Category: Securities Law

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in the News: Big Scoops, Real Fallout

Sheppard Mullin 2012

In early August, the New York Times reported that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is investigating JPMorgan Chase related to alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in China.  According to the article, the press had not previously reported on the investigation, and the Times knowledge of it was based on a “confidential United States government document.”  The article generated a number of similar news reports.

This is not the first time the media has hopped on the FCPA bandwagon following a juicy story about alleged bribery.  For example, in 2012 and again this year, the New Yorker ran feature articles on alleged corruption in the Macau gambling industry and the Guinean mining industry.  And reports by the Wall Street Journal and other sources, both inside and outside the United States, brought into focus the alleged bribery payments arising from the News Corp phone hacking scandal in the United Kingdom.

The increase in feature reporting on the FCPA makes some sense: stories typically involve racy factual underpinnings, exotic locations, multi-national companies and crooked governments.   Nonetheless, the FCPA may have been underreported in the mainstream press, even as it was being vigorously enforced by the SEC and Department of Justice.

As the press catches up to enforcement, it appears that the stories themselves may in turn have ramifications for the enforcement environment.  One result of more prominent news coverage may be increased pressure on the U.S. government to prosecute alleged FCPA violations.  While it is possible that a news story could trigger a new investigation, coverage of an ongoing investigation would seem to increase scrutiny on it, thereby inciting the government to investigate more thoroughly than might otherwise be the case, or to push harder against potential procedural hurdles like jurisdiction or the statute of limitations.  Given the high cost that has come to be associated with defending against enforcement actions, this type of pressure could lead to major expenditures by companies.  Indeed, some FCPA investigations have reportedly led to $100 million or more in attorneys’ fees.

The FCPA’s heightened visibility in the mainstream press thus brings into relief an issue with which companies need to be particularly aware: bad press.  In fact, the more negative press that accumulates with respect to a particular company and/or allegation, the worse the ramifications for the company.  Investors may start to abandon the company, management changes or other dramatic action may be taken to demonstrate the company’s commitment to addressing perceived problems, and the company may ultimately be more willing to settle the matter on the government’s terms to make the issue go away.

Companies can help protect against violations – and the adverse PR that may come with violations or even allegations of violations – by implementing comprehensive anti-corruption programs.  In addition, companies must foster a “tone from the top” that stresses compliance with anti-corruption laws and open communication about suspected violations.  Potential whistleblowers must feel secure and appreciated for coming forward to report allegations internally, so they are less inclined to report the allegations externally.  In other words, companies that do not want to air their dirty laundry had better keep a clean house.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Proposes Rules for Systemically Important Derivatives Clearing Organizations (SIDCO) to Conform to International Standards

Katten Muchin

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has proposed additional standards for systemically important derivatives clearing organizations (SIDCOs) that are consistent with the Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures published by the Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and the Board of the International Organization of Securities Commissions. The proposed rules include new or revised standards for governance, financial resources, system safeguards, default rules and procedures for uncovered losses or shortfalls, risk management, disclosure, efficiency, and recovery and wind-down procedures.

The proposed rules are designed to assure that SIDCOs will be deemed to be qualifying central counterparties (QCCPs) for purposes of international bank capital standards set by the BIS’ Basel Committee for Banking Supervision. The proposed rules would also allow a derivatives clearing organization (DCO) that is not a SIDCO to elect to opt in to the SIDCO regulatory requirements, thereby allowing the DCO to be deemed a QCCP.

The CFTC’s proposing release is available here.

Article By:

 of

Amendments to SEC Rules Regarding Broker Dealer Financial Responsibility and Reporting Requirements

Katten Muchin

The Securities and Exchange Commission adopted amendments to the financial responsibility requirements for broker dealers under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) designed to safeguard customer securities and funds held by broker dealers. Such requirements include Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1 (Net Capital Rule), Rule 15c3-3 (Customer Protection Rule), Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4 (together, Books and Records Rules) and Rule 17a-11 (Notification Rule, and together with the Net Capital Rule, the Customer Protection Rule and the Books and Records Rules, the Financial Responsibility Rules).

The SEC amended the Customer Protection Rule to: (1) require “carrying broker dealers” that maintain customer securities and funds to maintain new segregated reserve accounts for account holders that are broker dealers; (2) place certain restrictions on cash bank deposits for purposes of the requirement to maintain a reserve to protect customer cash, by excluding cash deposits held at affiliated banks and limiting cash held at non-affiliated banks to an amount no greater than 15 percent of the bank’s equity capital, as reported by the bank in its most recent call report; and (3) establish customer disclosure, notice and affirmative consent requirements (for new accounts) for programs where customer cash in a securities account is “swept” to a money market or bank deposit product.

The SEC amended the Net Capital Rule to: (1) require a broker dealer when calculating net capital to include any liabilities that are assumed by a third party if the broker dealer cannot demonstrate that the third party has the resources to pay the liabilities; (2) require a broker dealer to treat as a liability any capital that is contributed under an agreement giving the investor the option to withdraw it; (3) require a broker dealer to treat as a liability any capital contribution that is withdrawn within a year of its contribution unless the broker dealer receives permission for the withdrawal in writing from its designated examining authority; (4) require a broker dealer to deduct from net capital (with regard to fidelity bonding requirements prescribed by a broker dealer’s self-regulatory organization (SRO)) the excess of any deductible amount over the amount permitted by the SRO’s rules; and (5) clarify that any broker dealer that becomes “insolvent” is required to cease conducting a securities business.

The SEC amended the Books and Records Rules to require large broker dealers (i.e., at least $1,000,000 in aggregate credits or $20,000,000 in capital) to document their market, credit and liquidity risk management controls. Under the amended Notification Rule there are new notification requirements for when a broker dealer’s repurchase and securities lending activities exceed 2,500 percent of tentative net capital (or, alternatively, a broker dealer may report monthly its stock loan and repurchase activity to its designated examining authority, in a form acceptable to such authority). In addition, the amended Notification Rule requires insolvent broker dealers to provide notice to regulatory authorities.

In a separate release, the SEC also amended Exchange Act Rule 17a-5 (Reporting Rule). Under the amended Reporting Rule, a broker dealer that has custody of the customers’ assets must file a “compliance report” with the SEC to verify that it is adhering to broker dealer capital requirements, protecting customer assets it holds and periodically sending account statements to customers. The broker dealer also must engage a Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB)-registered independent public accountant to prepare a report based on an examination of certain statements in the broker dealer’s compliance report. A broker dealer that does not have custody of its customers’ assets must file an “exemption report” with the SEC citing its exemption from requirements applicable to carrying broker dealers. The broker dealer also must engage a PCAOB-registered independent public accountant to prepare a report based on a review of certain statements in the broker dealer’s exemption report. A broker dealer that is a member of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) also must file its annual reports with SIPC.

The rule amendments also require a broker dealer to file a new quarterly report, called Form Custody, that contains information about whether and how it maintains custody of its customers’ securities and cash. The SEC intends that examiners will use Form Custody as a starting point to focus their custody examinations. In addition, a broker dealer, regardless of whether it has custody of its clients’ assets, must agree to allow SEC or SRO staff to review the work papers of the independent public accountant if it is requested in writing for purposes of an examination of the broker dealer and must allow the accountant to discuss its findings with the examiners.

The effective date for the amendments to the Financial Responsibility Rules is 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. The effective date for the requirement to file Form Custody and the requirement to file annual reports with SIPC is Dec. 31, 2013. The effective date for the requirements relating to broker dealer annual reports is June 1, 2014.

Click here to read SEC Release No. 34-70072 (Financial Responsibility Rules for Broker Dealers).

Click here to read SEC Release No. 34-70073 (Broker Dealer Reports).

 of

Private Placement of Alternative Investment Funds in the European Union (EU): Changing Regulatory Landscape

GT Law

I. Overview

The European Commission’s Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (“AIFMD”) was designed to establish a unified framework throughout the EU for regulating previously unregulated Alternative Investment Funds (“AIF”).

The AIFMD is effective as per July 22, 2013. The AIFMD, as any other EU directive, however needs to be transposed into European Union members’ national laws before it will actually have effect. Moreover, the AIFMD leaves the member states with the flexibility to make their own choices on certain aspects. This concerns also the private placement of units in AIF´s.

In preparation for its enforcement by the individual EU member states, this memorandum will discuss the AIFMD’s effect on non-EU managers of AIFs (“AIFM”) marketing non-EU AIFs within the EU.  The memorandum will first give a broad overview of some of the AIFMD’s measures significant for non-EU AIFMs, followed by a table summarizing how the private placement of AIF´s in the major capital markets of the EU is affected the AIFMD.

It should be noted that prior to July 22, 2013, the marketing of AIF´s in EU member states already required an individual analysis for each member state. For the time being not much has changed in this respect but marketing unregulated funds to selected non retail investors has certainly become more complex due to the AIFMD. Also these distributions may no longer be expected to remain of relatively little interest to securities regulators and fund managers may therefore be required to strengthen their compliance efforts in this area.

II. Regulatory Target – AIF Managers

The AIFMD seeks to regulate a set of previously unregulated AIFs, namely, “all collective investment undertakings that are not regulated under the Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) Directive.”  These include hedge funds, private equity funds, commodity funds, and real estate funds, among others.

Rather than regulating AIFs directly, however, the AIFMD regulates AIFMs—that is, entities providing either risk or portfolio management to an AIF.  According to the AIFMD, each AIF may only have a single entity as its manager.

The AIFMD applies to AIFMs that are: (1) themselves established in the EU (“EU AIFM”); (2) AIFMs that are not established in an EU country (“non-EU AIFM”), but that manage and market AIFs established in the EU (“EU AIF”); or (3) non-EU AIFMs that market AIFs that are not established in a EU country (“non-EU AIF”) within an EU jurisdiction.

This memo principally deals with the third category, non-EU AIFMs that market non-EU AIFs in the EU.

III. Exemption – Small AIFs

Pursuant to the AIFMD, AIFMs that manage small funds are exempt from the full rigor of the AIFMD regulatory regime.  A lighter regulatory regime is applicable to these AIFMs.

The AIFMD defines AIFMs that manage small funds as either: (1) an AIFM with aggregate assets under management not exceeding € 500 million, where the AIFs are not leveraged, and the investors do not have redemption rights for the first five years after their investment; or (2) an AIFM with aggregate assets under management not exceeding € 100 million.

AIFMs of smaller funds are largely exempted from the AIFMD, and will only be subject to registration, and limited reporting requirements.

IV. Marketing – Definition

As previously discussed, the AIFMD applies to non-EU AIFMs marketing non-EU AIFs in one or more EU jurisdictions.

The AIFMD defines marketing as “a direct or indirect offering or placement at the initiative of the AIFM or on behalf of the AIFM of units or shares of an AIF it manages to or with investors domiciled or with a registered office in the Union.”  This marketing definition does not include reverse solicitation, where the investor initiates the investment, and the investment is not at the AIFM’s direct or indirect initiative.

Thus, for example, if an EU investor initiated an investment in a U.S. AIF, managed by a U.S. AIFM, the U.S. AIFM and AIF would be unaffected by the AIFMD.  The AIFMD would only apply to U.S. AIFMs managing U.S. AIFs, if the U.S. AIFM solicited investment in the EU.

V. Regulating Non-EU AIFMs – National Private Placement Regimes

The AIFMD is designed to phase out national private placement regimes, creating a unified regulatory regime throughout the EU.  However, the AIFMD is scheduled to come into force in stages.

Between July 22, 2013, and 2018 (at the earliest), non-EU AIFMs will be able to market their non-EU AIFs in an EU jurisdiction (“EU Target Jurisdiction”) subject to the national private placement regimes applicable in that EU jurisdiction.

Thus for example, a U.S. AIFM marketing a U.S. AIF in the UK will be able to do so subject to the UK’s private placement regime.

VI. Regulating Non-EU AIFMs – Additional AIFMD Requirements

As explained, through 2018, the AIFMD will largely permit non-EU AIFMs to market non-EU AIFs subject to the private placement regime in the EU Target Jurisdiction.

However, the AIFMD does include three additional requirements for the non-EU AIFMD to be able to take advantage of the EU Target Jurisdiction’s private placement regime.  These include, specific disclosure and reporting requirements, cooperation agreements, and exclusion of AIFs and AIFMs established in certain countries.  Each of these will be discussed in turn.

a. Applicable AIFMD Reporting Requirements

By its terms, the AIFMD will require even non-EU AIFMs marketing non-EU AIFs pursuant to national private placement regimes to comply with certain AIFMD provisions concerning annual reports, disclosures to investors, periodic reporting to regulators, and acquisition of control over EU companies.

A non-EU AIFM will thus be required to make available: (1) an annual report for each non-EU AIF that it markets in the EU; (2) information relevant to potential investors, as well as changes in material information previously disclosed; (3) regular reports to the national regulator in the EU Target Jurisdiction; and (4) disclosure information to a listed or unlisted EU company over which the non-EU AIFM acquires control.

b. Cooperation Agreements

For non-EU AIFMs to be able to market their non-EU AIFs in an EU jurisdiction, the AIFMD requires that there be cooperation agreements in place between the regulator in the non-AIFM’s home jurisdiction, and the EU Target Jurisdiction.

ESMA has negotiated memoranda of understanding (“MOU”) with 34 regulators in a variety of jurisdictions.  These include regulators in Albania, Australia, Bermuda, Brazil, the British Virgin Islands, Canada (the provincial regulators of Alberta, Quebec and Ontario as well as the Superintendent of Financial Institutions), the Cayman Islands, Dubai, Guernsey, Hong Kong (Hong Kong Monetary Authority and Securities and Futures Commission), India, the Isle of Man, Israel, Jersey, Kenya, Malaysia’s Labuan Financial Services Authority, Mauritius, Montenegro, Morocco, Pakistan, Serbia, Singapore, Switzerland, Tanzania, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates and the United States (Federal Reserve Board, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Securities and Exchange Commission).

These MOUs, however, are insufficient to permit non-EU AIFMs to market their non-EU AIFs in any EU jurisdiction.  Rather, the EU Target Country must have a separate cooperation agreement with the regulator in the non-EU AIFM’s home jurisdiction (presumably these separate cooperation agreements will be based on the MOUs negotiated by ESMA).

Thus, for example, for a U.S. AIFM to be able to market its U.S. AIF in the UK, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority must have a cooperation agreement with the United States’ Securities and Exchange Commission.

c. Exclusion of Non-Cooperative Country or Territory

Finally, pursuant to the AIFMD, to be able to market based on the EU Target Country’s private placement regime, neither the non-EU AIFM nor the non-EU AIF may be considered a country considered a “Non-Cooperative Country or Territory,” by the Financial Action Task Force on anti-money laundering, and terrorist financing.

In sum, through 2018, non-EU AIFMs may market their non-EU AIFs in EU jurisdictions according to the relevant EU Target Jurisdiction’s private placement regime, subject to a few additional AIFMD requirements.

VII. The AIFMD in Each EU Jurisdiction

The above discussion outlines the AIFMD’s general requirements pertaining to non-EU AIFMs marketing non-EU AIFs.

However, because to take effect the AIFMD must be transposed into the national law of each EU jurisdiction, and because through 2018 the AIFMD largely relies on national private placement rules to regulate non-EU AIFMs, there is bound to be substantial variation in the AIFMD’s application across EU jurisdictions.

The table below details relevant aspects of the AIFMD’s application in each of the EU jurisdictions (plus Norway, and Switzerland).  Supplementing the memorandum, the table serves as a basic guide for the AIFMD’s application to non-EU AIFMs seeking to market their non-EU AIFs in each of the EU jurisdictions.  The chart includes, for each country, whether it has transposed the AIFMD on time (“On time” / “Not on time”), an overview of the private placement regime, relevant reporting requirements, transitional provisions, and a list of the countries with which a cooperation agreement is in place.

Because some of the EU countries have yet to transpose the AIFMD, or have not completed the transposition, and cooperation agreement process we will indicate on the outline where completion of the process is pending.

BELGIUM

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • Not on time
  • Private Placement Regime
    • At present, AIFMs must be registered locally, and are subject to a minimum investment amount of € 250,000.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements – Pending
  • Transitional Provisions – Pending
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

DENMARK

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • Not on time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Denmark permits marketing to a maximum of 8 offerees, and requires that a non-EU AIFM be licensed in its member state of reference.1
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements
    • Non-EU AIFs licensed in another EU jurisdiction pursuant to AIFM regulations must submit additional documentation to the Danish FSA, including operating and managing plans, and contact information.
  • Transitional Provisions
    • Transitional provisions will permit non-EU AIFMs to market AIFs under Denmark’s current private placement regime until at least July 22, 2014 (provided that the AIFMs commenced marketing prior to the transposition date of July 22, 2013).
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

FINLAND

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • Not on time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Finland’s private placement regime permits AIFMs to market only to “professional” clients.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements – Pending
  • Transitional Provisions
    • The AIFMD is not expected to apply to non-EU AIFMs until 2015.
    • Transitional rules have been proposed (although not yet adopted) permitting AIFMs to market pursuant to existing private placement rules, provided that the AIFMs can show that they have made a good faith effort to comply with AIFMD.
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

FRANCE

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • On time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Under its present private placement regime, France does not permit AIFMs to actively solicit investment.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements – Pending
  • Transitional Provisions
    • It appears that a transitional period will apply until 22 July 2014, during which all French AIFMs will be able to continue marketing and / or managing any AIFs in France on the pre-AIFMD basis (for example by using reverse solicitation).
    • Other AIFMs (whether EU but outside France or non-EU) would, therefore, need to be authorized.
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

GERMANY

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • On time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Under the new German private placement regime, non-EU AIFMs may market to professional investors, subject to requirements.
    • To market in Germany, the non-EU AIFM must appoint an independent entity to act as a depositary (as defined in the AIFMD), and notify BaFin, Germany’s markets regulator, of the appointed depository’s identity.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements
    • Notifying BaFin of its intention to market in Germany, and include an application with a comprehensive list of information and documents.  BaFin will have up to two months to review, and decide upon the application.
    • Making certain initial and ongoing investor disclosures.
    • Complying with reporting requirements to BaFin.
  • Transitional Provisions
    • Non-EU AIFMs that marketed funds in Germany by prior to the AIFMD’s July 22, 2013 effective date (“previously marketed funds”) will be permitted to continue marketing those previously marketed funds under existing private placement rules until July 21, 2014.
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

IRELAND

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • On time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Under Ireland’s private placement regime, non-EU AIFMs will be able to market in Ireland without restrictions additional to those of the AIFMD, discussed above.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements
    • Ireland will only require that the non-EU AIFMs comply with the AIFMD’s reporting requirements for non-EU AIFMs discussed above.
  • Transitional Provisions
    • Non-EU AIFMs managing qualified investor alternative investment funds (“QIAIF”), as defined under the relevant Irish provisions, which were authorized prior to the July 22, 2013 transposition date will not be required to be AIFMD compliant until July 22, 2015.
    • Non-EU AIFMs managing QIAIFs authorized after July 22, 2013 will have two years from the QIAIF’s launch date to become AIFMD compliant.
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

ITALY

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • Not on time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Under Italy’s current private placement regime, which it seems will be available to non-EU AIFMs through 2015, AIFMs may market only to “expert” investors.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements
    • Currently, AIFMs must disclose their balance sheets, certain administrative documents, and financial reports regarding their managers’ activities.
  • Transitional Provisions – Pending
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

LUXEMBOURG

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • On time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Through 2018, Luxembourg will permit small and non-EU AIFMs to market pursuant to its private placement regime.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements
    • Luxembourg imposes certain transparency requirements on AIFMs, including disclosure of an AIFM’s net asset value, and disclosures upon gaining control of an EU company.
  • Transitional Provisions
    • Beginning on July 22, 2014, in addition to complying with Luxembourg’s private placement regime, non-EU AIFMs will be required to comply with the third country provisions of the AIFMD.
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries
    • Luxembourg signed cooperation agreements with all 34 of the regulators that entered into MOUs with ESMA.

THE NETHERLANDS

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • On time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Netherlands will permit certain AIFMs to market pursuant to its private placement regime provided offerings are: (1) to less than 150 persons; (2) units have an individual nominal value of at least EUR 100,000 or consist of a package of units with at value of at least EUR 100,000; or (3) offered to professional investors only.
    • Non-EU AIFMs are exempted for offerings to qualified investors only if the AIFM is not domiciled in a non cooperative country under FATF rules and the Dutch regulator and the foreign regulator entered into a MOU.
    • AIFMs licensed by the relevant securities regulators in the USA, Jersey and Guernsey may offer to any investor under a license recognition regime.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements
    • Notification to Netherlands Financial Markets Authority and reporting of investments, risk positions and investment strategy of AIF to Dutch Central Bank.
  • Transitional Provisions
    • Several grandfathering provisions for non-EU AIF’s that stopped marketing prior to 22 July 2013.
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

POLAND

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • Not on time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • So far, the Polish regulator has not published an AIFMD transposition regulation.
    • However, under the existing private placement regime, non-EU AIFs that wish to market its units in Poland may do so if:
      • The units are qualified as equity or debt securities under their respective governing law; and
      • The units are offered under the “private placement” regime, meaning a nonpublic offer to sell securities to no more than 149 identified investors
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements – Pending
  • Transitional Provisions
    • As mentioned above, the Polish regulator has not made an official announcement concerning AIFMS transposition.
  • However, a representative of the Polish regulator recently indicated in an interview that:
    • AIFMs currently marketing AIFs in Poland will have two years to determine whether they fall within the regulations of the AIFD; and
    • If so, the AIFMs will be required to become AIFMD compliant within the two-year period.
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

SPAIN

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • Not on time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Currently, no private placement regime is available, and it in not anticipated that a private placement regime will be made available in the implementation of the AIFMD.
    • Under proposed rules, registration with, and authorization from the Spanish regulator is required for non-EU AIFMs to market non-EU AIFs to professional investors only in Spain.
    • Authorization to market may be denied if:
      • The non-EU AIF’s home state applies discriminatory marketing rules against Spanish AIFs;
      • The non-EU AIF provides insufficient assurance of compliance with Spanish law, or insufficient protection of Spanish investors; or
      • The non-EU AIFs will disrupt competition in the Spanish AIF market.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements – Pending
  • Transitional Provisions – Pending
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

SWEDEN

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • Not on time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • At present, there is no private placement regime for marketing AIFs in Sweden.
    • Many AIFs, simply fall outside the scope of Sweden’s regulations, and may market freely in Sweden
    • Other AIFs affected by Sweden’s regulation may only be marketed by a Swedish AIFM, or an AIFM regulated in another EU country.
    • It is unclear whether non-EU AIFMs will be able to continue to market freely after the AIFMD comes into force, or whether they will be prevented from marketing in Sweden altogether
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements – Pending
  • Transitional Provisions – Pending
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

UNITED KINGDOM

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • On time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Provided that an AIF has been marketed by the non-EU AIFM prior to July 22, 2013 in an EEA jurisdiction, the non-EU AIFM will be able to continue to market the funds under the UK’s private placement regime until July 21, 2014 without complying with the requirements of the AIFMD.
    • For new funds marketed from July 22, 2013, the non-EU AIFM will need to comply with the reporting requirements of the AIFMD set out below.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements
    • Prior to marketing in the UK, an AIFM must give the FCA written notification of its intention to do so.
    • In the notification, the AIFM must affirm that it is responsible for complying with the relevant AIFMD requirements, and that these relevant requirements have been satisfied.
    • Once it has submitted the notification to the FCA, the AIFM may begin marketing—it need not wait for the FCA’s approval.
    • Additionally, the AIFM is subject to disclosure requirements, including:
      • Ensuring that investor disclosure in fund marketing materials meets the disclosure and transparency requirements set out in the directive;
      • Reporting either annually or semi-annually to the FCA proscribed information; and
      • Submitting and publishing an annual report for each AIF that the AIFM manages or markets.
  • Transitional Provisions
    • The non-EU AIFMs that marketed any AIF in the EU prior to the AIFMD’s July 22, 2013 effective date will be permitted to market AIFs in the UK under the pre-AIFMD rules until July 21, 2014.
    • Non-EU AIFMs taking advantage of the transitional provision may do so irrespective of whether or not the FSA has cooperation agreements in place
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries
    • The UK signed cooperation agreements with all 34 of the regulators that entered into MOUs with ESMA.

NORWAY2

  • Private Placement Regime
    • At present, Norway does not permit soliciting investment in AIFs.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements – Pending
  • Transitional Provisions – Pending
  • Cooperation Agreements with EU Countries – Pending

SWITZERLAND

  • Private Placement Regime
    • Non-EU AIFMs may market through the Swiss private placement regime without any additional regulation, approval, or license requirement or the investor is:
      • A License financial institution;
      • A regulated insurance institution; or
      • An investor that has concluded a written discretionary asset management agreement with a licensed financial institution, or a financial intermediary, provided that information is provided to the investor through the financial institution, or intermediary, and that the financial intermediary is:
        • Regulated by anti-money laundering regulation;
        • Governed by the code of conduct employed by a specific self-regulatory body recognized by the Swiss regulator; and
        • Compliant with the recognized standards of the self-regulatory body.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements – Pending
  • Transitional Provisions
    • Non-Swiss AIFMs have until March 1, 2015 to:
      • Appoint a Swizz representative, and a Swiss paying agent; and
      • Comply with all relevant regulations.
    • Non-Swiss AIFMs that have yet to be subject to Swiss regulation must:
      • Contact, and register with the Swiss regulator by September 1, 2013; and
      • If not sufficiently licensed in their home country, apply for a license by March 1, 2015.
    • Cooperation Agreements with EU Countries – Pending

1 An AIFM’s member state of reference (“MSR”) is the member state where the marketing of most of the AIF takes place.  So, for example if a U.S. AIFM markets in Denmark, and Denmark is the Member State of Reference, then the Danish FSA must issue the U.S. AIFM a license prior to commencement of the U.S. AIFM’s marketing activities in Denmark.

2 Norway, and Switzerland are non-EU countries of interest.  Because they are not part of the EU, they are not required to transpose the AIFMD.

Article By:

 of

In Largest Known Data Breach Conspiracy, Five Suspects Indicted in New Jersey

DrinkerBiddle

On July 25, 2013, the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey announced indictments against five men alleging their participation in a global hacking and data breach scheme in which more than 160 million American and foreign credit card numbers were stolen from corporate victims, including retailers, financial institutions, payment processing firms, an airline, and NASDAQ.  The scheme is the largest of its kind ever prosecuted in the United States.

The Second Superseding Indictment alleges the defendants (four Russian nationals and one Ukrainian national) and other uncharged co-conspirators targeted corporate victims’ networks using “SQL [Structured Query Language] Injection Attacks,” meaning the hackers identified vulnerabilities in their victims’ databases and exploited those weaknesses to penetrate the networks.  Once the defendants had access to the networks, they used malware to create “back doors” to allow them continued access, and used their access to install “sniffers,” programs designed to identify, gather and steal data.

Once the defendants obtained the credit card information, they allegedly sold it to resellers all over the world, who in turn sold the information through online forums or directly to individuals and organizations.  The ultimate purchasers encoded the stolen information on blank cards and used those cards to make purchases or withdraw cash from ATMs.

The defendants allegedly used a number of methods to evade detection.  They used web-hosting services provided by one of the defendants, who unlike traditional internet service providers, did not keep records of users’ activities or share information with law enforcement.  The defendants also communicated through private and encrypted communication channels and tried to meet in person.  They also changed the settings on the victims’ networks in order to disable security mechanisms and used malware to circumvent security software.

Four of the defendants are charged with unauthorized access to computers (18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(2)(C) and (c)(2)(B)(i)) and wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343).  All of the defendants are charged with conspiracy to commit these crimes.

Two of the defendants have been arrested, with one in federal custody and the other awaiting an extradition hearing.  The other three defendants, two of whom have been charged in connection with hacking schemes, remain at large.

This conspiracy is noteworthy for its massive scale, and for the patience the hackers demonstrated in siphoning data from the networks.  The U.S. Attorney “conservatively” estimates more than 160 million credit card numbers were compromised in the attacks, and alleges that the hackers had access to many victims’ computer networks for more than a year.  Many prominent retailers were targets, including convenience store giant 7-Eleven, Inc.; multi-national French retailer Carrefour, S.A.; American department store chain JCPenney, Inc.; New England supermarket chain Hannaford Brothers Co.; and apparel retailer Wet Seal, Inc.  Payment processors were also heavily targeted, including one of the world’s largest credit card processing companies, Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., as well as European payment processor Commidea Ltd.; Euronet, Global Payment Systems and Ingenicard US, Inc. The hackers also targeted financial institutions such as Dexia Bank of Belgium, “Bank A” of the United Arab Emirates; the NASDAQ electronic securities exchange; and JetBlue Airways.  Damages are difficult to estimate with precision, but they total several hundred million dollars at least.  Just three of the corporate victims suffered losses totaling more than $300 million.

Article By:

of

Financial Services Legislative and Regulatory Update – July 15, 2013

Mintz Logo

Leading the Past Week

Although there were several hearings and major implementations of Dodd-Frank rules, the leading story from the past week had to be Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) filing cloture on seven Administration nominees, including Richard Cordray to continue as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).  This is the start of a process that could end up with Leader Reid going for the “nuclear option” of changing the Senate rules dealing with the filibuster of certain nominations.  Based on some reports, it appears that Reid has the votes and that Cordray may be the sticking point in the negotiations.  Interestingly,  late last week Chairman Tim Johnson (D-SD) and the eleven other Democratic Members of the Banking Committee, wrote Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to end the Republican filibuster of Cordray’s nomination, requesting “an up-or-down vote on the nominee’s merits.”

While it remains to be seen how the filibuster cold war will resolve itself, last week the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) announced that the government achieved a surplus of $116.5 billion in June, the largest in five years.  This surplus, due in part to $66.3 billion in dividend payments from the GSEs, only solidified that this fall will see yet another convergence of a debt ceiling / government funding fight as both the debt limit and end of the federal fiscal year appear to be aligned to come due at the same time.  

We also saw several important steps forward in the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act, including a proposed leverage ratio rule, approval of a final rule implementing capital requirements in excess of those required by Basel III, the designation of two nonbanks as SIFIs, and the long awaited announcement of the Commodity and Futures Trade Commission’s (CFTC) cross-border derivatives rulemaking.

Legislative Branch

Senate

Senate Banking Hearing Discusses Dodd-Frank Progress, Risk Mitigation

On July 11th, the Senate Banking Committee met to discuss Dodd-Frank implementation progress and whether financial reforms have succeeded in mitigating systematic risk from large financial institutions.  Witnesses included Treasury Under Secretary for Domestic Finance Mary Miller, Fed Governor Daniel Tarullo, Federal Deposit Insurance Commission (FDIC) Chairman Martin Gruenberg, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) head Thomas Curry.  In their testimony, regulators said that they expect almost all remaining Dodd-Frank rules, including capital surcharges for systematically important banks, the Volcker Rule, and liquidity rules to be finalized by the end of the year.  Regulators also expressed confidence that the recently finalized Basel III rules, when combined with proposed stricter leverage requirements, will be an effective means of ensuring that banks carry enough capital.  Notwithstanding the assertion of the regulators that the implementation of Dodd-Frank was nearing a close, Ranking Member Crapo remarked in his opening statement that there is a growing bipartisan consensus that some parts of Dodd-Frank need to be reformed.  In particular, he mentioned the burden of regulations on community banks, short-term wholesale funding, debt to equity ratios for large banks, and the perceived continuation of “too big to fail” as areas that require address.   

Democratic Senators Request CFPB, DOL Look Into Prepaid Payroll Cards

Following a front page story in the New York Times, on July 11th, sixteen Senate Democrats wrote to the CFPB and Department of Labor (DOL) requesting that the agencies investigate fees and practices associated with pre-paid payroll cards.  The letter was particularly strong, including the assertion “that mandating the use of a particular payroll card, with no available alternative, seems clearly to violate federal law,” the lawmakers requested that CFPB Director Cordray clarify whether employers provide sufficient alternatives for payment. The letter was signed by Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Dick Durbin (D-IL),  Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Robert Casey (D-PA), Jeffrey Merkley (D-OR), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Mark Warner (D-VA), and Al Franken (D-MN).  It is unclear whether this letter will spur the CFPB to re-engage on its broader general purpose reloadable card ANPRM that is still pending with the agency.

Bipartisan Group of Senators Introduce the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act

On July 11th, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), John McCain (R-AZ), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), and Angus King (I-ME) introduced legislation that would reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act by separating FDIC insured depository divisions from riskier banking activities such as investment banking, insurance, swaps dealing, and hedge fund and private equity activities.  By curbing those activities at federally insured institutions, the bill aims to eliminate the concept of “too big to fail” by making institutions smaller and thus decreasing the need, either real or perceived for a government bailout if the institution were to fail.

Senate Banking Leaders to Introduce FHA Reform Bill

Last week, Senate Banking Committee Chairman and Ranking Member Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Mike Crapo (R-ID) announced they will introduce legislation this week to provide the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) with additional authority, including the ability to charge higher premiums, to “get back on stable footing.” The FHA currently has a $943 million short fall in its insurance fund and a Treasury bailout is expected without additional Congressional action. The House has already passed a measure this year which would allow the agency to make changes to the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage program.

House of Representatives

House Approves FSOC, PCAOB Bills

On July 8th, the House passed two bills, the first to require the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) to study the effects of derivatives-related capital exemptions, and the second to bar the Public Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) from requiring public companies to regularly change auditors. The Financial Competitive Act of 2013 (H.R. 1341) passed the House by a 353 to 24 vote and directs the FSOC to study and report to Congress on an exemption for EU banks from the credit valuation adjustment (CVA) capital charge which was part of the Basel III agreements. The Audit Integrity and Job Protection Act (H.R. 1564) passed the House by a 321 to 62 vote and would do away with mandatory audit-form rotations currently required by the agency. Ranking Member of the House Financial Services Committee Maxine Waters (D-CA) expressed concern that the bill would result in “diminished information” and increased costs. The legislation also directs the Government Accountability Office to update a 2003 study on the Potential Effects of Mandatory Audit Firm Rotation.

House Republicans Unveil Housing Finance Reform Legislation

On July 11th, Chairman of the Financial Services Committee Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), unveiled the Protecting American Taxpayers and Homeowners (PATH) Act which would reform the US housing finance system by phasing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and moving to a largely private system. The legislation would continue to wind down the GSEs’ portfolios while establishing new rules for private covered bonds and mortgage bonds. The legislation would also reign in the FHA and its ability to insure loans for only low income borrowers, reducing how much of a loan the FHA can insure. Notably, the proposal would also repeal the Dodd-Frank Act’s risk-retention rule and place a two year hold on Basel III capital rules. Also worth noting is that despite earlier hopes that Hensarling and Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-CA) might be able to find some common ground housing reform, Ms. Waters said she was “strongly disappointed” by Hensarling’s proposal.  The Committee would hold a hearing on July 18th to examine the legislation.

House Financial Services Subcommittee Grills CFPB Over Data Collection

On July 9th, the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit held a hearing to examine how the CFPB collects and uses consumer data and personal information. CFPB Acting Deputy Director Steven Antonakes received heavy criticism from Committee Republicans for being unable to provide exact numbers on how many Americans the Bureau has collected information.  Republican lawmakers also criticized many of the data collection practices of the agency, citing concerns that the collection infringes on citizens’ right to privacy and attempting to draw analogies to the current NSA and IRS scandals.  Still, Antonakes and to some extent, Committee Democrats insisted that the CFPB is a data-driven agency, that the data being collected is, except when the result of a consumer contact, anonymized and that the CFPB takes very seriously its obligation to protect its data as it is vital to the Bureau’s work.                                                   

 

House Financial Services Subcommittee Explores Constitutionality of Dodd-Frank

On July 9th, the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing to consider potential legal uncertainties in the Dodd-Frank Act.  The hearing featured testimony from three constitutional scholars, each of whom expressed concern that certain provisions of the law may be unconstitutional.  Professor Thomas Merrill, of Columbia Law School, argued that there are large constitutional concerns surrounding the orderly liquidation provision and the government’s power to seize control of an institution.  While the provision is likely legal, he said, it would undoubtedly be litigated the first time it is invoked. In addition, Boyden Gray, testified that Dodd-Frank violates separation of power by giving too much power to regulators, while Timothy McTaggart, a partner at Pepper Hamilton LLP, argued that Dodd-Frank ultimately does not violate separation of powers or the due process clause. 

House Financial Services Subcommittee Explores Small Business Capital Formation

On July 10th, the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises held the second in a series of hearings exploring existing barriers to capital formation.  In his opening statement, Chairman Scott Garrett (R-NJ) made it clear that the sponsors of last year’s JOBS Act are not satisfied with the bill’s implementation and are looking for new ideas to help small businesses build capital.  Additional proposals could include increasing tick sizes, creating special exchanges for the stock of small companies, and changing filing rules for small business financial statements. Witnesses expressed additional concerns; Kenneth Moch, CEO of Chimerix, noting the cost of compliance with internal controls associated with Sarbanes-Oxley, and Christopher Nagy, President of Kor Trading, calling for patent litigation reform.

House Appropriations Subcommittee Marks Up FY 2014 Financial Services Spending Bill

On July 10th, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government met to consider the $17 billion FY2014 Financial Services and General Government spending bill, approving the legislation by voice vote. The bill funds a variety of agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and others. The legislation boosts the SEC’s budget by $50 million to $1.4 billion, a figure that is still over $300 million dollars short of the President’s budget request.  In addition, the bill would bring the CFPB into the normal appropriations process beginning in 2015, something which Republicans have sought to do since the standing up of the Bureau. Despite serving as one of the main sticking points against Director Cordray’s confirmation, the bid to move the Bureau’s funding out from the control of the Federal Reserve is unlikely to be successful.

Executive Branch

CFTC

CFTC Finalizes Cross-Border Derivatives Rule, Including Effective Date Delay

Following several weeks of rampant speculation over the fate of the CFTC’s proposal to regulate cross-border swaps trades, the CFTC voted 3 to 1 on July 12th phase in guidance governing how U.S. derivatives laws apply to foreign banks. The CFTC also approved an “exemptive order” extending the effective date for the new requirements to 75 days after the guidance is published in the Federal Register. In addition, by December 21st, the Commission hopes to approve additional “substituted compliance” requests that will enable market participants to meet the requirements put out by other countries, including the EU, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, and Switzerland.

The CFTC’s vote follows the news that the Commission reached an agreement with EU regulators on how the two regulatory zones would oversee cross-border derivatives deals. The agreement will allow uncleared transactions that are deemed to fall under certain “essentially identical” US and EU rules to be governed by just the EU. In addition, the agreement allows US market participants to directly trade on a foreign board of trade and addresses US fears over loopholes for firms engaged in high-risk overseas operations, among other things. The CFTC also released four “no-action letters” on July 11thwhich implement the agreement with the EU.

Federal Reserve

Federal Reserve Releases Minutes of June FOMC Meeting

On July 10th, the Fed released the minutes of the June 18th and 19th meeting of the Federal Open Markets Committee. Following market disruptions after Chairman Bernanke’s statements after the June meeting, the FOMC minutes shed light on how the Fed plans to proceed in winding down its quantitative easing program by stressing that continuation of the monthly billion dollar asset purchases will largely depend on continued economic growth. Regardless of the exact timing, it appears a tapering of the highly accommodative monetary policy will occur in the near- to mid-term, as the minutes state: “several members judged that a reduction in asset purchases would likely soon be warranted, in light of the cumulative decline in unemployment since the September meeting and ongoing increases in private payrolls, which had increased their confidence in the outlook for sustained improvement in labor market conditions.”

Regulators Propose Exempting Certain Mortgages from Appraisal Requirements

On June 10th, six regulatory agencies issued a proposed rule exempting certain subsets of high-priced mortgages from Dodd-Frank appraisal requirements.  The exempted mortgages include loans of $25,000 or less, certain “streamlined” refinancings, and some loans for manufactured homes. The new rule is meant to lower cost hurdles for borrowers and improve mortgage lending practices.  The proposal was released jointly by the Fed, CFPB, FDIC, OCC, Federal Housing Finance Administration (FHFA), and the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

FDIC

Regulators Propose Leverage Ration Rule; Finalize Rule Implementing Basel III Agreement

On July 9th, the Fed, FDIC, and OCC released a new proposal which would require federally insured banks with more than $700 billion in assets to meet a 6 percent leverage ratio, double the 3 percent ratio agreed to under the Basel III. The proposed rule would currently capture eight US banks, including: JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Bank of New York Mellon, State Street, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, and Morgan Stanley. The holding companies of these institutions would be required to meet a 5 percent leverage threshold, the Basel III 3 percent minimum plus a 2 percent buffer. The same day the FDIC and OCC finalized an interim final rule to implement the Basel III international bank capital agreement, which the Federal Reserve adopted unanimously the previous week.

Treasury

FSOC Releases Final AIG, GE SIFI Designations

On July 9th, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) voted to designate American International Group (AIG) and GE Capital as the first two nonbank financial companies required to meet additional regulatory and supervisory requirements associated with being systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs). As such, these companies will be subject to supervision by the Fed’s Board of Governors and to enhanced prudential standards. In deciding to designate these two nonbanks, the FSOC noted AIG’s “size and interconnectedness” and GE’s role as a “significant participant in the global economy and financial markets.” Remarking on the designations, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said that they will help “protect the financial system and broader economy” and that the Council will “continue to review additional companies in the designations process.”

CFPB

Bureau Updates 2013 Rulemaking Schedule

On July 8th, the OIRA released an updated list of rulemakings and their status at the CFPB.  The list included a variety of items, at different stages of the rulemaking process. 

CFPB Warns it Will Closely Scrutinize Debt Collection

On July 0th, the CFPB announced that it will be heavily examining the practices used to collect debt from borrowers.  The CFBP also said that it will be looking into the activities of both third-party collection agencies, which are subject to regulations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), in addition to lenders trying to collect directly from borrowers who are not covered by FDCPA. As part of this effort, the Bureau has published two bulletins outlining illegal and deceptive debt collection practices. The first bulletin outlines that any creditor subject to CFPB supervision can be held accountable for any unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices in collecting a consumer’s debts. The first bulletin also warns against threatening actions, falsely representing the debt, and failing to post payments. The second bulletin cautions companies about statements they make about how paying a debt will affect a consumer’s credit score, credit report, or creditworthiness. As part of this crackdown, the CFPB will also begin accepting debt collection complaints from consumers.

SEC

Commission Finalizes JOBS Act General Solicitation Rule

On July 10th, the SEC adopted in a 4 to 1 vote a final rule to lift the ban on general solicitation and general advertising for certain private securities offerings. Commissioner Luis Aguilar was the sole no vote, saying that the rule puts investors at risk. In remarks delivered the same day, Aguilar said that the rule does not contain sufficient investor protections as is, and it is not enough to rely on “speculative future actions to implement common sense improvements” to ensure investor safety. In conjunction with this vote, the agency proposed for comment a separate rule which will increase the amount of disclosures which issuers must provide on public offerings, such as providing the SEC with 15 days advance notice of the sale of unregistered securities, and provide for other new safeguards.  Commissioners Dan Gallagher and Troy Paredes both opposed the new disclosure requirements, citing concerns that they would “undermine the JOBS Act goal of spurring our economy and job creation.” The SEC also approved in a 5 to zero vote a rule which would prohibit felons and other “bad actors” from participating in offerings.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle had strong opinions about the final general solicitation rule. Democratic lawmakers, though somewhat assuaged by the additional disclosure safeguards, echoed Commissioner Aguilar’s sentiments regarding investor safety. In particular, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) said in a statement that he was disappointed in Chairman Mary Jo White for advancing a rule with too few investor protections.  On the other hand, Representative Patrick McHenry (R-NC) accused the SEC of flaunting Congressional intent by moving forward with the additional filing and disclosure requirements, saying the requirements will “unjustifiably burden American entrepreneurs” and “neutralize congressional intent.”

SEC Delays Rules on Retail Forex Transactions

On June 11th, the SEC agreed to delay rulemaking on restrictions to retail foreign exchange (forex) trading by up to three years.  The SEC said that it would use the additional time to assess the market for off-exchange foreign currency contracts and determine if more targeted regulations are necessary.  While the vote for the extension was private, Commissioner Aguilar publically criticized the delay, saying that the transactions, while profitable, pose unnecessary risks to small investors in the economy.   

OCC

Martin Pfinsgraff to be OCC Senior Deputy Comptroller for Large-Bank Supervision

On July 11th, US Comptroller of the Currency Thomas Curry named Martin Pfinsgraff Senior Deputy Comptroller for Large-Bank Supervision.  Pfinsgraff has filled the role on an acting basis since January 30th, and has worked in the OCC since 2011.  Previously, he served as Chief Operating Officer for iJet International, a risk management company, and Treasurer for Prudential Insurance.  In this position, he will continue to supervise 19 of the nation’s biggest banks with over $8 trillion in combined assets.  

International

Basel Committee Considering Simplified Capital Regime

On July 8th, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision released a paper positing alternative proposals to reform the international capital regime in ways which would simpler and easier to compare global capital levels. Specifically, the Committee proposed reforms such as enhanced disclosures, additional metrics, strategies to ensure effective leverage ratios, and reigning in national discretion as potential options for simplifying the framework. The paper reiterated that risk-based procedures will remain at the heart of the Basel capital framework but these will be complemented by liquidity and leverage ratio metrics.

Upcoming Hearings

  • On Tuesday, July 16th at 10am, in 538 Dirksen, the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee will meet in executive session to vote on pending nominations. Immediately following votes on nominees, the Committee will hold a hearing titled “Oversight of the Defense Production Act: Issues and Opportunities for Reauthorization.”
  • On Wednesday, July 17th at 10am, in 538 Dirksen, the Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection Subcommittee of Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on the consumer debt industry.
  • On Wednesday, July 17th at 10am, in 2128 Rayburn, the House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing to receive the Semi-Annual Monetary Policy Report to Congress.
  • On Wednesday, July 17th at 2:30pm, in 216 Hart, the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee will hold a hearing on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Reauthorization.
  • On Thursday, July 18th at 10:30am, the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on the Federal Reserve’s Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress.
  • On Thursday, July 18th at 1pm, in 2154 Rayburn, the Economic Growth, Job Creation and Regulatory Affairs Subcommittee of House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will hold a hearing titled “Regulatory Burdens: The Impact of Dodd-Frank on Community Banking.”
  • On Thursday, July 18th at 1pm in 2128 Rayburn, the House Financial Services Committee will holding a hearing titled “A Legislative Proposal to Protect Americas Taxpayers and Homeowners by Creating a Sustainable Housing Finance System.”
Article By:

of

What the SEC’s Elimination of the Prohibition on General Solicitation for Rule 506 Offerings Means to the EB-5 Community

Sheppard Mullin 2012

As we previously reported, on July 10, 2013, the SEC adopted the amendments required under the JOBS Act to Rule 506 that would permit issuers to use broad-based marketing methods such as the Internet, social media, email campaigns, television advertising and seminars open to the general public.  These types of methods are referred to in U.S. securities laws as “general solicitation,” and they have until now been prohibited in most offerings of securities that are not registered with the SEC. This is an important development to the EB-5 community because EB-5 offerings very often rely on Rule 506 as an exemption from offering registration requirements.

In addition, the SEC amended Rule 506 to disqualify felons and other “bad actors” from being able to rely on Rule 506.  This is also an important development for the EB-5 community, which has developed a heightened sensitivity to the potential for fraud in the wake of the Chicago Convention Center project.

Please note that these new rules are not yet effective.  See “When do the new rules become effective?” below.

Overview

Companies intending to raise capital through the sale of securities in or from the United States must either register the securities offering with the SEC or rely on an exemption from registration.   Failure to assure an available exemption for unregistered securities can result in civil and criminal penalties for the participants in the offering and rescission rights in favor of the investors.

For EB-5 programs, a widely used exemption from registration is Rule 506 of Regulation D, under which an issuer may raise an unlimited amount of capital from an unlimited number of “accredited investors” and up to 35 non-accredited investors.  Historically, this exemption has prohibited general solicitation or advertising in connection with the offering, including publicly available web sites, social media, email campaigns, television advertising and seminars open to the general public.

The other commonly used exemption, Regulation S, has been less restrictive on general solicitation, but is not available for investors already present in the United States and does not preempt state securities law registration/exemption obligations, which often prohibit general solicitation.  Rule 506 does preempt such state laws (except as to notice filings and filing fees).  For many EB-5 programs and investors, there is no available exemption other than Rule 506 that does not also prohibit general solicitation.

In connection with the passage by Congress of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act in April 2012, Congress directed the SEC to remove the prohibition on general solicitation or general advertising for securities offerings relying on Rule 506, provided that sales are limited to accredited investors only and that the issuer takes reasonable steps to verify that all purchasers of the securities meet the requirements for accredited investors. The SEC initially proposed a rule to implement these changes in August 2012, but did not pass final rules on the changes to Rule 506 until now.

What changes were made to Rule 506?

The final rule adds a new Rule 506(c), which permits issuers (that is, the partnerships or other organizations actually issuing partnership interests and the like in exchange for EB-5 capital) to use general solicitation and general advertising  for the offer their securities, provided that:

  • All purchasers of the securities are accredited investors as defined under Rule 501; and
  • The issuer takes “reasonable steps” to verify that the purchasers are all accredited investors.

Who is an accredited investor?

Under Rule 501 of Regulation D, a natural person qualifies as an “accredited investor” if he or she is either:

  • An individual net worth (or joint net worth with a spouse) that exceeds $1 million at the time of the purchase, excluding the value of a primary residence; or
  • An individual annual income of at least $200,000 for each of the two most recent years (or a joint annual income with a spouse of at least $300,000 for those years), and a reasonable expectation of the same level of income in the current year.

What are reasonable steps to verify that an investor is accredited?

What steps are reasonable will be an objective determination by the issuer (or those acting on its behalf), in the context of the particular facts and circumstances of each purchaser and transaction.  The SEC indicates that among the factors that issuers should consider under this facts and circumstances analysis are:

  • the nature of the purchaser and the type of accredited investor that the purchaser claims to be;
  • the amount and type of information that the issuer has about the purchaser; and
  • the nature of the offering, such as the manner in which the purchaser was solicited to participate in the offering, and the terms of the offering, such as a minimum investment amount.

The final rule provides a non-exclusive list of methods that issuers may use to satisfy the verification requirement for purchasers who are natural persons, including:

  • For the income test, reviewing copies of any IRS form that reports the income of the purchaser for the two most recent years and obtaining a written representation that the purchaser will likely continue to earn the necessary income in the current year.
  • For the net worth test, reviewing one or more of the following types of documentation dated within the prior three months and obtaining a written representation from the purchaser that all liabilities necessary to make a determination of net worth have been disclosed:
    • With respect to assets: bank statements, brokerage statements and other statements of securities holdings, certificates of deposit, tax assessments, and appraisal reports issued by independent third parties; and
    • With respect to liabilities: a consumer report from at least one of the nationwide consumer reporting agencies;
  • As an alternative to either of the above, an issuer may receive a written confirmation from a registered broker-dealer, SEC-registered investment adviser, licensed attorney, or certified public accountant that it has taken reasonable steps within the prior three months to verify the purchaser’s accredited status.

Simply relying on a representation from the purchaser, or merely checking a box on an accredited investor questionnaire, will not meet the requirement for objective verification. EB-5 Regional Centers should consider this carefully if they intend to make “accredited investor” determinations.

What actions must an issuer take to rely on the new exemption?

Issuers selling securities under Regulation D using general solicitation must file a Form D. The final rule amends the Form D to add a separate box for issuers to check if they are claiming the new Rule 506 exemption and engaging in general solicitation or general advertising. An issuer is currently required to file Form D within 15 days of the first sale of securities in an offering, but the SEC promulgated proposed rules to require an earlier filing.  See “Are there any other changes contemplated for Rule 506?” below.

Will the new rule affect other Rule 506 offerings that do not use general solicitation?

Not directly. The existing provisions of Rule 506 remain available as an exemption. This means that an issuer conducting a Rule 506 offering without using general solicitation or advertising is not required to perform the additional verification steps.

Who is excluded from using the Rule 506 exemption?

Under the new rule regarding “bad actors” required by the Dodd-Frank Act, an issuer cannot rely on a Rule 506 exemption (including the existing Rule 506 exemption) if the issuer or any other person covered by the rule has had a “disqualifying event.”  The persons covered by the rule are the issuer, including its predecessors and affiliated issuers, as well as:

  • Directors and certain officers, general partners, and managing members of the issuer;
  • 20% beneficial owners of the issuer;
  • Promoters;
  • Investment managers and principals of pooled investment funds; and
  • People compensated for soliciting investors as well as the general partners, directors, officers, and managing members of any compensated solicitor.

What is a “disqualifying event?”

A “disqualifying event” includes:

  • Felony and misdemeanor criminal convictions in connection with the purchase or sale of a security, making of a false filing with the SEC or arising out of the conduct of certain types of financial intermediaries. The criminal conviction must have occurred within 10 years of the proposed sale of securities (or five years in the case of the issuer and its predecessors and affiliated issuers).
  • Court injunctions or restraining orders in connection with the purchase or sale of a security, making of a false filing with the SEC, or arising out of the conduct of certain types of financial intermediaries. The injunction or restraining order must have occurred within five years of the proposed sale of securities.
  • Final orders from certain regulatory authorities that:
    • bar the issuer from associating with a regulated entity, engaging in the business of securities, insurance or banking, or engaging in savings association or credit union activities, or
    • are based on fraudulent, manipulative, or deceptive conduct and were issued within 10 years of the proposed sale of securities.
  • Certain SEC disciplinary orders relating to brokers, dealers, municipal securities dealers, investment companies, and investment advisers and their associated persons.
  • SEC cease-and-desist orders related to violations of certain anti-fraud provisions and registration requirements of the federal securities laws.
  • Suspension or expulsion from membership in or association with a self-regulatory organization (such as FINRA, the membership organization for broker-dealers).
  • U.S. Postal Service false representation orders issued within five years before the proposed sale of securities.

What disqualifying events apply?

Only disqualifying events that occur after the effective date of the new rule will disqualify an issuer from relying on Rule 506. However, matters that existed before the effective date of the rule and would otherwise be disqualifying must be disclosed to investors.

Are there exceptions to the disqualification?

Yes. An exception from disqualification exists when the issuer can that show it did not know and, in the exercise of reasonable care, could not have known that a covered person with a disqualifying event participated in the offering.  The SEC can also grant a waiver of the disqualification upon a showing of good cause.

When do the new rules become effective?

Both rule amendments will become effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.  Publication normally occurs within two weeks after final rules are adopted.

Are there any other changes contemplated for Rule 506?

In connection with the foregoing final rules, the SEC separately published for comment a proposed rule change intended to enhance the SEC’s ability to assess developments in the private placement market based on the new rules regarding general solicitation. This proposal would require issuers to provide additional information to the SEC, including:

  • identification of the issuer’s website;
  • expanded information about the issuer;
  • information about the offered securities;
  • the types of investors in the offering;
  • the use of proceeds from the offering;
  • information on the types of general solicitation used; and
  • the methods used to verify the accredited investor status of investors.

Though this proposed rules is not specifically directed to EB-5 offerings, the SEC could use such information to enhance the monitoring it is already doing of EB-5 programs.

The proposed rule would also require issuers that intend to engage in general solicitation as part of a Rule 506 offering to file the Form D at least 15 calendar days before engaging in general solicitation for the offering. Then, within 30 days of completing the offering, the issuer would be required to update the information contained in the Form D and indicate that the offering had ended.

The proposed rule has a 60-day comment period.

Article By:

 of

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Sanctions Revlon Financial Makeover; Tips for Setting a Strong Foundation for Going Private Transaction Success

DrinkerBiddle

On June 13, 2013, the SEC entered into a cease and desist order and imposed an $850,000 civil money penalty against Revlon, Inc. (Revlon) in connection with a 2009 “going private” transaction (the Revlon SEC Order).  This article identifies some of the significant challenges in executing a going private transaction and highlights particular aspects of the Revlon deal that can serve as a teaching lesson for planning and minimizing potential risks and delays in future going private transactions.

lipstick-upper

Background of Revlon Going Private Transaction.

The controlling stockholder of Revlon, MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings Inc. (M&F), made a proposal to the independent directors of Revlon in April of 2009 to acquire, by way of merger (the Merger Proposal), all of the Class A common stock not currently owned by M&F (the Revlon Minority Stockholders).  The Merger Proposal was submitted as a partial solution to address Revlon’s liquidity needs arising under an impending maturity of a $107 million senior subordinated term loan that was payable to M&F by a Revlon subsidiary.  A portion of this debt (equal to the liquidation value of the preferred stock issued in the Merger Proposal) would be contributed by M&F to Revlon, as part of the transaction.  This was submitted as an alternative in lieu of potentially cost-prohibitive and dilutive financing alternatives (or potentially unavailable financing alternatives) during the volatile credit market following the 2008 sub-prime mortgage crisis.

In response to the Merger Proposal, Revlon formed a special committee of the Board (the Special Committee) to evaluate the Merger Proposal.  The Special Committee retained a financial advisor and separate counsel to assist in its evaluation of the Merger Proposal.  Four lawsuits were filed in Delaware between April 24 and May 12 of 2009 challenging various aspects of the Merger Proposal.

On May 28, 2009, the Special Committee was informed by its financial advisor that it would be unable to render a fairness opinion on the Merger Proposal, and thereafter the Special Committee advised M&F that it could not recommend the Merger Proposal.  In early June of 2009, the Special Committee disbanded, but the independent directors subsequently were advised that M&F would make a voluntary exchange offer proposal to the full Revlon Board of Directors (the Exchange Offer). Revlon’s independent directors thereafter chose to continue to utilize counsel that served to advise the Special Committee, but they elected not to retain a financial advisor for assistance with the forthcoming M&F Exchange Offer proposal, because they were advised that the securities to be offered in the Exchange Offer would be substantially similar to those issuable through Merger Proposal.  As a result, they did not believe they could obtain a fairness opinion for the Exchange Offer consideration.  The Board of Directors of Revlon (without the interested directors participating in the vote) ultimately approved the Exchange Offer without receiving any fairness opinion with respect to the Exchange Offer.

On September 24, 2009, the final terms of the Exchange Offer were set and the offer was launched.  The Exchange Offer, having been extended several times, finally closed on October 8, 2009, with less than half of the shares tendered for exchange out of all Class A shares held by the Revlon Minority Stockholders.  On October 29, 2009, Revlon announced third quarter financial results that exceeded market expectations, but these results were allegedly consistent with the financial projections disclosed in the Exchange Offer.  Following these announced results, Revlon’s Class A stock price increased.  These developments led to the filing of additional litigation in Delaware Chancery Court.

The Revlon SEC Order and Associated Rule 13e-3 Considerations.

A subset of the Revlon Minority Stockholders consisted of participants in a Revlon 401(k) retirement plan, which was subject to obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) and a trust agreement (the Trust Agreement) between Revlon and the Plan’s trustee (the Trustee).  Provisions of ERISA and the Trust Agreement prohibited a 401(k) Plan participant’s sale of common stock to Revlon for less than “adequate consideration.”

During July of 2009, Revlon became actively involved with the Trustee to control the flow of information concerning any adequate consideration determination, to prevent such information from flowing back to Revlon and to prevent such information from flowing to 401(k) participants (and ultimately Revlon Minority Stockholders); certain amendments to the Trust Agreement were requested by Revlon and agreed to by the Trustee to effect these purposes.  This also had the additional effect of preventing the independent directors of Revlon from being aware that an adequate consideration opinion would be rendered for the benefit of Revlon’s 401(k) Plan participants.

On September 28, 2009, the financial advisor to the 401(k) Plan rendered an adverse opinion that the Exchange Offer did not provide adequate consideration to 401(k) Plan participants.  As a result, the Trustee informed 401(k) Plan participants, as previously directed by Revlon, that the 401(k) Plan Trustee could not honor tender instructions because it would result in a “non-exempt prohibited transaction under ERISA.”  Revlon Minority Stockholders, including 401(k) Plan participants, were generally unaware that an unfavorable adequate consideration opinion had been delivered to the Trustee.

In the Revlon SEC Order, the SEC concluded that Revlon engaged in a series of materially misleading disclosures in violation of Rule 13e-3.  Despite disclosure in the Exchange Offer that the Revlon Board had approved the Exchange Offer and related transactions based upon the “totality of information presented to and considered by its members” and that such approval was the product of a “full, fair and complete” process, the SEC found that the process, in fact, was not full, fair and complete.  The SEC particularly found that the Board’s process “was compromised because Revlon concealed from both minority shareholders and from its independent board members that it had engaged in a course of conduct to ‘ring-fence’ the adequate consideration determination.”  The SEC further found that “Revlon’s ‘ring-fencing’ deprived the Board (and in turn Revlon Minority Stockholders) of the opportunity to receive revised, qualified or supplemental disclosures including any that might have informed them of the third party financial advisor’s determination that the transaction consideration to be received by the 401(k) members . . . was inadequate.”

Significance of the Revlon SEC Order.

The Revlon Order underscores the significance of transparency and fairness being extended to all unaffiliated stockholders in a Rule 13e-3 transaction, including the 401(k) Plan participants whose shares represented only 0.6 percent of the Revlon Minority Stockholder holdings.  Importantly, the SEC took exception to the fact that Revlon actively prevented the flow of information regarding fairness and found that the information should have been provided for the benefit of these participants, as well as all Revlon Minority Stockholders.  This result ensued despite the fact that Revlon’s Exchange Offer disclosures noted in detail the Special Committee’s inability to obtain a fairness opinion for the Merger Proposal and the substantially similar financial terms of the preferred stock offered in both the Merger Proposal and the Exchange Offer transactions.

Going Private Transactions are Subject to Heightened Review by the SEC and Involve Significant Risk, Including Personal Risk.

Going private transactions are vulnerable to multiple challenges, including state law fiduciary duty claims and wide ranging securities law claims, including claims for private damages as well as SEC civil money penalties.  In the Revlon transaction, the SEC Staff conducted a full review of the going private transaction filings.  Despite the significant substantive changes in disclosure brought about through the SEC comment process, the SEC subsequently pursued an enforcement action and prevailed against Revlon for civil money penalties.

Although the SEC sanction was limited in scope to Revlon, it is worth noting that the SEC required each of Revlon, M&F and M&F’s controlling stockholder, Ronald Perelman, to acknowledge (i) personal responsibility for the adequacy and accuracy of disclosure in each filing; (ii) that Staff comments do not foreclose the SEC from taking action including enforcement action with regard to the filing; and (iii) that each may not assert staff comments as a defense in any proceeding initiated by the SEC or any other person under securities laws.  Thus, in planning a going private transaction, an issuer and each affiliate engaged in the transaction (each, a Filing Person) must make these acknowledgements, which expose each Filing Person (including certain affiliates who may be natural persons) to potential damages and sanctions.

The SEC also requires Filing Persons to demonstrate in excruciating detail the basis for their beliefs regarding the fairness of the transaction.  These inquiries typically focus on the process followed in pursuing and negotiating the transaction, the procedural fairness associated with such process, and the substantive fairness of the overall transaction, including financial fairness.  As a result of this, each Filing Person (including certain natural persons) in a going private transaction should be prepared to diligently satisfy cumbersome process and fairness requirements as part of the pre-filing period deliberative process, and later stand behind extensive and detailed disclosures that demonstrate and articulate the basis of the procedural and substantive fairness of the transaction, including financial fairness.

Damages and Penalties in Going Private Transactions Can Be Significant.

It is worth noting that civil money penalties and settlements that have been announced to date by Revlon for its Exchange Offer going private transaction is approximately $30 million.  After factoring in professional fees, it would not be surprising that the total post-closing costs, penalties and settlements approach 50 percent of the implied total transaction value of all securities offered in the Exchange Offer transaction.  From this experience, it is obvious that costs, damages and penalties can be a significant component of overall transaction consideration, and these risks must be factored in as part of overall transaction planning at the outset.

Given the risks of post-transaction damages and costs, it is essential that future going private transactions be structured and executed by Filing Persons with the foregoing considerations in mind in order to advance a transaction with full transparency, a demonstrably fair procedural process and deal consideration that is substantively fair and demonstrably supportable as fair from a financial point-of-view.

Does A Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Attorney Commit An Ethical Violation By Encouraging Whistleblowing Lawyers?

AM logo with tagline

The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation included a comprehensive post by Lawrence A. West which tackles the question of whether attorneys can be award seeking whistleblowers.  I want to approach the topic from the other direction.  May an SEC attorney actively solicit disclosure of client confidences from an member of the California State Bar?

California lawyers are governed by the State Bar Act (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 6000 et seq.) and the California Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California and approved by the Supreme Court of California pursuant to Sections 6076 and 6077 of the Business and Professions Code.  The federal District Courts located in California have adopted California’s statutes, rules and decisions governing attorney conduct.  Central District Local Rule 83-3.1.2, Eastern District Local Rule 180(e), Northern District Local Rule 11-4, and Southern District Local Rule 83.4(b).

Section 6068(e) provides that members of the California bar must “maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client”.   The only statutory exception permits, but does not require, an attorney to ”reveal confidential information relating to the representation of a client to the extent that the attorney reasonably believes the disclosure is necessary to prevent a criminal act that the attorney reasonably believes is likely to result in death of, or substantial bodily harm to, an individual”.

Rule 1-120 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct provides that a member “shall not knowingly assist in, solicit, or induce any violation of these rules or the State Bar Act,” including Section 6068(e).   Thus, an SEC attorney who is a member of the California State Bar (or subject to the local rules of the U.S. District Court) could be found to violate Rule 1-120 if she actively induces an attorney to violate of Section 6068(e).

Of course, the SEC has taken the position that its attorney conduct rules (aka “Part 205 Rules”) preempt conflicting state law.  However, there is a real question of whether the SEC acted in excess of its authority in purporting to immunize lawyers.  More importantly, it is questionable whether the SEC can preempt state law in this regard.  In 2004, I co-wrote a law review article for the Corporations Committee of the Business Law Section of the State Bar that considered these questions in detail, Conflicting Currents: The Obligation to Maintain Inviolate Client Confidences and the New SEC Attorney Conduct Rules, 32 Pepp. L. Rev. 89 (2004).  The other authors were James F. Fotenos, Steven K. Hazen, James R. Walther, and Nancy H. Wojtas.

If you think it is ok to violate your client’s confidences, you may want to reflect on the case of Dimitrious P. Biller.  In 2011, an arbitrator order Mr. Biller to pay his former employer $2.6 million in damages and $100,000 in punitive damages.   According to the arbitrator,Hon. Gary L. Taylor (Ret.), Mr. Biller “did the professionally unthinkable: he betrayed the confidences of his client.”  The arbitration award was confirmed by the trial court and upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Biller v. Toyota Motor Corp., 668 F.3d 655 (9th Cir. 2012).  You may also want to consider what Justice Shinn had to say about an attorney who disclosed confidential client information after being ordered to do so by a trial court:

Defendant’s attorney should have chosen to go to jail and take his chances of release by a higher court

People v. Kor, 277 P.2d 94, 101 (Cal. Ct. App. 1954) (emphasis added).

Finally, you may want to put yourself in the position of a client.  How effectively represented would you feel if you knew that your lawyer could be rewarded for violating your confidences?  How would you feel about a government agency that believes it is permissible to encourage lawyers to do the “professionally unthinkable”?

Article By:

 of

Final Section 336(e) Regulations Allow Step-Up in Asset Tax Basis in Certain Stock Acquisitions

Sheppard Mullin 2012

Final regulations were issued last month under IRC Section 336(e). These regulations present beneficial planning opportunities in certain circumstances.

For qualifying transactions occurring on or after May 15, 2013, Section 336(e) allows certain taxpayers to elect to treat the sale, exchange or distribution of corporate stock as an asset sale, much like a Section 338(h)(10) election. An asset sale can be of great benefit to the purchaser of the stock, since the basis of the target corporation’s assets would be stepped up to their fair market value.

To qualify for the Section 336(e) election, the following requirements must be met:

  1. The selling shareholder or shareholders must be a domestic corporation, a consolidated group of corporations, or an S corporation shareholder or shareholders.
  2. The selling shareholder or shareholders must own at least 80% of the total voting power and value of the target corporation’s stock.
  3. Within a 12-month period, the selling shareholder or shareholders must sell, exchange or distribute 80% of the total value and 80% of the voting power of the target stock.

Although the rules of Section 338(h)(10) are generally followed in connection with a Section 336(e) election, there are a few important differences between the two elections:

  1. Section 336(e) does not require the acquirer of the stock to be a corporation. This is probably the most significant difference; and, to take advantage of this rule, purchasers other than corporations may wish to convert the target without tax cost to a pass-through entity (e.g., LLC) after the purchase.
  2. Section 336(e) does not require a single purchasing corporation to acquire the target stock. Instead, multiple purchasers—individuals, pass-through entities and corporations—can be involved.
  3. The Section 336(e) election is unilaterally made by the selling shareholders attaching a statement to their Federal tax return for the year of the acquisition. Purchasers should use the acquisition agreement to make sure the sellers implement the anticipated tax strategy

Section 336(e) offers some nice tax planning opportunities, by allowing a step up in tax basis in the target’s assets where a Section 338(h)(10) election is not allowed.

Example: An S corporation with two shareholders wishes to sell all of its stock to several buyers, all of which are either individuals or pass-through entities with individual owners. A straight stock purchase would not increase the basis of the assets held inside the S corporation, and an LLC or other entity buyer would terminate the pass-through tax treatment of the S corporation status of the target. A Section 338(h)(10) election is not available since the purchaser is not a single corporation. However, a Section 336(e) election may be available, whereby the purchase of the stock would be treated as a purchase of the corporation’s assets (purchased by a “new” corporation owned by the purchasers). The purchasers could then convert the purchased corporation (the “new” corporation with the stepped-up assets basis) into an LLC, without tax, thereby continuing the business in a pass-through entity (single level of tax) with a fully stepped-up tax asset basis.

Article By:

 of