States enacted some form of FDI restrictions on real estate. Some States elected to incorporate U.S. Federal regulations regarding who is prohibited from acquiring certain real estate, while other States have focused on broadly protecting agricultural lands. State laws also vary from those that prevent foreign ownership, to those that only require reporting foreign ownership.

Thus far Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin have passed laws related to FDI in real estate.

Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Ohio and Texas all currently require foreign investors to disclose acquisitions of certain real estate, much like the U.S. Federal Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978 (AFIDA). Arkansas, Illinois, Maine, and Wisconsin, actually allow acquirers to fulfill their reporting requirements by simply submitting a copy of applicable federal AFIDA reports. Texas currently only limits Direct Foreign Investment in certain “critical infrastructure.”

Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wisconsin limit foreign investment in real estate based on the number of acres; while Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Oklahoma ban foreign ownership of certain land completely.

The Alabama Property Protection Act (“APPA”), which went into effect in 2023, is one of the most expansive of the U.S. State laws, and which also incorporates U.S. Federal law. The APPA restricts FDI by a “foreign principal” in real estate related to agriculture, critical infrastructure, or proximate to military installations.

The APPA broadly covers acquiring “title” or a “controlling interest.” The APPA also broadly defines “foreign principal” as a political party and its members, a government, and any government official of China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia, as well as countries or governments that are subject to any sanction list of the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). The APPA defines “agricultural and forest property” as “real property used for raising, harvesting, and selling crops or for the feeding, breeding, management, raising, sale of, or the production of livestock, or for the growing and sale of timber and forest products”; and it defines covered “critical infrastructure” as a chemical manufacturing facility, refinery, electric production facility, water treatment facility, LNG terminal, telecommunications switching facility, gas processing plant, seaport, airport, aerospace and spaceport infrastructure. The APPA also covers land that is located within 10 miles of a “military installation” (of at least 10 contiguous acres) or “critical infrastructure.”

Notably, APPA does not specifically address whether leases are considered a “controlling interest,” nor does it specify enforcement procedures.

U.S. Federal Real Estate FDI

Businesses involved in the U.S. defense industrial base have been historically protected from FDI by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”). The Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA) expanded those historic protections to include certain Critical Technologies, Critical Infrastructure, and Sensitive Data – collectively referred to as covered “TID.”

FIRRMA specifically expanded CFIUS to address national security concerns arising from FDI impacting critical infrastructure and sensitive government installations. Part 802 of FIRRMA established CFIUS jurisdiction and review for certain covered real estate, including real estate in proximity to specified airports, maritime ports, military installations, and other critical infrastructure. Later in 2022, Executive Order 14083 further expanded CFIUS coverage for certain agricultural related real estate.

Covered installations are listed by name and location in appendixes to the CFIUS regulations. Early this year, CFIUS added eight additional government installations to the 100-mile “extended range” proximity coverage of Part 802. The update necessarily captured substantially more covered real estate. Unlike covered Section 1758 technologies that can trigger a mandatory CFIUS filing, CFIUS jurisdiction for covered real estate currently remains only a voluntary filing. Regardless, early diligence remains critical to any transaction in the United States that may result in foreign ownership or control of real estate.

U.S. Trading Partners FDI Regimes

The U.S. is not alone in regulating FDI, or the acquisition of real estate by foreign investors. Canada, United Kingdom and the European Union have legislative frameworks governing foreign investment in business sectors, technology, and real estate. Almost all European Union Member States have some similar form of FDI screening.

Key U.S. trading partners that have adopted FDI regimes include, Australia, Austria, Belgium, China, Germany, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Singapore, Spain, and Sweden. What foreign parties, economic sectors, or technologies are covered vary from country to country. They also vary as to the notification and approval requirements.

The UK National Security and Investment Act (NSI Act) came into effect on 4 January 2022, giving the UK government powers to intervene in transactions where assets or entities are acquired in a manner which may give rise to a national security risk. There were over 800 notifications under the NSI during the previous 12-month reporting period. In November 2023 the Deputy Prime Minister Oliver Dowden published a call for evidence on the legislation which aims to narrow and refine the scope of powers to be more ‘business friendly’, given that very few notified transactions have not been cleared within 30 working days. We will revisit developments on this in 2024.

The UK has continued to implement other reforms to improve transparency of foreign ownership of UK property. Part of the UK Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 requires the register of overseas entities. The register is maintained by Companies House and requires overseas entities which own land in the UK to disclose details of their beneficial owners. Failure to comply with the new legislation will impact any registration of ownership details at the UK Land Registry (and thus the relevant legal and equitable ownership rights in any relevant property) and officers of any entity in breach will also be liable to criminal proceedings.

Recommendations

Whether a buyer or a seller, all transactions involving FDI should include an analysis of the citizenship of the interested parties, the nature of the business, land and products, and the applicability of laws and regulations that can impact the parties, timing, or transaction.

Copyright © 2023 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP All Rights Reserved.
For more news on Foreign Direct Investment Updates, visit the NLR Global law section.

CFTCs Increased Reach over Environmental Commodities

During 2023 the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) engaged in several regulatory actions aimed at further clarifying its jurisdictional reach over environmental commodity markets generally and the voluntary carbon credit (VCC) markets in particular. First, on June 20, 2023, the CFTC issued an alert seeking whistleblower tips relating to carbon market misconduct. CFTC noted that many VCCs serve as the underlying commodity for futures contracts that are listed on CFTC designated contract markets (DCMs) over which the CFTC has full enforcement authority as well as the regulatory oversight. Importantly, the CFTC also noted that it has anti-fraud and anti-manipulation enforcement authority over the related spot markets for VCCs as well as carbon allowances and other environmental commodities products that are linked to futures contracts.1

Second, on July 19, 2023 the CFTC held its second convening where several market participants expressed the view that reliability, integrity and resilience of VCCs will be significantly improved with greater regulatory involvement.2

Third, in response to a growing demand to become more actively involved in environmental commodity markets on December 4, 2023, the CFTC issued proposed Guidance Regarding the Listing of Voluntary Carbon Credits Derivatives and Request for Comment (VCC Guidance).3 The VCC Guidance “outlines factors for a DCM to consider in connection with product design and listing [of futures contracts on VCCs] to advance the standardization of such products in a manner that promotes transparency and liquidity.”

The VCC Guidance is remarkable because: (i) it is non-binding (i.e., it is only guidance, not a regulation – stating that DCMs “should consider”); (ii) it notes several times that “for the avoidance of doubt, this proposal is not intended to modify or supersede the Appendix C Guidance” [to Part 38 of CFTC regulations];4 (iii) it addresses the already existing regulatory requirements for DCOs (i.e., Core Principle 3 – the requirement that all listed futures are not readily susceptible to manipulation);5 (iv) it attempts to reach over spot physically-settled VCC markets over which the CFTC does not have the regulatory jurisdiction and can only exercise its limited enforcement anti-fraud and anti-manipulation jurisdiction; (v) it requires DCMs to “consider” a number of VCC characteristics that are clearly outside of DCM’s control and probably competency, which include transparency, additionality, permanency and risk of reversal, robust quantification, governance and tracking mechanisms, and measures to prevent double-counting of VCCs; (vi) it requires DCMs to submit to the CFTC “explanation and analysis of the contract” it intends to list; (vii) it requires DCMs to actively monitor VCC contracts to ensure that they continue to meet these standards; and (viii) notes that the same standards should apply to swap execution facilities (SEFs) that may list swaps on VCCs. Finally, this VCC Guidance is followed by a number of questions and an open comment period ending on February 16, 2024.

The VCC Guidance is an important step forward to promoting transparency and integrity of VCC markets within the jurisdictional constraints of the CFTC. Even though the VCC Guidance does not (and cannot) impose any additional compliance requirements on DCMs and SEFs short of promulgating a rulemaking in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act, it is clear that DCM’s compliance burden with respect to listed VCC contracts before the VCC Guidance was issued are clearly different than after the VCC Guidance would become effective. Further, unlike other physically-deliverable commodities that serve as underliers to futures contracts on DCMs, VCCs traded in spot and forward markets are treated differently and will probably be in the same category as virtual currencies.

https://icvcm.org/

1 https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8723-23

2 https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/Events/opaeventvoluntarycarbonmarkets071923

3 https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8829-23

4 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-17/chapter-I/part-38/appendix-Appendix%20C%20to%20Part%2038

5 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/7

© Copyright 2023 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
For more news on CFTC Environmental Oversight, visit the NLR Financial Institutions & Banking section.

The Corporate Transparency Act December 2023 Update

The Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA” or the “Act”) comes into effect on January 1, 2024. Enacted by Congress as part of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, the CTA requires certain entities, domestic and foreign, to report beneficial ownership to the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”).

The CTA’s reporting obligations will apply to “Reporting Companies” (discussed below) currently in existence, and to those formed after January 1, 2024. However, while FinCEN estimates that the CTA will affect over 32 million entities, it will largely impact only smaller and unregulated companies. For example, companies that meet the CTA’s definition of a “large operating company,” are publicly traded or regulated, or are a subsidiary of certain exempt entities are not required to submit beneficial ownership information to FinCEN. Accordingly, while all companies should take note of the CTA and the significant change in the law for corporate reporting obligations, an equally vast number of entities will likely find themselves exempt from these requirements.

With the CTA’s effective date fast approaching, companies should consider its potential impact to their compliance obligations and, if appropriate, implement appropriate policies and procedures for handling reporting.

WHAT DOES THE CTA REQUIRE?

The CTA will require Reporting Companies to file reports electronically with FinCEN identifying their beneficial owners, in addition to certain other information. For Reporting Companies formed prior to 2024, these reports require information about the Reporting Company and its beneficial owners. Reporting Companies formed prior to 2024 will have until January 1, 2025, to file an initial report.

For Reporting Companies formed on or after January 1, 2024, reports will require information about the Reporting Company and its beneficial owners, as well as its company applicants (i.e., individuals involved in the company’s formation filing). Reporting Companies formed after January 1, 2024, will have 30 days from formation to file their initial reports, although FinCEN recently issued a final rule extending this reporting period to 90 days for companies created or registered in 2024.

WHO MUST REPORT?

Reporting Companies are defined as legal entities that are formed through a filing in a state secretary of state’s office or similar office under the law of a state or Indian tribe. Reporting Companies can be domestic or foreign and include, but are not limited to, corporations, limited liability companies, certain partnerships and certain trusts. A foreign Reporting Company is an entity formed under foreign law that registers to do business in any state or Indian tribe. Certain entities outside of the CTA’s scope include sole proprietorships, most general partnerships, common law trusts, unincorporated
associations, and foreign entities not registered to do business in a state or tribal jurisdiction. These entities are likely to have no reporting obligations under the CTA.

EXEMPT ENTITIES

The CTA provides 23 exemptions for Reporting Companies that would otherwise be required to report beneficial ownership information under the Act. These exemptions are predominantly for large or heavily regulated companies, including:

  • securities reporting issuers, banks, credit unions, depository institution holding companies, money services businesses, brokers-dealers, securities exchange or clearing agencies, pooled investment vehicles, regulated investment companies and investment advisors, insurance companies and state-licensed insurance providers, and accounting firms;
  • “large operating companies” who have more than 20 full-time employees in the U.S., an operating presence at a physical office within the United States, and more than $5 million in gross receipts or sales on their previous years’ U.S. tax returns;
  • U.S. publicly traded companies;
  • governmental authorities and tax-exempt entities; and
  • inactive entities who have been in existence prior to January 1, 2020, are not engaged in active business, are not owned in any manner by a foreign person, have not had a change in ownership within the last 12 months, have not sent or received any amount greater than $1,000 within the last 12 months, and have no assets or ownership interests in any entity in the United States or abroad.

The CTA also exempts subsidiaries of certain exempt entities if those exempt entities own or control the subsidiary.

WHAT MUST BE REPORTED?

Reporting Companies are required to report to FinCEN:

  • basic company information, including full legal name, trade names, business address, state of incorporation or business registration, and employer identification number;
  • information of Beneficial Owners, including full legal name, date of birth, residential street address, unique ID number from individual’s identification document and issuing jurisdiction of acceptable ID document (e.g., driver’s
    license, passport, state-issued ID, etc.), and image of ID document from which unique ID number was obtained;
  • information of Company Applicants, including full legal name, date of birth, business address, unique ID number from individual’s identification document and issuing jurisdiction of acceptable ID document, and image of ID document from which unique ID number was obtained. A “Company Applicant” is defined as the individual who directly files a document with the state secretary of state’s office to create the entity or register it to do business in the state, and the individual who is primarily responsible for directing or controlling the filing.

There is no cap on the number of beneficial owners a Reporting Company is required to report. In contrast, a Reporting Company cannot have more than two reportable company applicants. Additionally, the CTA only requires Reporting Companies formed on or after January 1, 2024, to report company applicants in their initial reports. There is no requirement to report company applicants for entities formed prior to January 1, 2024.

WHO IS A BENEFICIAL OWNER?

A beneficial owner is defined as any individual who, directly or indirectly, either exercises substantial control over a Reporting Company or owns or controls at least 25% of the ownership interests of such Reporting Company.

An individual may exert substantial control by (i) serving as a senior officer (e.g., company’s president, CEO, COO, CFO or general counsel, or any officer who performs a similar function), (ii) having authority to appoint or remove certain officers or a majority of directors (or similar governing body) of the Reporting Company or (iii) having “substantial influence” over important matters at the company, regardless of their title or role.

Ownership interests in a company generally refer to any arrangement that establishes ownership rights in the Reporting Company, such as stock, capital or profit interests, convertible interests, options to buy or sell any of the above-named interests, or contracts, relationships or other understandings. Option interests must be treated as exercised for purposes of the analysis. Additionally, a beneficial owner may own or control such interest directly or indirectly, jointly with another person or through an agent, custodian, trust or intermediary entity.

The CTA identifies five instances where an individual who would otherwise be a beneficial owner under the Act qualifies for an exception. In these cases, the Reporting Company does not have to report the individual’s information to FinCEN. These exceptions are as follows:

  • a minor child;
  • a nominee, intermediary, custodian or agent;
  • an employee (excluding senior officers);
  • an inheritor, whose only interest in the company is a future interest through a right of inheritance; and
  • a creditor.

HOW TO REPORT

No filings are due prior to the Act’s effective date. While FinCEN has published draft forms for filing by a Reporting Company for comment, they are not yet finalized. FinCEN is also in the process of setting up the beneficial owner reporting infrastructure, the Beneficial Ownership Secure System (“BOSS”), which has not yet been finalized.

If beneficial owners or company applicants do not want to provide their personal data to a Reporting Company, individuals have the option of applying directly to FinCEN for a “FinCEN identifier” (a “FinCEN ID”). The individual will need to provide directly to FinCEN all of the same data that he or she would need to submit to the Reporting Company, but then would only need to provide his or her FinCEN ID to the Reporting Company for inclusion on its reporting.

Individuals who receive FinCEN IDs have the burden of keeping their data updated with FinCEN, whereas a Reporting Company has the burden of keeping the individual’s data current if the individual reports such data directly to the Reporting Company.

WHEN TO REPORT

For non-exempt Reporting Companies in existence as of January 1, 2024, they will have until January 1, 2025, to make their initial beneficial ownership report.

For non-exempt Reporting Companies formed on or after January 1, 2024, they will need to file their first beneficial ownership report within 30 calendar days after the date of formation. On November 29, 2023, FinCEN issued a final rule extending this deadline to 90 days for companies formed or registered in 2024. The time of formation is the earlier of (i) a company receiving actual notice of its registration from the state secretary of state or (ii) a company receiving notice of its registration becoming publicly available.

In addition to filing initial reports, Reporting Companies are also obligated to make reports within 30 days of a change to any data that FinCEN requires to be reported for the company and its beneficial owners.

PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE

Congress included steep penalties for non-compliance with the CTA’s reporting requirements. Specifically, the CTA provides that willfully reporting or attempting to report false or fraudulent beneficial ownership, or willfully failing to make updates, shall be punishable with a civil penalty up to $500 per day while such violation continues, with a possible criminal fine up to $10,000 and up to two years in prison. If a reporting violation is found to be “willful,” the CTA provides that responsible parties can include individuals that cause the failure, or are senior officers of the Reporting Company at the
time of the failure. The CTA also enhances criminal penalties when a Reporting Company’s failure to file is combined with other illegal activity.

Additionally, it is also unlawful to knowingly disclose or knowingly use beneficial ownership information obtained by the person for an unauthorized purposes. Violations are punishable with a mandatory civil penalty of $500 per day while the violation continues, plus a possible criminal fine of up to $250,000, five years in prison, or both.

HOW YOU CAN PREPARE

The CTA will alter the ways entities organize and govern themselves and it will impose substantial and continuing reporting obligations. In the weeks leading up to the CTA’s implementation, entities should be developing internal policies and procedures to assess their reporting obligations, identify beneficial owners, and identify company applicants on a go-forward basis.

Reporting Companies may wish to consider adopting a CTA compliance policy. Such a policy can educate managers and senior officers on obligations under the CTA, address procedures for reporting to FinCEN and monitoring changes to a company’s reporting status and beneficial ownership, and address the application of the CTA to potential future affiliates of the Reporting Company.

Reporting Companies may also wish to consider how the CTA may implicate its constituent documents and evaluate amending existing operating agreements to incorporate provisions addressing compliance with the CTA. Similarly, some entities may wish to consider their organizational structures and corporate governance in light of the obligation to collect and report personally identifiable information. Additionally, Reporting Companies should consider how the CTA will impact future material transactions, such as mergers and acquisitions.

© 2023 Vedder Price
by: Joel R. Thielen of Vedder Price
For more news on Corporate Transparency Act Updates, visit the NLR Financial Institutions & Banking section.

Beneficial for Whom? Requirement to Provide Beneficial Ownership Information for Business Entities Begins January 1, 2024

On January 1, 2024, the Corporate Transparency Act, a US federal law, will begin requiring certain corporations and limited liability companies to disclose their beneficial ownership information to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a bureau of the US Department of the Treasury. The corporate ownership structures of many gaming companies, particularly those that utilize a private equity or Voteco model, may be subject to the reporting obligations.

Unless an exemption applies, entities subject to these obligations must report information about their beneficial owners, including their full legal names, dates of birth, addresses, unique identification numbers, and an image of one of the following non-expired documents: (i) state driver’s license; (ii) US passport; or (iii) identification document issued by a state, local government, or tribe. Gaming companies should consult with their legal counsel on their specific structures and the applicability of the reporting obligations to their corporate ownership models.

The willful failure to report complete or updated beneficial ownership information to FinCEN, or the willful provision of or attempt to provide false or fraudulent beneficial ownership information, may result in civil or criminal penalties, including civil penalties of up to $500 for each day that the violation continues or criminal penalties including imprisonment for up to two years and/or a fine of up to $10,000. Senior officers of an entity that fails to file a required beneficial ownership information report may be held accountable for that failure.

The obligation to report this information is generally required for entities with at least one beneficial owner who owns 25% or more of the entity or exercises substantial control over it. An individual exercises substantial control over a reporting company if that individual meets any of four general criteria: (1) the individual is a senior officer; (2) the individual has authority to appoint or remove certain officers or a majority of directors of the reporting company; (3) the individual is an important decision maker; or (4) the individual has any other form of substantial control over the reporting company.

Reporting companies created or registered to do business before January 1, 2024, will have until January 1, 2025, to file their initial reports. Under FinCEN’s regulations, reporting companies created or registered on or after January 1, 2024, will have 90 days after their company’s creation or registration to file their initial reports, and those created or registered on or after January 1, 2025, will have 30 days after their company’s creation or registration to file their initial reports.

© 2023 Jones Walker LLP
For more news on the Corporate Transparency Act and Beneficial Ownership Information, visit the NLR Criminal Law / Business Crimes section.

Corporate Transparency Act: Implications for Business Startups

Congress passed the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) in January 2021 to provide law enforcement agencies with further tools to combat financial crime and fraud. The CTA requires certain legal entities (each, a “reporting company”) to report, if no exemption is available, specific information about themselves, certain of their individual owners and managers, and certain individuals involved in their formation to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) of the U.S. Department of Treasury. The beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirements of the CTA are set to take effect on January 1, 2024. Those who disregard the CTA may be subject to civil and criminal penalties.

A recent advisory explaining the CTA reporting requirements in further detail may be found here.

While the CTA includes 23 enumerated exemptions for reporting companies, newly formed businesses (Startups) may not qualify for an exemption before the date on which an initial BOI report is due to FinCEN. As a result, Startups (particularly those created on or after January 1, 2024) and their founders and investors, must be prepared to comply promptly with the CTA’s reporting requirements.

As an example, businesses may want to pursue the large operating company exemption under the CTA. However, among other conditions, a company must have filed a federal income tax or information return for the previous year demonstrating more than $5 million in gross receipts or sales. By definition, a newly formed business will not have filed a federal income tax or information return for the previous year. If no other exemption is readily available, such a Startup will need to file an initial BOI report, subject to ongoing monitoring as to whether it subsequently qualifies for an exemption or any reported BOI changes or needs to be corrected, in either case triggering an obligation to file an updated BOI report within 30 days of the applicable event.

Startups also should be mindful that the large operating company exemption requires the entity to (i) directly employ more than 20 full time employees in the U.S. and (ii) have an operating presence at a physical office within the U.S. that is distinct from the place of business of any other unaffiliated entity. Importantly, this means that a mere “holding company” (an entity that issues ownership interests and holds one or more operating subsidiaries but does not itself satisfy the other conditions of this exemption) will not qualify. Startups may want to consider these aspects of the large operating company exemption during the pre-formation phase of their business.

Fundraising often requires Startups to satisfy competing demands among groups of investors, which can lead to relatively complex capitalization tables and unique arrangements regarding management and control. These features may cause BOI reporting for Startups to be more complicated than reporting for other small and closely held businesses. Founders, investors, and potential investors should familiarize themselves with the CTA’s reporting requirements and formulate a plan to facilitate compliance, including with respect to the collection, storage and updating of BOI.

By ensuring all stakeholders understand the BOI reporting requirements and are prepared to comply, your Startup can avoid conflicts with current and potential investors and ensure that it collects the information that it needs to provide a complete and timely BOI report.

Yezi (Amy) Yan and Jordan R. Holzgen contributed to this article.

© 2023 Varnum LLP
For more news on the Corporate Transparency Act, visit the NLR Corporate & Business Organizations section.

What Can We Learn From OFAC Enforcement Actions?

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has closed eight enforcement actions so far in 2023. These enforcement actions targeted companies, financial institutions, and individuals in the United States and abroad, and they resulted in more than $550 million in settlements.

What can other companies, financial institutions, and individuals learn from these enforcement actions? OFAC publishes Enforcement Releases on its website, and these releases provide some notable insights into OFAC’s sanctions enforcement tactics and priorities. By understanding these tactics and priorities, potential targets of OFAC enforcement actions can take strategic steps to bolster their sanctions compliance programs and efforts and reduce their risk of facing OFAC scrutiny.
Notably, all eight of OFAC’s enforcement actions so far in 2023 resulted in settlements with the target. As discussed further below, the majority of these enforcement actions also resulted from voluntary self-disclosures—so it makes sense that the companies and financial institutions involved were interested in settling. There are several other notable consistencies among OFAC’s 2023 enforcement actions as well.

OFAC Enforcement Actions in 2023

Here is a brief summary of each of OFAC’s enforcement actions so far in 2023:

1. Godfrey Phillips India Limited

Statutory Maximum Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP): $1.78 million

Base Penalty Amount: $475,000 (non-egregious violation, no voluntary self-
disclosure)
Settlement Amount: $332,500

Godfrey Phillips India Limited (GPI) faced an enforcement action related to its use of U.S. financial institutions to process transactions for exporting tobacco to North Korea. According to OFAC, GPI “relied on several third-country intermediary parties to receive payment, which obscured the nexus to the DPRK and caused U.S. financial institutions to process these transactions.”

In agreeing to a $332,500 settlement with GPI, OFAC considered the following
aggravating factors under its Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines:

  •  GPI acted “recklessly” and exercised a “minimal degree of caution or care for U.S. sanctions laws and regulations.”
  • Several company managers had actual knowledge that the conduct at issue “concerned the exportation of tobacco to [North Korea].”
  •  The company’s actions harmed U.S. foreign policy objectives “by providing a sought-after, revenue-generating good to the North Korean regime.”

    Mitigating factors in this case included:

  • GPI had not received a Penalty Notice or Finding of Violation from OFAC in the previous five years.
  •  GPI took remedial measures upon learning of the apparent violations, including implementing new know-your customer measures and recordkeeping requirements.
  •   GPI cooperated with OFAC during its investigation.

2. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Statutory Maximum CMP: $1.066 billion

Base Penalty Amount: $533,369,211 (egregious violation, voluntary self-disclosure)

Settlement Amount: $30 million

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. faced an enforcement action related to its predecessor Wachovia Bank’s decision to provide software to a foreign bank that used the software to process trade-finance transactions with sanctioned nations and entities. While noting multiple failures by the bank (including its failure to identify the issue for seven years “despite concerns raised internally within Wells Fargo on multiple occasions”), OFAC agreed to settle Wells Fargo’s potential half-billion-dollar liability for $30 million. Aggravating factors in this case included:

  •  Reckless disregard for U.S. sanctions requirements and failure to exercise a minimal degree of caution or care.
  • The fact that senior management “should reasonably have known” that the software was being used for transactions with sanctioned jurisdictions and entities.
  • Wells Fargo undermined the policy of OFAC’s sanctions programs for Iran, Sudan, and Syria by providing the software platform.

Mitigating factors in this case included:

  • Wells Fargo had a strong sanctions compliance program at the time of the apparent violations.
  • The “true magnitude of the sanctions harm underlying the conduct” is less than the total value of the transactions conducted using the software platform.
  • Wells Fargo had not received a Penalty Notice or Finding of Violation from OFAC in the previous five years and remediated the compliance issue immediately.

3. Uphold HQ Inc.

Statutory Maximum CMP: $44,468,494

Base Penalty Amount: $90,288 (non-egregious violation, voluntary self-disclosure)

Settlement Amount: $72,230

Uphold HQ Inc., a California-based money services business, faced an enforcement action related to its processing of transactions for customers who self-identified as being located in Iran or Cuba or as employees of the Government of Venezuela. The 152 transactions at issue involved a total value of $180,575. Aggravating factors in this case included:

  •  Failure to exercise due caution or care when conducting due diligence on customers who provided information indicating sanctions risks.
  • Uphold had reason to know that it was processing payments for customers in Iran and Cuba and who were employees of the Venezuelan government.

Mitigating factors in this case included:

  •  Uphold had not received a Penalty Notice or Finding of Violation from OFAC in the previous five years.
  • Uphold cooperated with OFAC’s investigation.
  •  Uphold undertook “numerous” remedial measures in response to OFAC’s investigation.

4. Microsoft Corporation

 
Statutory Maximum CMP: $404.6 million

Base Penalty Amount: $5.96 million (non-egregious violation, voluntary self-disclosure)

Settlement Amount: $2.98 million

Microsoft Corporation faced an enforcement action related to its exportation of “services or software” to Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs) and blocked persons in violation of OFAC’s Cuba, Iran, Syria, and Ukraine/Russia-related sanctions programs. According to OFAC’s Enforcement Release, “[t]he majority of the apparent violations . . . occurred as a result of [Microsoft’s] failure to identify and prevent the use of its products by prohibited parties.” Aggravating factors in this case included:

  • Microsoft demonstrated a reckless disregard for U.S. sanctions over a seven-year period.
  •  The apparent violations harmed U.S. foreign policy objectives by providing software and services to more than 100 SDNs or blocked persons, “including major Russian enterprises.”
  •  Microsoft is a “world-leading technology company operating globally with substantial experience and expertise in software and related services sales and transactions.”

Mitigating factors in this case included:

  • There was no evidence that anyone in Microsoft’s U.S. management was aware of the apparent violations at any time.
  • Microsoft cooperated with OFAC’s investigation.
  • Microsoft undertook “significant remedial measures and enhanced its sanctions compliance program through substantial investment” after learning of the apparent violations.

5. British American Tobacco P.L.C.

Statutory Maximum CMP: $508.61 billion

Base Penalty Amount: $508.61 billion (egregious violation, no voluntary self-
disclosure)
Settlement Amount: $508.61 billion

British American Tobacco P.L.C. entered into a settlement for the full statutory maximum CMP resulting from apparent violations of OFAC’s sanctions against North Korea. According to OFAC, the company engaged in a conspiracy “to export tobacco and related products to North Korea and receive payment for those exports through the U.S. financial system” by obscuring the source of the funds involved. Aggravating factors in this case included:

  •  The company “willfully conspired” to unlawfully transfer hundreds of millions of dollars from North Korea through U.S. banks.
  •  The company concealed its business in North Korea through “a complex remittance structure that relied on an opaque series of front companies and intermediaries.”
  • The company’s management had actual knowledge of the apparent conspiracy “from its inception through its termination.”
  •  The transactions at issue “helped North Korea establish and operate a cigarette manufacturing business . . . that has reportedly netted over $1 billion per year.”
  •  British American Tobacco is “a large and sophisticated international company operating in approximately 180 markets around the world.”

Mitigating factors in this case included:

  • British American Tobacco has not received a Penalty Notice or Finding of Violation in the past five years.
  •  British American Tobacco cooperated with OFAC’s investigation.

6. Poloniex, LLC

Statutory Maximum CMP: 19.69 billion

Base Penalty Amount: $99.23 million (non-egregious violation, voluntary self-disclosure)

Settlement Amount: $7.59 million

Poloniex, LLC, which operates an online trading platform in the United States, agreed to settle after it was discovered that the company committed 65,942 apparent violations of various sanctions programs by processing transactions with a combined value of over $15 million. In settling for a small fraction of the base penalty amount, OFAC noted that Poloniex was a “small start-up” when most of the apparent violations were committed and that its acquiring company had already adopted a more-robust OFAC compliance program.

7. Murad, LLC

Statutory Maximum CMP: $22.22 million

Base Penalty Amount: $11.11 million (egregious violation, voluntary self-disclosure)

Settlement Amount: $3.33 million

Murad, LLC, a California-based cosmetics company, faced an OFAC enforcement action after it self-disclosed that it had exported products worth $11 million to Iran. While OFAC found that the company acted willingly in violating its sanctions on Iran, as mitigating factors OFAC noted the company’s remedial response and the “benign
consumer nature” of the products involved.

8. Swedbank Latvia AS

Statutory Maximum CMP: $112.32 million

Base Penalty Amount: $6.24 million (non-egregious violation, no voluntary self-disclosure)

Settlement Amount: $3.43 million

Swedbank Latvia AS faced an enforcement action related to the use of its e-banking platform by a customer with a Crimean IP address to send payments to persons in Crimea through U.S. correspondent banks. While OFAC noted that Swedbank Latvia is “a sophisticated financial institution with over one million customers” and failed to exercise due caution or care, it also noted that the bank took “significant remedial action” in response to the apparent violations and “substantially cooperated” with its investigation.

Insights from OFAC’s 2023 Enforcement Actions To Date

As these recent enforcement actions show, OFAC appears to be willing to give substantial weight to companies’ and financial institutions’ good-faith compliance efforts as well as their remedial efforts after discovering apparent sanctions violations. Cooperation was a key factor in several of OFAC’s 2023 enforcement actions as well. When facing OFAC scrutiny or the need to make a voluntary self-disclosure, companies and financial institutions must work with their counsel to make informed decisions, and they must move forward with a strategic plan in place focused on achieving a favorable outcome in light of the facts at hand.

Oberheiden P.C. © 2023
By Dr. Nick Oberheiden of Oberheiden P.C.
For more news on OFAC Enforcement Actions, visit the NLR Corporate & Business Organizations section.

Taxpayer Makes Offer, But IRS Refused

James E. Caan, the movie actor most famous for playing Sonny Corleone in The Godfather, got into IRS trouble regarding the attempted tax-free rollover of his IRA.

Caan had two IRA accounts at UBS, a multinational investment bank and financial services company. One account held cash, mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETF) and the other account held a partnership interest in a hedge fund called P&A Multi-Sector Fund, L.P.

Because the hedge fund was a non-publicly traded investment, UBS required Caan to provide UBS with the year-end fair market value to prepare IRS Form 5498. Caan never provided the fair market value as of December 31, 2014. UBS issued a number of notices and warnings to Caan and finally on November 25, 2015, UBS resigned as custodian of the P&A Interest. UBS issued Caan a 2015 Form 1099-R reporting a distribution of $1,910,903, which was the value of the P&A Interest, used as of December 31, 2013. Caan’s 2015 tax return reported the distribution as nontaxable.

In June 2015, Caan’s investment advisor Michael Margiotta resigned from UBS and began working for Merrill Lynch. In October 2015, Margiotta got all UBS IRA assets to transfer to a Merrill Lynch IRA, except for the P&A Interest. The P&A Interest was ineligible to transfer through the Automated Customer Account Transfer Service. In December 2016, Mr. Margiotta directed the P&A Fund to liquidate the P&A Interest and the cash was transferred to Caan’s Merrill Lynch IRA in three separate wires between January 23 and June 21, 2017.

In April 2018, the IRS issued a Notice of Deficiency for the 2015 tax year asserting that distribution of the P&A Interest was taxable. On July 27, 2018, Caan requested a private letter ruling asking the IRS to waive the requirement that a rollover of an IRA distribution be made within 60 days. In September 2018, the IRS declined to issue the ruling.

Caan died July 6, 2022. In the Estate of Caan v. Commissioner, 161 T.C. No. 6 (October 18, 2023), the Tax Court ruled that Caan was not eligible for a tax-free IRA rollover of the P&A Interest for three reasons. First, to be a nontaxable rollover the taxpayer may not change the character of any noncash distributed property, but here, the P&A Interest was changed to cash before being rolled-over. Second, the contribution of the cash occurred long after the 60-day deadline. Third, only one rollover contribution is allowed in any one-year period, but Caan had three contributions. The Court also determined the 2015 fair market value of the P&A Interest.

Finally, the Tax Court determined that it has jurisdiction to review the IRS denial of the 60-day waiver request and that the applicable standard of review is an abuse of discretion. The Court ruled there was no abuse of discretion because Caan changed the character of the rollover property and even if the IRS waived the 60-day requirement, the rollover would still not be tax-free.

The case highlights some of the potential dangers in holding non-traditional, non-publicly traded assets in an IRA.

© 2023 Chuhak & Tecson P.C.
For more news on IRA rollovers, visit the NLR Tax section.

FINRA Facts and Trends: October 2023

Welcome to the latest issue of Bracewell’s FINRA Facts and Trends, a monthly newsletter devoted to condensing and digesting recent FINRA developments in the areas of enforcement, regulation and dispute resolution. This month, we report on ongoing constitutional challenges to FINRA’s enforcement authority, the possible expansion of the SEC’s WhatsApp record-keeping probe to Zoom and other video calling platforms, several multimillion-dollar settlements of FINRA enforcement actions, and more.

Federal Court Allows FINRA Enforcement Action to Proceed Despite Constitutional Challenges

In the wake of the DC Circuit’s July 2023 ruling that granted an injunction staying a FINRA enforcement proceeding against a broker-dealer based on constitutional challenges of FINRA’s authority, two more FINRA member firms have recently filed federal lawsuits seeking to enjoin FINRA proceedings against them on the same basis. First, in August, Eugene H. Kim filed a lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Columbia (the District Court) seeking a stay of a FINRA enforcement action brought against him for allegedly misusing customer funds. More recently, on October 18, Sidney Lebental filed a similar lawsuit in the District Court, seeking a stay of a FINRA enforcement action brought against him for alleged misconduct in connection with his execution of certain trades.

As we reported in July and September, the DC Circuit’s ruling in July granted a preliminary injunction based on a finding that the plaintiff in that case, Alpine Securities Corporation, had “raised a serious argument that FINRA impermissibly exercises significant executive power.” The two more recent lawsuits filed by Kim and Lebental seek to apply this logic to their own cases, and thus to enjoin FINRA’s Department of Enforcement from proceeding with the actions against them.

But in a ruling issued earlier this month, the District Court declined to grant a stay of the FINRA Enforcement proceeding against Kim. While the District Court acknowledged that it takes guidance from the DC Circuit’s preliminary injunction opinion in Alpine, it held that that opinion “does not suggest that courts must enjoin every challenged FINRA enforcement action pending the Alpine merits decision.” To interpret the DC Circuit’s decision as effectively halting all FINRA enforcement actions, the District Court said, “would upend FINRA’s work—a result that would put investors and US securities markets at risk.”

Will the SEC Turn Its Focus to Zoom Recordings After WhatsApp?

The SEC’s highly publicized sweep of financial service providers’ improper use of WhatsApp and other off-channel communication platforms has resulted in settlements exceeding $2.5 billion. Now, people familiar with the scope and findings of the SEC’s WhatsApp probe have raised concerns that the SEC will expand its record-keeping requirement to include calls over video calling platforms, including Zoom and Microsoft Teams. Those who believe that this expansion is inevitable have already taken steps to meet the SEC’s anticipated scrutiny.

Reuters has reported that the proactive steps taken by some firms include retaining technology specialists and risk consultants not only to ensure that video calls are properly monitored and retained, but also to prevent the use of these platforms for sharing non-public information. Already, two “major global banks” are capturing Zoom sessions, said sources with knowledge of the matter. One of these firms is recording calls by traders and other staff, while the other is capturing all calls so they can be accessed at a future time, if necessary. As of now, video calls are subject to little or no formal record-keeping requirements, as they are viewed as proxies for face-to-face encounters. That may change very soon, with regulators apparently poised to begin assessing the potential for compliance failures over video platforms.

Latest FINRA Dispute Resolution Statistics Point to an Increase in Arbitration Filings

FINRA has released its latest dispute resolution statistics for the current year through September 2023. According to FINRA, the number of arbitration filings has increased nearly 25 percent from this time last year. Customer claims have gone up 14 percent, and breach of fiduciary duty was cited as the most frequent customer claim with a total of 1,127 cases, up from 967 this time last year. The number of industry disputes was 43 percent higher than in September 2022 and breach of contract claims have been the most popular claims so far in 2023, with a total of 201 cases, up from 162 cases a year ago. Notably, filings of Regulation BI arbitration claims by customers continue to rise, with 320 claims filed so far this year, compared to just 216 claims in all of 2022. After cracking the top 15 controversy types in May 2022, Reg BI claims through September have moved the category up to 9th place, and the expectation is that heightened Reg BI scrutiny will give rise to even more claims.

We will report on year-end statistics in early 2024.

Source: FINRA, Dispute Resolution Statistics, https://www.finra.org/arbitration-mediation/dispute-resolution-statistics (last visited Oct. 31, 2023).

Lawsuit Against Broker-Dealer Highlights Risks of Online Impersonators

A Swedish woman recently filed a lawsuit in New Jersey federal court against a New Jersey-based FINRA broker-dealer, AlMax Financial Solutions. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff was defrauded out of more than $180,000 — not by AlMax, but by an impostor website that maintained a website falsely impersonating AlMax.

Notably for FINRA members, the plaintiff’s complaint references FINRA Regulatory Notice 20-30 (Fraudsters Using Registered Representatives Names to Establish Imposter Websites), which informs member firms about reports of fraudsters who run imposter websites while posing as FINRA members.

It is unclear whether the lawsuit, which asserts claims for negligence and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, has any legal merit. For one thing, FINRA Regulatory Notice 20-30 prescribes no mandatory measures that member firms must take to root out impostors, and instead only provides certain actions that members “can take” or that they “may also consider.” Nevertheless, the case is a reminder to member firms of the guidance provided by FINRA concerning these imposter websites, and the risks they may pose.

SDNY Judge Halts FINRA Arbitration Brought by Non-Customers

In a ruling issued on October 13, 2023, US District Judge Naomi Buchwald of the Southern District of New York confirmed that FINRA arbitrations may not be commenced by investors who are not customers of a FINRA member firm, and enjoined an ongoing FINRA proceeding on that basis.

The FINRA proceeding in question was filed against Interactive Brokers LLC, a FINRA member firm, by a group of investors in funds managed by EIA All Weather Alpha Fund I Partners, LLC (EIA). According to the FINRA Statement of Claim, EIA misled its investors and misappropriated their investment assets.

EIA separately maintained trading accounts with Interactive Brokers during the relevant period, the FINRA Statement of Claim said. The investor-claimants filed claims against Interactive Brokers, arguing that — even though the investors themselves had no direct relationship with Interactive Brokers — Interactive Brokers had a responsibility to detect and prevent EIA’s misconduct, but failed to do so. And, because EIA’s relationship with Interactive Brokers was governed by an agreement that contained a broad arbitration provision, the investors contended that its claims against Interactive Brokers were subject to FINRA arbitration, either as third-party beneficiaries of EIA’s agreement with Interactive Brokers, or pursuant to FINRA Rules.

In its ruling after Interactive Brokers filed a lawsuit to stay the arbitration, the Court rejected these arguments. Most significantly, the Court reiterated the Second Circuit’s bright-line rule that to qualify as a “customer” for purposes of FINRA Rule 12200, a person must either purchase a good or service from a FINRA member, or maintain an account with a FINRA member. Since the EIA investors had no such relationship with Interactive Brokers, the Court rejected their claim to be “customers” entitled to avail themselves of FINRA Rules. The Court also found that the investors were not third-party beneficiaries of EIA’s agreement with Interactive Brokers, since they did not meet the “heightened threshold for clarity” required to find that a third party has the right to compel arbitration.

Reminder: New Expungement Rule Is Now Effective

This is a reminder that effective October 16, 2023, FINRA amended its rules to provide a stricter standard and procedural process for registered representatives seeking to expunge negative customer-related complaints. We previously provided a comprehensive analysis of the new FINRA expungement rule.

Notable Enforcement Matters and Disciplinary Actions

  • Inaccurate Trade Data. A multinational financial services firm was sanctioned a total of $12 million by FINRA and the SEC for allegedly submitting inaccurate trading data to the two regulators for nearly a decade. The Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent (AWC) detailing FINRA’s findings on this matter is available here, and the SEC’s administrative order is available here.Firms submit electronic blue sheets (EBSs) to regulators in response to requests for trade information. These EBSs provide examiners with trade details, including the nature of each transaction, the buyer and seller, and the transaction price. According to the SEC and FINRA, the respondent firm submitted tens of thousands of EBSs between November 2012 and October 2022 that were rife with inaccuracies for hundreds of millions of individual transactions.
  • The firm’s reporting failures allegedly stemmed from outdated and inaccurate code, manual validation errors and inadequate verification procedures. Prior to being notified of the inaccuracies, the firm had already begun voluntary remedial efforts, including a full-scale, line-by-line analysis of the code underlying its EBS program, automation of the EBS processing procedures and migration of data to a new reporting system.
  • Trading Approval. A multinational brokerage firm agreed to pay more than $1.6 million to FINRA and the state of Massachusetts to settle claims that it failed to exercise due diligence when approving investors for options trading. The AWC detailing FINRA’s findings is available here.According to regulators, at least some of the alleged violations resulted from a deluge of new account applications in response to the “meme stock” craze of 2020 and 2021. Among other things, the firm’s automated screening system allegedly approved approximately 400 teenagers under the age of 19 to trade options (an impossibility, since the firm’s rules required all customers seeking to trade options to have at least one year of investment experience after the age of 18). The firm also permitted customers to re-submit rejected applications after artificially inflating their trading experience, income and net worth.
  • Inaccurate Research Reports.  A multinational brokerage firm incurred a $2 million sanction over claims that it published thousands of equity and debt research reports with inaccurate conflicts disclosures between 2013 and 2021. The AWC detailing FINRA’s findings is available here.According to FINRA, the firm not only failed to disclose conflicts, but also disclosed conflicts that did not exist. The violations, amounting to more than 300,000 disclosure inaccuracies, allegedly resulted from a series of technical and operational issues, including problems with data feeds, mistakes in the aggregation of client information and a failure to update old data.

FINRA Notices and Rule Filings

  • Regulatory Notice 23-16 – FINRA amended its By-Laws to exempt from the Trading Activity Fee any transaction by a proprietary trading firm that is executed on an exchange of which the firm is a member. This exemption relates to the SEC’s recent amendments to Exchange Act Rule 15b9-1, which we reported on last month. The TAF exemption for proprietary trading firms will be effective November 6, 2023.
  • SR-FINRA-2023-013 – FINRA has proposed a rule change that would amend the FINRA Codes of Arbitration Procedure to disallow compensated representatives who are not attorneys from representing parties in FINRA arbitrations and mediations. The proposed rule change would also codify that law students enrolled in a law school clinic and practicing under the supervision of an admitted attorney may represent parties in FINRA arbitrations and mediations.

© 2023 Bracewell LLP

By Joshua Klein , Keith Blackman , Russell W. Gallaro of Bracewell LLP

For more on FINRA Trends, visit the NLR Financial Institutions & Banking section.

Businesses Beware: Penalties for Failure to Comply with Reporting Requirements of the Corporate Transparency Act

Businesses, especially small and privately-owned businesses, should be aware of federal reporting requirements becoming effective Jan. 1, 2024. Congress enacted the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) in 2021 to combat money laundering, terrorism financing, securities fraud, and other illicit financial activities by requiring businesses to be transparent about their ownership. With significant exceptions, the CTA generally requires businesses to report certain information—known as Beneficial Ownership Information (“BOI”)—to the federal government. BOI must be reported to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”)—a Bureau of the U.S. Department of Treasury—where the information will be stored in a secured database. Last year, FinCEN published final regulations implementing the CTA’s reporting requirements. These regulations become effective Jan. 1, 2024.

Businesses should begin preparing for compliance with the CTA, as initial reports for existing businesses must be submitted prior to Jan. 1, 2025, and the penalties for non-compliance are severe.

What is BOI?
The CTA generally requires most domestic and foreign business entities doing business in the United States to report BOI concerning:

persons who directly or indirectly hold a 25% or greater interest in the business;
persons who directly or indirectly “exercise substantial control over” the business; and
for businesses formed after Jan. 1, 2024, persons who assisted in the preparation of the business’s organic documents.
To Whom and When Must BOI be Reported?
For existing businesses, BOI must be reported prior to January 01, 2025.
Businesses formed after Jan. 1, 2024, will have 30 days from confirmation of their formation, incorporation, or registration to report BOI.
If a business’s beneficial ownership changes following the submission of a BOI report, the business must report updated BOI to FinCEN within 30 days after such change.
Penalties for Failure to Comply with the CTA
The penalties for willfully failing to comply with the CTA’s reporting requirements are quite severe. Any person who willfully fails to report BOI or reports it inaccurately may be subject to civil and criminal penalties, including fines up to a maximum of $10,000 and imprisonment up to 2 years. Businesses should be aware that, although they may have been required to supply information regarding the entity to the secretary of state or other similar office upon formation or registration, BOI reports concern the business’ owners or controllers and must be submitted to FinCEN in addition to any information supplied to a state during the entity’s formation or registration.

An Evolving Landscape: Interplay between State Law and the Impact of the CTA on Businesses
It is yet to be seen whether states will adopt similar or identical BOI reporting requirements. As of the date of this post, legislation is pending in New York that would require LLCs to submit BOI to the New York Department of State upon organization or registration with the state. This same legislation also requires existing LLCs to amend their organic documents to include BOI.

Pennsylvania amended its Business Corporation Law effective Jan. 1, 2023, and now requires businesses conducting business in the state to file annual reports containing information regarding the entity itself. Pennsylvania does not currently require reporting of BOI. However, it is likely that Pennsylvania and many other states will soon follow the lead of the federal government and New York in requiring businesses to report BOI on a state level.

Conclusion
The CTA’s adoption is a watershed moment in the regulation of business entities. For the first time, businesses will be required to internally track and monitor their BOI to ensure compliance with the CTA. Moreover, compliance with the CTA will require businesses to evaluate their control structures and contractual relationships. For example, while it may be simple to determine whether a person owns 25% or more of a business, the determination of whether someone “exercises substantial control over” the business may not be so straightforward.

It is strongly recommended that businesses consult an experienced and qualified attorney to determine whether they are subject to the CTA’s reporting requirements, as well as any similar requirements imposed by states in the future.

©2023 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved

By Rocco L. Beltrami , John F. Lushis, Jr. of Norris McLaughlin P.A.

For more on the Corporate Transparency Act, visit the NLR Corporate & Business Organizations section.

Upstream and Affiliate Guaranties in NAV Loans

Guaranties are a common feature in fund finance transactions. Particularly in NAV loans, upstream and affiliate (or “sideways”) guaranties are used. Below we discuss some of the context for the use of these types of guaranties, as well as some of the issues that lenders should consider in relying on them.

Upstream Guaranties

It is not uncommon in NAV loan transactions for the borrower to hold the underwritten assets for the financing (i.e., the fund’s portfolio of investments) through one or more controlled subsidiary holding vehicles (each, a “HoldCo”). Lenders may take a pledge of the management and economic interests in the HoldCos (rather than the underlying investments). In order to get as close to the underlying investments as possible (without taking a pledge), lenders may require that a HoldCo issue a guaranty directly to the lenders (or the administrative agent, on behalf of the lenders), guaranteeing the borrower’s obligations under the NAV loan facility. This “upstream” guaranty provides the lenders a direct claim against the HoldCo for amounts due under the loan, mitigating some of the risk of structural subordination to potential creditors (expected or unexpected) at the level of the HoldCo.[1]

Affiliate Guaranties

It is also common in NAV loan facilities for the borrower’s portfolio of investments to be held by multiple subsidiaries and/or affiliates of the borrower. Each such subsidiary or affiliate may be designated as a guarantor for repayment of the loan. As a result, such entities end up guaranteeing the obligations of their affiliates. The purpose of these affiliate guaranties is the same as the upstream guaranties discussed above – namely, to provide the lenders with a more direct enforcement claim in a default scenario.

Use of Such Guaranties

Motivations for the use of such upstream and affiliate guaranties may include:

a lender’s desire to underwrite a broader portfolio of investments, mitigating concentration risk to the portfolio of a single holding entity;
a lender’s desire to ensure that it is not subordinate to creditors that may arise at the level of the entity that directly owns the investment; or
a borrower’s desire to obtain a higher loan-to-value ratio than the lenders would otherwise provide based on the investments alone.
While upstream and affiliate guaranties can help to address these issues, they may raise nuanced legal issues that should be discussed with counsel in light of the relevant facts and circumstances.

Enforceability Considerations

Guaranties constitute the assumption of the liabilities of another entity and are contingent claims against the guarantor. Under certain insolvency laws, guaranties may be subject to challenge, and payments under guaranties may be subject to avoidance. Upstream or affiliate guaranties may be subject to heightened scrutiny and challenge in a bankruptcy or distress scenario. Below are a few potential issues lenders should bear in mind with respect to upstream and affiliate guaranties.

1. Constructively Fraudulent Transfer Avoidance. Under Bankruptcy Code section 548 and certain state laws, (a) transfers of property (including grants of security interests or liens), or (b) obligations assumed (such as incurring a loan or guaranty obligation) may be avoided as constructively fraudulent if BOTH of the following requirements are satisfied:[2]

  • (i) the transferor/guarantor does not receive reasonably equivalent value; AND
  • (ii) the transferor/guarantor is insolvent or undercapitalized or rendered insolvent, undercapitalized or unable to pay its debts because of the transfer or the assumed liability.

A guaranty by a parent of the obligations of a wholly owned and solvent subsidiary, a so-called downstream guaranty, is generally regarded as providing the parent with reasonably equivalent value through an enhancement of the value of its equity ownership of the subsidiary.

Upstream and affiliate guaranties require more scrutiny than guaranties by a borrower parent to determine whether any potential enforceability issues are present.

a. Reasonably Equivalent Value. The determination of value is not formulaic or mechanical, but rather generally determined by the substance of the transaction. Value or benefits from a transfer may be direct (e.g., receipt of loan proceeds) or indirect. But if indirect, they must be “fairly concrete.”

In each of the above scenarios, we are assuming that the upstream or affiliate guarantor would not use the proceeds of any loans and, consequently, would not be added to the loan facility as a borrower. However, other indirect but tangible benefits or value to the guarantor should be identified, e.g., favorable loan terms or amendments, use of the NAV facility proceeds that may indirectly but materially benefit the guarantor, maintenance of the entire fund group of entities that benefits the guarantor, etc.

b. Financial Condition of Guarantor. The financial condition of the transferor/guarantor is evaluated at the time of the incurrence of the guaranty. The evaluation is made from the debtor/guarantor – in what condition was the guarantor left after giving effect to the transfer or assumption of the obligation. Diligence regarding a guarantor’s financial condition may demonstrate that such guarantor is sufficiently creditworthy to undertake the guaranty and remain solvent and able to conduct its respective businesses. Representations from the guarantor may be sought to confirm its financial condition.

c. Potential Mitigants. In addition to performing diligence with respect to the above points, lenders and their counsel will often include contractual provisions to mitigate the possibility that a guaranty may be found to constitute a fraudulent transfer. Savings clauses, limited recourse guaranties, and net worth guaranties are all tools that can be used to address the issues noted above. The scope and appropriateness of such provisions is beyond the scope of this article and should be discussed with external deal and restructuring counsel.

2. Preference Challenge. Under Bankruptcy Code section 547, a transfer made by a debtor to a creditor, on account of an antecedent debt, that is made while the debtor was insolvent and within 90 days before the bankruptcy case has been commenced may be subject to avoidance as a preferential transfer. Certain defenses may apply to a potential preferential transfer, including the simultaneous exchange of “new value” by the creditor. However, note that any pre-bankruptcy transfers of value, like payments under a guaranty, may be subject to scrutiny and potential challenge by the guarantor/debtor or a bankruptcy trustee.

Guaranties can be an important element in structuring NAV loan transactions to achieve the terms desired by the parties and to provide necessary protections for the lenders, but consideration needs to be given to the legal issues, such as the ones mentioned here, that their inclusion can present.

[1] Lenders will typically also require the HoldCo to pledge its accounts to which proceeds of the underlying investments are paid, allowing lenders to foreclose on such cash at the HoldCo level, without the need for such cash to first be distributed up to the borrower.

[2] Note that the precise language of certain state fraudulent transfer laws may differ, but conceptually, most state statutes require a showing of (i) insufficient or unreasonably small consideration in exchange for the transfer or liability incurred, and (ii) the transferor/debtor being insolvent at the time of the transfer, or becoming insolvent or subject to financial distress as a result of the transfer.

© Copyright 2023 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP