Category: Financial Services Law

Navigating the Business Landscape After Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank

NOTE: The information contained in the following alert is up-to-date as of March 15, 2023. News and events are evolving, so check the websites for the FDIC and the applicable banks for updates and announcements.

Start-up, emerging, middle market and other companies and their founders, executives, and investors, are facing heightened demands in the wake of recent developments involving Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and Signature Bank. You can navigate the situation and be well-positioned for continued growth and success by considering the suggestions below.

We banked with Silicon Valley Bank or Signature Bank. How can we get our funds?

  • All funds, including those above Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insurance limits, were transferred to Silicon Valley Bridge Bank, N.A. and Signature Bridge Bank, N.A., respectively, and depositors have full access to their money beginning March 13, 2023

  • You may continue to use the same online banking access, checks and/or ATM/debit cards to access your funds

What are the applicable FDIC insurance limits generally?

  • The FDIC exercised its authority under the systemic risk exception to cover uninsured deposits at Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, but has not otherwise modified the FDIC insurance thresholds

  • Deposits are insured up to at least $250,000 per depositor, per FDIC-insured bank, per ownership category

  • Legal entities with independent operations are generally entitled to $250,000 in FDIC-insurance per FDIC-insured bank

  • Bank customers do not need to purchase deposit insurance; it is automatic for any deposit account opened at an FDIC-insured bank

  • Funds swept into money market funds on an overnight basis are not treated as deposits of the bank, are not subject to FDIC insurance, and the FDIC will honor the banks obligation to convert the money market funds back into cash the next day

  • Banks may also offer a multibank sweep vehicle, often via IntraFi’s ICS or CDARS program, which allows balances in excess of the $250,000 amount to be transferred to other banks to take advantage of each bank’s $250,000 FDIC insurance limit

  • FDIC Link to Are My Deposit Accounts Insured by the FDIC

  • FDIC’s Electronic Deposit Insurance Estimator

We have venture debt or another form of loan from Silicon Valley Bank or Signature Bank. Do we need to continue to make payments? Are the terms of the facility or any security interest modified? Can we continue to draw on a line of credit? Is a letter of credit issued by one of those banks still valid?

  • Payment obligations continue, and the terms of any arrangements are unchanged

  • The FDIC can repudiate contracts under certain circumstances, and so it may not honor advances or letters of credit

  • The FDIC’s general policy is that its role as receiver generally precludes continuing the lending operations of a failed bank

  • The FDIC will consider advancing funds if it determines that the advance is in the best interest of the receivership

  • Upon receiving a funding request, the FDIC may: make all or a portion of the requested loan advance, undertake discussions to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement to restructure the loan, or exercise its statutory right as receiver to repudiate its funding obligations with respect to the loan

  • Accordingly, letter of credit counterparties may  not view Silicon Valley Bank-issued or Signature Bank-issued letters of credit as creditworthy in the current circumstances, and it may be beneficial to take proactive steps to make alternate arrangements where possible

  • However, Silicon Valley Bridge Bank has indicated that it will honor all commitments to advance under existing credit agreements

  • As receiver, the FDIC is looking to maximize recovery and will likely sell the assets of the banks in receivership, either individually or collectively to a successor institution.

What about any warrants issued to such institutions?

  • Warrants issued to a bank in receivership should remain valid and outstanding with no change impacting the cap table

  • As receiver, the FDIC is looking to maximize recovery and will likely sell the assets of the banks in receivership, either individually or collectively to a successor institution.

Can we leave our current bank or at least diversify our deposits across financial institutions?

  • Examine banking relationships and review loan agreements and lines of credit for restrictions and covenants that may require you to maintain primary banking relationship or certain deposit accounts (e.g., your receivables) at the lender

  • Look into ICS or CDARS programs at network banks, which provide FDIC insurance coverage for certain business deposits of $250,000 or more

  • New bank relationships require “Know Your Customer” processing, which requires lead time that could be even more protracted in the current climate

  • An international company considering cash repatriation will want to consider tax implications

Payroll is coming due. Can we delay payments to employees? What should our company do if it is tight on cash?

Labor and wage payment laws and regulations impose requirements on when employers must pay employees

  • Under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, employers must pay non-exempt employees for hours worked and exempt employees for their regularly weekly rate of pay on regularly scheduled pay days for the covered pay period

  • Where state law imposes higher standards regarding unpaid wages, minimum wage, and other wage payment obligations, consider furloughs or changes for future wages to avoid violations

  • Failure to pay wages when due can subject U.S. employers to, among other things, fines and liquidated damages including double or treble damages, attorney fees (for litigation) and individual personal civil and, in some cases, criminal liability on owners and executives

  • Employers remain obligated to deduct and remit payroll taxes from wages even when under stress caused by the insolvency of its bank

  • If company has employees or independent contractors outside the United States, consult local lawyer(s)

Assess payroll, legal and contractual requirements and alternatives

  • Identify other available funds to ensure that payroll requirements can be met and, if not, explore alternative sources of funding

  • Request company owners, senior executives and board to consider pay cuts

  • Consider measures ranging from furloughs of nonexempt employees to pay cuts and/or reductions in hours in compliance with labor and employment laws, and clearly communicate changes to employees

  • Consider use of retention/stay bonuses

  • If an employee decides to leave or a decision is made to let an employee go, consider separation agreement issues and limits on use of non-compete, non-solicitation, non-disclosure, non-disparagement and appropriate release terms in specific context, including in light of existing employee agreements

  • Confirm and comply with prior employee documentation, including employment agreements, offer letters, employee handbooks and policies, IP assignment terms, confidentiality terms, and option or other equity terms

  • Consider governance and contractual requirements with respect to changes in compensation, bonus plans, etc.

  • Take control and communicate with employees as appropriate, to manage the situation and help allay fears and risk of departures and to enhance productivity

What are our options for payments owed to lenders, landlords, suppliers, vendors and other creditors?

  • Consider contacting creditors to negotiate short-term credit and payment extensions in light of cash flow needs and credit risk issues

  • Consider drawing existing and available lines of credit to shore up working capital position

  • Consider strategically stretching out payments to certain other non-critical trade creditors

  • Consider reaching out to investors for short-term liquidity or equity infusions

How can we identify and secure alternative sources of funding?

  • Focus on maintaining current payments to lifeblood sources

  • Consider reaching out to investors for short-term liquidity or equity infusions

  • Consider straight loan or promissory note if the company is in a position to pay a fixed sum or interest, and evaluate valuation, dilution and cap table impacts if considering SAFE, convertible note, warrant, preferred or other equity

  • Consider governance issues including necessary board and investor approvals, creditor consents, intercreditor and tax issues

  • Consider selling non-core assets

How do we obtain a line of credit in this environment?

  • New bank relationships require “Know Your Customer” processing, which require lead time that could be even more protracted in the current climate

  • New lines of credit require lead time for underwriting, credit approval and documentation and, if you have other debt facilities in place already, potential consent from existing lenders

  • Consider expanding existing banking relationships to shorten potential lead times,

What else should we take into account if we are considering bridge financing or other funding from our investors?

  • In addition to above, consider SAFE, convertible note or a preferred stock round and extending any repayment terms

  • Obtain interested party transaction approvals and addition to typical governance requirements such as board and investor approvals

What are my company’s reporting or disclosure obligations? What information should we share internally?

  • Your obligations depend in part on whether the company is public or private, accounting standards, securities laws, exchange rules, state corporate law, and your governance documents

  • For a private company, managing the situation through open and informal communications with stakeholders may provide insight and useful information for financial and operational issues and reporting to the Board

  • A public company affected by a bank shutdown or experiencing a liquidity challenge may have SEC disclosure obligations, and communications with stakeholders will be governed by securities laws

What should I keep in mind about board decision-making

  • Maintain acute awareness of the possibility of self-dealing or even the appearance of self-dealing, and obtain appropriate approvals for any insider transactions, such as disinterested director or stockholder approval

We are focused on conserving and managing cash. What should we be doing?

  • Engage or hire experienced financial and accounting advisors (whether an outside consulting or other firm, or a fractional or full-time experienced finance employee or independent contractor)

  • Track financial position and obligations closely, with an eye on foot faults that could arise in the near, medium, and long-term horizon

  • Challenge assumptions: long-term risks might suddenly become near-term ones.

  • Focus on liquidity issues (cash position, cash flow and burn rate) and forecast for several months to meet obligations to creditors, considering limits on access to significant deposits or credit lines if a banking partner has closed and potential changes in the credit market more broadly

  • Assess availability of alternative funding sources

  • Update financial statements, plans and projections and underlying assumptions, and consult with board, advisors and key investors about appropriate adjustments

  • Consult with advisors and partners on appropriate cash management, financial institution diversification and risk management strategies for your situation

How do we know if our business insurance is the right kind and amount to cover the risks our company and its directors and officers may face?

  • Determine whether losses from a bank closure are covered by business interruption or other insurance

  • Review current D&O insurance coverage, including the applicable limits and periods of coverage

Our company’s insurance premium payment is coming due. Can we delay or defer payment if we are tight on cash?

  • Insurance premiums should be paid when due, as failing to pay an insurance premium could cause the policy to lapse leaving it without coverage

  • Consider contacting the insurance company to clarify any grace period or adjust any deductible

  • Consult with an insurance broker and the board to evaluate whether there is a more affordable option. Review governance terms to see whether changes to insurance may require investor approval

Article By Lori Anne Czepiel, Robert Klingler, James W. Bartling, Mitch Boyarsky, Jason L. Watkins, Paul Z. Rothstein, Joe Daniels, Jackson Hwu, Neil Grayson, Benjamin Barnhill, J. Brennan Ryan, Dowse Bradwell Rustin IV, Richard Levin, and Craig Nazarro of Nelson Mullins.

For more financial and banking legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright ©2023 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

The Silicon Valley Bank Failure: Implications on Commercial Leasing

This past Friday, March 10, 2023, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) announced its takeover of the failed Silicon Valley Bank (“SVB”) after a run on the bank late last week caused the largest-scale U.S. bank failure since Washington Mutual in the 2008 financial crisis. Two days later, New York regulators shuttered Signature Bank (“Signature”). The federal government has made it clear that, while FDIC will guaranty all deposits, including uninsured ones, bailouts of these banks will not occur. The failures of SVB and Signature are likely to have widespread ramifications across many industry sectors, including commercial leasing.

How will the bank failures impact landlords in the commercial leasing sector?

  • SVB was a very common issuer of tenant letter of credit security deposits. A letter of credit security deposit is the issuing bank’s contractual obligation to pay the landlord beneficiary the amount that such landlord’s tenant is in default.
  • Landlords holding tenant letters of credit issued by SVB or Signature as security deposits will be directly impacted by the bank failures. Any undrawn standby letters of credit issued by SVB, Signature or any other bank under FDIC receivership may be repudiated by the FDIC, making any such letter of credit worthless. Any affected landlord will want to act promptly to provide proper protection of their interests under any applicable lease.

How can landlords protect their interests under such leases?

  • Any landlord holding a letter of credit security deposit should identify the issuing bank.
  • In any lease where the security deposit is a letter of credit issued by SVB or Signature, the landlord should carefully review the terms of the lease regarding the security deposit and the landlord’s approval rights over the issuing bank, but in any event require the tenant to provide it with a letter of credit issued by a different financial institution.
  • All landlords should review the terms their lease agreements relating to landlord approval rights over issuing banks, draw procedures and requirements and the process for replacing a letter of credit.
  • In the event the lease agreement in question does not provide landlord with adequate approval rights over the issuing bank, clear draw procedures and stringent replacement requirements, the landlord should consider amending the lease agreement to so require.

Article By Jeff Bates and Blake Young of Winstead

For more finance and banking legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2023 Winstead PC.

Information for Borrowers with Loans from Silicon Valley Bank or Signature Bank

This alert provides information for borrowers with loans from Silicon Valley Bank (“SVB”) or Signature Bank (“Signature”) based on information available from the FDIC and our clients’ experiences over the last few days. We have also included information regarding the FDIC’s general policies and procedures when selling and administering loans of failed banks. We will update this alert as additional information becomes available.

Borrowers with loans from SVB or Signature continue to wait for information from the FDIC, and the new bridge banks it formed, with respect to their loans, including any information regarding the sale of their loans, new bank contact information and updates to borrowing procedures and payoff logistics. At present, we understand that the bridge banks are attempting to operate in the same manner with respect to their borrowers (and depositors) that SVB and Signature operated prior to their failures, including through use of the existing relationship managers/bank contacts and online platforms and consistent borrowing and payment mechanics.

Systemic Risk Exception

As widely reported, on Sunday, March 12, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and the Treasury Secretary announced a systemic risk exception and created Silicon Valley Bridge Bank, N.A. and Signature Bridge Bank, N.A. (together, the “Bridge Banks”). The systemic risk exception is an attempt to avoid a widespread bank run and to ensure that all of SVB and Signature Bank’s depositors would be made whole after the failures of the two banks. The systemic risk exception is an exception to federal law that otherwise would require the FDIC to resolve a bank failure at the lowest cost to the Government’s deposit insurance fund.  See Crisis and Response: An FDIC History, 2008-2013, p. 36. Otherwise, the FDIC would not have been in a position to backstop uninsured deposits beyond the $250,000 insured limit per depositor per ownership category. For more information about FDIC deposit insurance limits please see our prior alert: SVB Receivership – What You Need to Know.

Prior to Sunday, the only uses of the systemic risk exception occurred in 2008 and 2009.  Id., pp. 35-36. The systemic risk exception has never before been used to create bridge banks at which loans at failed institutions would then be sold or administered by the FDIC.

Sale of SVB and Signature Loans

The general expectation after a bank failure is that the failed bank’s loans will be sold to a new lender as expeditiously as possible. The FDIC conducted an auction for the assets of SVB (including its loan portfolio) on Sunday, March 12. The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, March 13 that, while none of the largest U.S. Banks bid on SVB at the initial auction, there was at least one offer which was declined by the FDIC. The WSJ is also reporting that regulators are planning to hold another auction of SVB’s assets. We also anticipate an auction of Signature’s assets. The timing of these auctions remains unclear.

In the event that either or both of these auctions produce buyers of the Bridge Banks’ respective assets in bulk, those buyers will become the lenders under the failed banks’ loans. In that case, the applicable successor lender will advise its new borrowers of their new bank contacts and provide relevant loan administration information including loan payment procedures.

If either or both of the auctions fail to produce a buyer for all of the bank’s assets, a bank’s loan portfolio may be split up and sold piecemeal. In this event it may take longer before borrowers know the identity of their new lender. If some or all of the loans are not purchased, they will continue to be administered by the respective Bridge Banks or the FDIC. As noted above, the intent of the FDIC is to continue to operate the Bridge Banks pending substantial completion of the sale process.

Borrowing Under an SVB or Signature Line of Credit

In general, when the FDIC is appointed receiver, it immediately begins analyzing loans that require special attention, such as unfunded and partially funded lines of credit, and construction and development loans. Typically speaking, the role of receiver generally precludes the FDIC from continuing the lending operations of a failed bank; however, the FDIC will consider advancing funds if it determines an advance is in the best interest of the receivership, such as to protect or enhance collateral, or to ensure maximum recovery to the receivership. See A Borrowers Guide to an FDIC Insured Bank Failure.

When the FDIC is operating as receiver, its general procedures provide that if a borrower submits a request for additional funding, the FDIC will conduct a thorough analysis to determine the best course of action for the receivership. The FDIC uses information contained in the failed bank’s loan files to the extent available and considered reliable. Because the files of failed banks are often incomplete or poorly documented, the FDIC may require additional financial information to perform its analysis and make decisions.

In the current circumstances, with the Bridge Banks operating under the systemic risk exception, these general FDIC rules appear to have been relaxed, at least for the time being and our clients are reporting that borrowing (and deposit) operations are generally functioning in the ordinary course. We have not yet heard from any clients that additional information has been required in connection with advances from the Bridge Banks.

SVB Contact Information

The FDIC is currently directing SVB borrowers with questions about drawing on lines of credit to contact their existing relationship manager/bank representative at SVB. SVB also has a call center at 800-774-7390 open from 5:00 AM to 5:30 PM (Pacific) with representatives that can assist borrowers.

Signature Contact Information

The FDIC is currently directing Signature borrowers with questions about drawing on lines of credit to contact their existing relationship manager/bank representative at Signature Bank. Signature Bank also has a 24-hour call center at 866-744-5463 with representatives that can assist borrowers.

On Monday, March 13, our clients had mixed results contacting their existing bank relationship managers and drawing on lines of credit. Some clients requested online draws but have not been successful as a result of system malfunctions (and we heard the same reports with respect to some attempts to access and move deposits). On the other hand, we heard reports from our clients that automatic draws and account sweeps have continued to function (and many borrowers successfully accessed their accounts). Today (March 14), clients appear to be having more success in accessing their lines of credit. We will continue to gather information about borrowers’ ability to access their lines as it becomes available.

Loan Payoff/Lien Release Information

Many clients have inquired about the mechanics for arranging a loan payoff/refinancing of their SVB loan or Signature loan. In the event that the loan is sold, the borrower can coordinate payoff with the new lender that purchased the loan. In the meantime, borrowers should reach out to their relationship managers or otherwise contact the bank using the means provided above to arrange any payoff and/or lien release. Further information regarding lien releases may also be found on the FDIC lien release website. In the event that borrowers’ loans are not sold quickly by the FDIC to a new lender, we expect that those borrowers will be strongly encouraged by the FDIC to arrange for a refinancing. See A Borrowers Guide to an FDIC Insured Bank Failure.

Continue Performing Obligations under Loan Documents

Notwithstanding the failures of SVB and Signature, their borrowers should continue to abide by their loan documents, including submitting payments as required by their loan documents at the same addresses and complying with all other covenants and agreements. Borrowers will be advised by the FDIC, the Bridge Banks or a subsequent purchaser of their loan if there are any updates to payment mechanics or bank contact information.

Article By Timothy John Carter, Jonathan C. Hayden, Trevor Hoffmann, Muryum Khalid, Kevin Renna, Douglas B. Rosner, Andrew Rothstein, Jesse Rubinstein, and Jesse Scott of Goulston & Storrs.

Click here for more financial legal news from the National Law Review.

2023 Goulston & Storrs PC.

Silicon Valley Bank Fails After Run on Deposits

“The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation took control of the bank’s assets on Friday. The failure raised concerns that other banks could face problems, too.”

Read the New York Times article (Free Subscription Required)

In light of the news this morning that Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) has been closed by the California Department of Financial Protection, which appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as SVB’s receiver, it’s fair to ask if this is the beginning of a trend among regional banks or an isolated incident. SVB, while unique in the banking industry, since it would lend against illiquid (pre-IPO) securities, mainly issued by ventured-backed companies, faced challenges in a rising interest rate environment that are not unique and which, many similarly situated regional banks, are still facing.

As the Federal Reserve considers whether to raise interest rates by 0.25% or 0.5%, in order to combat inflation, a key factor in their analysis will be the impact these interest rate hikes have on regional banks and their portfolios. Regional banks, unlike their Fortune 100, multi-national counterparts, derive their value from vast portfolios of bonds, which are very sensitive to interest rate hikes (as interest rates rise, the value of these bonds fall). For instance, the S&P Regional Banks Select Industry Index is down 3.69% today, 19.92% month-to-date, and 13.02% year-to-date.

Therefore, in the coming days, it will be crucial to watch both the Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee meeting on March 21-22 and whether SVB’s collapse signals a contagion among the regional bank sector. SVB’s closure is the biggest bank collapse since the financial crisis and many start-up/early-stage companies will be very interested to see if it is the last or the first of many.

© 2023 ArentFox Schiff LLP

Congress Eases Criminal Offense Restrictions for Employment With Financial Institutions

Included in the defense spending bill signed by President Biden in December 2022 is a section with key provisions for financial institutions that will ease restrictions on hiring candidates with criminal records. Section 5705 in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2023, titled “Fair Hiring in Banking,” further narrows convictions that would constitute a bar to employment under Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA) absent a written waiver by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). A representative for the FDIC confirmed that the changes are effective now and will be implemented by the FDIC in 2023.

Background

Section 19 generally prohibits any person who has been convicted of a crime of “dishonesty or a breach of trust or money laundering or has agreed to enter into a pretrial diversion or similar program in connection with a prosecution for such offense” from working in banking without first obtaining written consent from the FDIC.

Section 19 requires financial institutions to conduct criminal background checks on job candidates, regardless of whether state or local laws limit consideration of criminal histories in hiring. In July 2020, the FDIC issued a final rule that loosened the prohibitions in Section 19 by, among other things, expanding what are considered “de minimis” offenses and expanding the definition of “expungement” to include an order to seal a criminal record or a record relating to a pretrial diversion program.

Older Offenses

The Fair Hiring in Banking provisions go even further, providing that a waiver is not needed if it has been seven years or more since the offense occurred or if the individual was incarcerated with respect to the offense and it has been five years or more since the individual was released from incarceration. The need for a waiver also does not apply to conduct that an individual committed before the age of 21 and if it has been at least thirty months since the sentencing.

De Minimis Offenses

The provisions further permit the FDIC to exempt other “de minimis offenses” that they may determine by rule. Those rules must include a requirement that the offense “was punishable by a term of three years or less.” Applicable de minimis offenses may include offenses for writing bad checks so long as the aggregate value of all the bad checks is $2,000 or less. The FDIC may further designate other “lesser offenses” to be exempt if one year or more has passed since conviction, “including the use of a fake ID, shoplifting, trespass, fare evasion, driving with an expired license or tag, and such other low-risk offenses.”

Consent Applications

According to the provision, when reviewing an application to allow an individual with an applicable criminal conviction to work for a bank, the FDIC must make an “an individualized assessment.” This assessment must take “into account evidence of rehabilitation, the applicant’s age at the time of the conviction or program entry, the time that has elapsed since conviction or program entry, and the relationship of individual’s offense to the responsibilities of the applicable position.” They must further consider the individual’s employment history, letters of recommendation, and the completion of any substance abuse or job preparation programs.

Key Takeaways

The Fair Hiring in Banking provisions clear some barriers for financial institutions to hire individuals who may have committed criminal offenses in the past but have since been rehabilitated, providing needed flexibility in hiring and recruitment. Further, the provisions go beyond the 2020 FDIC rule changes by amending Section 19 of the FDIA to create exceptions to hire individuals convicted of certain criminal offenses without burdensome consent review by the FDIC.

While the federal laws preempt conflicting state and local laws, the Fair Hiring in Banking provisions are in line with the growing number of jurisdictions across the country that have prohibited or limited consideration of job candidates’ criminal histories in the hiring process. Those measures, such as so-called ban-the-box laws, have been imposed in part to promote rehabilitation and concerns that considering criminal histories in hiring disproportionately affects individuals in protected classes.

© 2023, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.
For more Employment Law News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

NFT Endorsed by Celebrities Prompts Class Action

Since the early days of the launch of the Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) non-fungible tokens (NFTs), several celebrities have promoted the NFTs. On Dec. 8, 2022, plaintiffs Adonis Real and Adam Titcher brought a lawsuit against Yuga Labs, creators of the BAYC, alleging that Yuga Labs was involved in a scheme with the “highly connected” talent agent Greg Oseary, a number of well-known celebrities, and Moonpay USA LLC, a crypto tech company. According to the complaint:

  1. Yuga Labs partnered with Oseary to recruit celebrities to promote and solicit sales of BYAC;
  2. Celebrities promoted the BAYC on their various platforms;
  3. Oseary used MoonPay to secretly pay the celebrities; and
  4. The celebrities failed to disclose the payments in their endorsements.

According to the complaint, as a result of the various and misleading celebrity promotions, trading volume for the BYAC NFTs exploded, prompting the defendants to launch the ApeCoin and form the ApeCoin decentralized autonomous organization (DAO). Investors who had purchased the ApeCoin allegedly lost a significant amount of money when the value of the coins decreased.

This case highlights the potential risks that may arise in connection with certain endorsements. In addition to the FTC, the SEC also has issued guidance on requirements in connection with promotional activities relating to securities, which may include digital assets, such as tokens or NFTs. Under SEC guidance, any paid promoter, celebrity or otherwise, of a security, including digital assets, must disclose the nature, scope and amount of compensation received in exchange for the promotion. This would include tv/radio advertisements and print, in addition to promotions on social media sites.

Article By Barbara A. Jones, William B. Mack, and India L. Sneed of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

For more finance legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

Are Loans Securities?

We have been following a case that has been winding its way through New York federal courts for some time that players in the syndicated loan market have described as everything from “a potential game changer” to an “existential threat” to the syndicated loan market.

The case in question is Kirschner v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., which is before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In this case, the Court will consider an appeal of a 2020 decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York which held that the syndicated term loan in question was not a security. Significantly, this ruling indicated that because syndicated term loans are not securities, they are therefore not subject to securities laws and regulations.

The consequence of a determination that syndicated loans are securities would be significant. It would mean, among other things, that the syndicated loan market would have to comply with various state and federal securities laws. This would significantly change the cost of these transactions as well as the means by which syndication and loan trading take place. The Loan Syndications and Trading Association (LSTA) filed an amicus brief in this case in May of this year, which we covered here. The LSTA argued in its brief, among other things, that beyond the increased cost, regulating syndicated loans as securities would fundamentally change other aspects of the syndicated loan market. Specifically, the LSTA pointed to the importance of a borrower’s ability to have veto rights and other control in determining which entities will hold its debt. The LSTA also noted the importance of quick access to funding on flexible terms specific to the borrower in question – something we know is at the heart of so many fund finance transactions – which would be greatly compromised within a securities regulatory regime. The LSTA brief also discusses potential negative impacts on the CLO market.

Those in favor of a change in regulation point to features such as nonbank lender participation in the market, the fact that the test to determine whether a loan is a security may be outdated, and the overall size of the syndicated loan market – at $1.4 trillion – which could be a risk to the larger global financial system potentially warranting more stringent regulation.

Most experts believe that the Second Circuit will not overturn the decision issued in the lower court, but the issue in question is significant enough that market players should keep an eye on this one. Oral arguments will take place early next year. We will continue to watch as this case develops and update you here.

Article By Leah Edelboim of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

For more securities and SEC legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Copyright 2022 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Quantifying Cryptocurrency Claims in Bankruptcy: Does the Dollar Still Reign Supreme?

In the past six months, four major players in the crypto space have filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection: Celsius Network, Voyager Digital, FTX, and BlockFi, and more may be forthcoming.  Together, the debtors in these four bankruptcy cases are beholden to hundreds of thousands of creditors.  The bulk of the claims in these cases are customer claims related to cryptocurrency held on the debtors’ respective platforms.  These customer claimants deposited or “stored” fiat currency and cryptocurrencies on the debtors’ platforms.  Some of these funds allegedly were commingled or rehypothecated, leaving customer accounts severely underfunded when liquidity crunches arose at the various entities.  The total amount of such claims is estimated to be in the billions — that is, if these claims ultimately are measured in United States Dollars (“USD”).

Crypto-watchers and bankruptcy lawyers alike have speculated how customer claims based on digital assets such as cryptocurrencies should be valued and measured under bankruptcy law.  Given the volatility of cryptocurrency prices, this determination may have a significant effect on recoveries, as well as the viability of the “payment-in-kind” distribution mechanics proposed in Voyager, Celsius, and BlockFi.  A number of creditors appearing pro se in these proceedings have expressed a desire to keep their mix of cryptocurrencies through these proposed “in-kind” distributions.

However, a crypto-centric approach to valuing claims and making distributions raises a number of issues for consideration.  For example, measuring customer claims in cryptocurrency and making “in-kind” distributions of these assets could lead to creditors within the same class receiving recoveries of disparate USD value as the result of the fluctuation in cryptocurrency prices. Moreover, as has been discussed in the Celsius proceedings, the administrative burden associated with maintaining, accounting for, and distributing a wide variety of cryptocurrencies as part of a recovery scheme would likely prove complex.  Equity holders also might challenge the confirmability of a plan where valuations and recoveries are based on cryptocurrency rather than USD, as a dramatic rise in cryptocurrency values could return some value to equity.

Like most issues at the intersection of insolvency and cryptocurrency, there is little precedent to guide creditors through the uncertainties, but a recent dispute in the Celsius bankruptcy proceedings as to whether a debtor is required to schedule claims in USD, or whether cryptocurrency claims can be scheduled “in-kind,” may serve as a preview of things to come.

I.          General Background

Celsius Network (“Celsius” and, together with its affiliated debtors and debtors in possession, the “Debtors”), self-described as one of the “largest and most sophisticated” cryptocurrency-based finance platforms and lenders that claimed over 1.7 million users worldwide,1 filed petitions under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on July 13, 2022.2  On October 5, 2022, the Debtors filed their schedules of assets and liabilities (“Schedules”).  Each Debtor’s schedule of unsecured creditors’ claims (Schedule E/F) lists the claims of the Debtors’ customers by the number of various forms of cryptocurrency coins and account types, rather than in USD.3

On October 25, 2022, a group of beneficial holders, investment advisors, and managers of beneficial holders (collectively, the “Series B Preferred Holders”) of the Series B Preferred Shares issued by debtor Celsius Network Limited filed a motion seeking entry of an order directing the Debtors to amend their Schedules to reflect customer claims valued in USD, in addition to cryptocurrency coin counts.4

II.         Arguments

a.         Series B Preferred Holders

Broadly, pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 1009(a),5 the Series B Preferred Holders sought to have the Debtors amend their Schedule E/F to “dollarize” creditors’ claims, i.e., value customer claims in their dollar value as of the petition date.  As filed, the Series B Preferred Holders asserted that the Debtors’ schedules were “improper, misleading, and fail[ed] to comply” with the Bankruptcy Rules “because they schedule[d] customer claims in cryptocurrency coin counts, rather than in lawful currency of the United States as of the Petition Date.”6  The Series B Preferred Holders asserted that such amended schedules are essential to the Debtors’ ability to structure, solicit, and confirm a plan of reorganization under the requirements of Section 1129, including whether “(i) claims are impaired or unimpaired, (ii) holders of similarly situated claims are receiving the same treatment, and (iii) the plan meets the requirements of the ‘absolute priority rule.’”7  In support of their arguments that USD valuation of a customer’s claim should be required, the Series B Preferred Holders relied on provisions of the Bankruptcy Rules, Bankruptcy Code, and Official Forms.  The Series B Preferred Holders stressed that the motion “takes no position regarding the form of distribution customers” should receive under the Debtors’ plan, but rather that the Debtors must “add the [USD] amount of each customer claim in Schedules E/F to the cryptocurrency coin counts.”8

The Series B Preferred Holders also asserted that the requirement to denominate claims in USD is consistent with Section 502(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides that when a debtor or party-in-interest objects to a claim, the court determines the amount of the claim in USD as of the debtor’s petition date.

b.         Debtors’ Response

The Debtors had previously indicated that they were not seeking to dollarize its customers’ claims; rather, the Debtors represented that they intend to return cryptocurrency assets to its customers “in kind.”9  The Debtors stated that they interpreted Bankruptcy Rule 9009(a)(1)-(2) and General Order M-386, dated November 24, 2009 (the “General Order M-386”) to allow the Debtors to remove the dollar symbol when scheduling claims regarding cryptocurrency coin counts.10  This approach, the Debtors argue, lessens confusion for its customer case and decreases administrative expense for the estate.11

Further, the Debtors argued that the Series B Preferred Holders’ reliance on Section 502(b) was misplaced because the application of such section is inapplicable at this stage of the proceedings where no claims objection has taken place.12

The Committee of Unsecured Creditors (“UCC”) agreed with the Debtors’ approach, stating that it “makes sense” for account holders to validate their scheduled claims by cryptocurrency type and that it wished to be consulted on the petition date prices used by the Debtors if they filed an amendment to the schedules.13

III.        Analysis

a.         Bankruptcy Code & Rules & Forms

Bankruptcy Rule 1007(b)(1) requires that a debtor’s schedules of assets and liabilities must be “prepared as prescribed by the appropriate Official Forms.”14  The relevant official form that a debtor must use to prepare its schedule of assets and liabilities is Official Form 206, which contains a USD symbol to denote the amount of liabilities that a debtor must list.15  Specifically, Official Form 206 provides:

As seen above, Official Form 206 does “hardwire” a dollar sign (“$”) into the boxes provided for claim amounts.  Bankruptcy Rule 9009 states that the official forms are to “be used without alteration, except as otherwise provided in the rules, [or] in a particular Official Form.”16  Bankruptcy Rule 9009 permits “certain minor changes not affecting wording or the order of presenting information,” including “expand[ing] the prescribed areas for responses in order to permit complete responses” and “delet[ing] space not needed for responses.”17  Lastly, General Order M-386 permits “such revisions as are necessary under the circumstances of the individual case or cases.”18 The introduction to General Order M-386 states that standard forms were adopted to “expedite court review and entry of such orders” and that courts will expect use of the standard forms “with only such revisions as are necessary under the circumstances of the individual case or cases.”19

b.         Section 502(b)

Bankruptcy Code Section 502(b) provides that if there is an objection to a claim, the court “shall determine the amount of such claim in lawful currency of the United States as of the [petition] date . . . .”20  This “prevents the value of a claim from fluctuating by setting the claim as of the petition date and converting it to the United States dollars.”21  Acknowledging the “novel phenomenon” of dollarizing claims in cryptocurrency, the Series B Preferred Holders analogize this to cases where courts have required claims asserted in or based on in foreign currency or amounts of gold should be valued in USD.  However, these cases were decided in the context of a claims objection. The Celsius Debtors argued that these cases have limited utility in the context of a motion for an order directing the Debtors to amend their schedules pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 1009(a).22

IV.        The Court’s Order

Ahead of the hearing regarding the motion for an order directing the Debtors to amend their schedules, the Debtors and the Series B Preferred Holders were able to consensually resolve the motion and filed a revised proposed order prior to the hearing on the motions on November 15.23  The Debtors agreed to amend their schedules by filing a conversion table within three days of the entry of the order, in consultation with the UCC and Series B Preferred Holders, that reflects the Debtors’ view of the rate of conversion of all cryptocurrencies listed in the Debtors’ schedules to USD as of the petition date.  The idea is that the conversion table could be used by customers as a reference for calculating the USD value of their claim, to the extent needed for filing a proof of claim.  The conversion table is not binding – the order preserves the rights of all parties to contest the conversion rates and does not require a party-in-interest to file an objection that is not stated in USD “solely on the basis that such claims should be reflected in [USD].”24  The order also requires the Debtors to file updated schedules “dollarizing” its account holders’ cryptocurrency holdings to the extent required by any future court order or judicial determination.

On November 17, 2022, the court entered the revised proposed order.25

V.         Cash Is Still King?

Other bankruptcy courts have taken similar approaches as the Celsius court in this issue.  An earlier cryptocurrency case, In re Cred Inc., the debtors did not schedule cryptocurrency claims in USD, but included a conversion table in their filed schedules, which set forth a conversion rate to USD as of the petition date.26  Debtors in other cases, such as Voyager Digital, scheduled the amounts of their customer claims as “undetermined” and listed them in Schedule F in cryptocurrency.27  BlockFi, which filed for bankruptcy on November 28, 2022, already has filed a proposed plan that would distribute its cryptocurrencies to its customers in–kind in exchange for their claims against the BlockFi debtors.28  To date, neither BlockFi nor FTX have filed their schedules, and it remains to be seen whether they will follow the pattern established in Celsius and Voyager.

For creditors and equity holders, whether claims are measured in USD or the applicable cryptocurrency is only the beginning of what will likely be a long and contentious road to recovery.  It remains to be seen whether any of these debtors will be able to confirm a viable restructuring plan that relies on any sort of “in-kind” distribution of cryptocurrencies.  Further issues are likely to arise in the claims resolution process even further down the road as claimants and liquidation trustees (or plan administrators) wrestle with how to value claims based on such a volatile asset, subject to ever-increasing regulatory scrutiny.  However, for the time being, the bankruptcy process continues to run on USD.

FOOTNOTES

1 Declaration of Alex Mashinsky, CEO of the Debtors ¶¶ 1, 9, 20, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 23].

2 Id. at ¶ 131.

3 Debtors’ Schedules of Assets and Liabilities and Statements of Financial Affairs, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 974]; see also Schedule E/F, Case No. 22-10967 [Docket No. 5]; Case No. 22-10970 [Docket No. 5]; Case No. 22-10968 [Docket No. 5]; Case No. 22-10965 [Docket No. 6]; Case No. 22-10966 [Docket No. 7]; Case No. 22-10964 [Docket No. 974]; Case No. 22-10969 [Docket No. 5]; Case No. 22- 10971 [Docket No. 5].

4 Series B Preferred Holders Motion to Direct Debtors to Amend Schedules, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 1183].

5 “On motion of a party in interest, after notice and a hearing, the court may order any . . . schedule . . . to be amended and the clerk shall give notice of the amendment to entities designated by the court.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1009(a).

6 Series B Preferred Holders Motion to Direct Debtors to Amend Schedules ¶ 1.

7 Id. ¶ 3 (citing 11 U.S.C. §§ 1123(a)(2)-(4), 1129(a)(1), 1129(b)).

8 Series B Preferred Holders’ Reply ¶ 10, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 1334].

9 See 8/16/22 Hr’g Tr. at 35:5-7 (“The company is not seeking to dollarize claims on the petition date and give people back a recovery in fiat.”); id. at 42:11-16 (“[The UCC is] pleased that the company is not focused on dollarization of claims . . . an in-kind recovery is absolutely critical.”).

10 General Order M-386 is a resolution of the Board of Judges for the Southern District of New York, which provides for “a standard form for orders to establish deadlines for the filing of proofs of claim . . . in chapter 11 cases” to “thereby expedite court review and entry of such orders.”

11 Debtors’ Objection to Series B Preferred Holders’ Motion ¶ 9, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 1304].

12 Id. ¶ 12 (citing In re Mohr, 425 B.R. 457, 464 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio)).

13 Id. at 42:12-16 (“We are pleased to hear that the company is not focused on dollarization of claims . . . receiving an in-kind recover is 16 absolutely critical.”); UCC Statement and Reservation of Rights ¶ 6, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 1303].

14 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(b)(1).

15 See Official Form 206, Part 2, Line 4 (using the USD sign into Form 206 for scheduling the debtor’s liabilities).

16 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9009(a).

17 Id.

18 General Order M-386 ¶ 9.

19 General Order M-386 ¶ 2 (unnumbered, preliminary statement).

20 11 U.S.C. § 502(b).

21 In re Aaura, Inc., No. 06 B 01853, 2006 WL 2568048, at *4, n.5 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Sept. 1, 2006).

22 In re USGen New Eng., Inc., 429 B.R. 437, 492 (Bankr. D. Md. 2010) (using the exchange rate in effect on the petition date, in the context of a claims objection, to convert the claim to USD), aff’d sub nom. TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. v. USGen New Eng., Inc., 458 B.R. 195 (D. Md. 2011); Aaura, 2006 WL 2568048, at *5 (“Section 502(b) converts Aaura’s obligation to repay the obligation in gold into a claim against the estate in dollars, but it makes this transformation only as of the petition date, not retroactive to the date on which Aaura first became liable.”); Matter of Axona Intern. Credit & Com. Ltd., 88 B.R. 597, 608 n.19 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988) (noting Section 502(b) refers to the petition date as “the appropriate date for conversion of foreign currency claims”), aff’d sub nom. In re Axona Intern. Credit & Com. Ltd., 115 B.R. 442 (S.D.N.Y. 1990); ABC Dev. Learning Ctrs. (USA), Inc. v. RCS Capital Dev., LLC (In re RCS Capital Dev., LLC), No. AZ-12-1381-JuTaAh, 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 4666, at *38-39 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. July 16, 2013) (same).

23 Notice of Proposed Order, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 1342].

24 Id. at ¶¶ 7, 8.

25 Order Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 1099 Directing the Debtors to Amend Their Schedules in Certain Circumstances, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 1387].

26 Schedules at 12, In re Cred Inc., Case No. 20-128336 (JTD) (Bankr. D. Del. 2021) [ECF No. 443].

27 Schedules, In re Voyager Digital Holdings, Inc., Case No. 22-10943 (MEW) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2022) [ECF No. 311].

28 Joint Plan of Reorganization § IV.B.1.a, In re BlockFi Inc., Case No. 19361 (MBK) (Bankr. D.N.J. 2022) [ECF No. 22].

Article By Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

For more financial legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Copyright 2022 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

CFPB Investigates Crypto Lender

On December 1, 2022, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) made public an administrative order denying Nexo Financial LLC’s (Nexo) petition to modify the Bureau’s civil investigative demand.  The order represents the first publicly known Bureau investigation of a digital asset company, in this case, over Nexo’s “Earn Interest” crypto lending product.

The Bureau served Nexo with a civil investigative demand in late 2021 seeking further information about whether Nexo products were subject to federal consumer financial law, and in particular Nexo’s compliance with the Consumer Financial Protection Act and regulations under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.  Nexo sought to set aside the civil investigative demand and argued that, because the SEC had taken the position that other crypto lending products were securities, the Bureau was estopped from investigating it under provisions of federal law that preempt the Bureau from regulating securities products.

The Bureau rejected Nexo’s line of reasoning.  According to the Bureau order, “Nexo Financial is trying to avoid answering any of the Bureau’s questions about the Earn Interest Product (on the theory that the product is a security subject to SEC oversight) while at the same time preserving the argument that the product is not a security subject to SEC oversight.”  The order continues, “This attempt to have it both ways dooms Nexo Financial’s petition from the start.”  The Bureau also found that Nexo’s petition was not timely filed.

As we recently noted, the Bureau has been increasing its attention to the digital asset sector.  The Nexo order includes a lengthy discussion about the breadth of its jurisdiction and ability to investigate potential violations of law.  As the crypto winter persists, we expect to see the Bureau continue to explore ways to assert its authority to regulate elements of the digital asset sector.

Article By Scott H. Kimpel of Hunton Andrews Kurth

For more financial legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.

IRS and Treasury Department Release Initial Guidance for Labor Requirements under Inflation Reduction Act

On November 30, 2022, the IRS and the Treasury Department published Notice 2022-61 (the Notice) in the Federal Register. The Notice provides guidance regarding the prevailing wage requirements (the Prevailing Wage Requirements) and the apprenticeship requirements (the Apprenticeship Requirements and, together with the Prevailing Wage Requirements, the Labor Requirements), which a taxpayer must satisfy to be eligible for increased amounts of the following clean energy tax credits under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code), as amended by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IRA”):

  • the alternative fuel vehicle refueling property credit under Section 30C of the Code (the Vehicle Refueling PC);
  • the production tax credit under section 45 of the Code (the PTC);
  • the energy efficiency home credit under section 45L of the Code;
  • the carbon sequestration tax credit under section 45Q of the Code (the Section 45Q Credit);
  • the nuclear power production tax credit under section 45U of the Code;
  • the hydrogen production tax credit under section 45V of the Code (the Hydrogen PTC);
  • the clean electricity production tax credit under section 45Y of the Code (the Clean Electricity PTC);
  • the clean fuel production tax credit under section 45Z of the Code;
  • the investment tax credit under section 48 of the Code (the ITC);
  • the advanced energy project tax credit under section 48C of the Code; and
  • the clean electricity production tax credit under section 48E of the Code (the Clean Electricity ITC).[1]

We discussed the IRA, including the Labor Requirements, in a previous update.

Start of Sixty-Day Period

The IRA provides an exemption from the Labor Requirements (the Exemption) for projects and facilities otherwise eligible for the Vehicle Refueling PC, the PTC, the Section 45Q Credit, the Hydrogen PTC, the Clean Electricity PTC, the ITC, and the Clean Electricity ITC, in each case, that begin construction before the sixtieth (60th) day after guidance is released with respect to the Labor Requirements.[2] The Notice provides that it serves as the published guidance that begins such sixty (60)-day period for purposes of the Exemption.

The version of the Notice that was published in the Federal Register on November 30, 2022, provides that the sixtieth (60th) day after the date of publication is January 30, 2023. January 30, 2023, however, is the sixty-first (61st) day after November 30, 2023; January 29, 2023 is the sixtieth (60th) day. Currently, it is unclear whether the Notice erroneously designated January 30, 2023 as the sixtieth (60th) day or whether the additional day to begin construction and qualify for the Exemption was intended, possibly because January 29, 2023 falls on a Sunday. In any event, unless and until clarification is provided, we expect conservative taxpayers planning to rely on the Exemption to start construction on creditable projects and facilities before January 29, 2023, rather than before January 30, 2023.[3]

Beginning Construction for Purposes of the Exemption

The Notice describes the requirements for a project or facility to be deemed to begin construction for purposes of the Exemption. As was widely expected, for purposes of the PTC, the ITC, and the Section 45Q Credit, the Notice adopts the requirements for beginning of construction contained in previous IRS notices (the Prior Notices).[4] Under the Prior Notices, construction of a project or facility is deemed to begin when physical work of a significant nature begins (the Physical Work Test) or, under a safe harbor, when five percent or more of the total cost of the project or facility is incurred under the principles of section 461 of the Code (the Five Percent Safe Harbor). In addition, in order for a project or facility to be deemed to begin construction in a particular year, the taxpayer must demonstrate either continuous construction or continuous efforts until the project or facility is completed (the Continuity Requirement). Under a safe harbor contained in the Prior Notices, projects and facilities that are placed in service no more than four calendar years after the calendar year during which construction of the project or facility began generally are deemed to satisfy the continuous construction or continuous efforts requirement (the Continuity Safe Harbor).[5]

In the case of a project or facility otherwise eligible for the newly-created Vehicle Refueling PC, Hydrogen PTC, Clean Electricity PTC, or Clean Electricity ITC, the Notice provides that:

  • “principles similar to those under Notice 2013-29” will apply for purposes of determining whether the project or facility satisfies the Physical Work Test or the Five Percent Safe Harbor, and a taxpayer satisfying either test will be deemed to have begun construction on the project or facility;
  • “principles similar to those under” the Prior Notices will apply for purposes of determining whether the project or facility satisfies the Continuity Requirement; and
  • “principles similar to those provided under section 3 Notice 2016-31” will apply for purposes of determining whether the project or facility satisfies the Continuity Safe Harbor, with the Notice specifying that the safe harbor period is four (4) years.

Taxpayers and commentators have observed that the existing guidance in the Prior Notices is not, in all cases, a good fit for the newly-created clean energy tax credits. Additional guidance will likely be required to ensure that the principles of the Prior Notices may be applied efficiently and seamlessly to the newly-created tax credits.

Prevailing Wage Determinations

The Notice provides that, for purposes of the Prevailing Wage Requirements, prevailing wages will vary by the geographic area of the project or facility, the type of construction to be performed, and the classifications of the labor to be performed with respect to the construction, alteration, or repair work. Taxpayers may rely on wage determinations published by the Secretary of Labor on www.sam.gov to establish the relevant prevailing wages for a project or facility. If, however, the Secretary of Labor has not published a prevailing wage determination for a particular geographic area or type of project or facility on www.sam.gov, or one or more types of labor classifications that will be performed on the project or facility is not listed, the Notice provides that the taxpayer must contact the Department of Labor (the “DOL”) Wage and Hour Division via email requesting a wage determination based on various facts and circumstances, including the location of and the type of construction and labor to be performed on the project or facility in question. After review, the DOL will notify the taxpayer as to the labor classifications and wage rates to be used for the geographic area in which the facility is located and the relevant types of work.

Taxpayers and commentators have observed that the Notice provides no insight as to the DOL’s decision-making process. For instance, the Notice does not describe the criteria that the DOL will use to make a prevailing wage determination; it does not offer any type of appeal process; and, it does not indicate the DOL’s anticipated response time to taxpayers. The lack of guidance on these topics has created significant uncertainty around the Prevailing Wage Requirements, particularly given that published wage determinations are lacking for many geographical areas.

Certain Defined Terms under the Prevailing Wage Requirements

The Notice provides definitions for certain key terms that are relevant to the Prevailing Wage Requirements, including:

  • Employ. A taxpayer, contractor, or subcontractor is considered to “employ” an individual if the individual performs services for the taxpayer, contractor, or subcontractor in exchange for remuneration. Individuals otherwise classified as independent contractors for federal income tax purposes are deemed to be employed for this purpose and therefore their compensation generally would be subject to the Prevailing Wage Requirements.
  • Wages. The term “wages” includes both hourly wages and bona fide fringe benefits.
  • Construction, Alteration, or Repair. The term “construction, alteration, or repair” means all types of work (including altering, remodeling, installing, painting, decorating, and manufacturing) done on a particular project or facility. Based on this definition, it appears that off-site work, including off-site work used to satisfy the Physical Work Test or the Five Percent Safe Harbor, should not constitute “construction, alteration, or repair” and therefore should not be subject to the Prevailing Wage Requirements. It is not clear, however, whether “construction, alteration, or repair” should be read to include routine operation and maintenance (“O&M”) work on a project or facility.

The Good Faith Exception to the Apprenticeship Requirements

The IRA provides an exception to the Apprenticeship Requirements for taxpayers that make good faith attempts to satisfy the Apprenticeship Requirements but fail to do so due to certain circumstances outside of their control (the Good Faith Exception). The Notice provides that, for purposes of the Good Faith Exception, a taxpayer will be considered to have made a good faith effort to request qualified apprentices if the taxpayer (1) requests qualified apprentices from a registered apprenticeship program in accordance with usual and customary business practices for registered apprenticeship programs in a particular industry and (2) maintains sufficient books and records establishing the taxpayer’s request of qualified apprentices from a registered apprenticeship program and the program’s denial of the request or lack of response to the request, as applicable.

Certain Defined Terms under the Apprenticeship Requirements

The Notice provides definitions for certain key terms that are relevant to the Apprenticeship Requirements, including:

  • Employ. The Notice provides the same definition for “employ” as under the Prevailing Wage Requirements.
  • Journeyworker. The term “journeyworker” means a worker who has attained a level of skill, abilities, and competencies recognized within an industry as having mastered the skills and competencies required for the relevant occupation.
  • Apprentice-to-Journeyworker Ratio. The term “apprentice-to-journeyworker ratio” means a numeric ratio of apprentices to journeyworkers consistent with proper supervision, training, safety, and continuity of employment, and applicable provisions in collective bargaining agreements, except where the ratios are expressly prohibited by the collective bargaining agreements.
  • Construction, Alteration, or Repair. The Notice provides the same definition for “construction, alteration, or repair” as under the Apprenticeship Requirements. This suggests that, like the Prevailing Wage Requirements, off-site work is not subject to the Apprenticeship Requirements. In addition, the same open question regarding O&M work under the Prevailing Wage Requirements applies for purposes of the Apprenticeship Requirements as well.

Record-Keeping Requirements

The Notice requires that taxpayers maintain and preserve sufficient records in accordance with the general recordkeeping requirements under section 6001 of the Code and the accompanying Treasury Regulations to establish that the Prevailing Wage Requirements and Apprenticeship Requirements have been satisfied. This includes books of account or records for work performed by contractors or subcontractors of the taxpayer.

Other Relevant Resources

The DOL has published a series of Frequently Asked Questions with respect to the Labor Requirements on its website. In addition, the DOL has published additional resources with respect to the Apprenticeship Requirements, including Frequently Asked Questions, on its Apprenticeship USA platform. It is generally understood that, in the case of any conflict between the information on these websites and the information in the Notice, the Notice should control.

[1] The Labor Requirements also are applicable to the energy-efficient commercial buildings deduction under section 179D of the Code.

[2] The IRA provides a separate exemption from the Labor Requirements projects or facilities otherwise eligible for the ITC or the PTC with a maximum net output of less than one megawatt.

[3] Interestingly, the DOL online resources described below observe that projects and facilities that begin construction on or after January 29, 2023 are not eligible for the Exemption, which appears to recognize that January 29, 2023, and not January 30, 2023, is the sixtieth (60th) after publication of the Notice.

[4] Notice 2013-29, 2013-20 I.R.B. 1085; Notice 2013-60, 2013-44 I.R.B. 431; Notice 2014-46, 2014-36 I.R.B. 541; Notice 2015-25, 2015-13 I.R.B. 814; Notice 2016-31, 2016-23 I.R.B. 1025; Notice 2017-04, 2017-4 I.R.B. 541; Notice 2018-59, 2018-28 I.R.B. 196; Notice 2019-43, 2019-31 I.R.B. 487; Notice 2020-41, 2020-25 I.R.B. 954; Notice 2021-5, 2021-3 I.R.B. 479; and Notice 2021-41, 2021-29 I.R.B. 17.

[5] In response to procurement, construction, and similar delays attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic, the length of the safe harbor period was extended beyond four (4) years for projects or facilities for which construction began in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, or 2020, which we discussed in a previous update.

Article By Elizabeth L. McGinley, Steven J. Lorch, Don J. Lonczak, and Michael A. Recchia of Bracewell LLP

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Bracewell LLP