Tag: Banking

Fed Issues FAQs Clarifying That Credit-Linked Notes Can Serve as Valid Capital Relief Tools for U.S. Banks

On September 28, the Federal Reserve Board (“FRB”) posted three new FAQs to its website regarding Regulation Q (Capital Adequacy of Bank Holding Companies, Savings and Loan Holding Companies, and State Member Banks). The FAQ guidance provides additional clarity on the use of credit-linked notes (“CLNs”) to transfer credit risk and offer capital relief to U.S. banks. While in some respects the FAQs merely confirm positions that the FRB has already taken in regard to individual CLN transactions, these FAQs are nevertheless important inasmuch as they publicly memorialize the FRB’s view of these products as valid capital management tools.

The FAQs speak to two different formats of CLNs: those issued by special purpose vehicles (“SPV CLNs”) and those issued directly by banks (“Bank CLNs”). The FRB’s view of SPV CLNs is relatively straightforward: per the FAQs, the FRB recognizes that properly structured SPV CLNs constitute “synthetic securitizations” for purposes of Regulation Q and that the collateral for such SPV CLNs can serve as a credit risk mitigant that banks can use to reduce the risk-weighting of the relevant assets.

The FRB’s posture toward Bank CLNs, however, is more nuanced.  According to the FRB, unlike SPV CLNs, Bank CLNs do not technically satisfy all of the definitional elements and operational criteria applicable to “synthetic securitizations” under Regulation Q, such that banks that issue Bank CLNs would not be able to automatically recognize the capital benefits of such transactions (as would be the case with properly structured SPV CLNs). The reasons for this are twofold: first, Bank CLNs are not executed under standard industry credit derivative documentation; and second, the issuance proceeds from Bank CLNs generally are owned outright by the issuing bank (rather than held as collateral in which the issuing bank has a security interest). Nevertheless, the FRB recognized that Bank CLNs can effectively transfer credit risk; as such, the FRB is willing to exercise its “reservation of authority” to grant capital relief on a case-by-case basis for Bank CLNs where the only two features of the Bank CLNs that depart from the strictures of Regulation Q are those described above. In other words, Bank CLNs can offer capital relief, but only if the issuing bank specifically requests such relief from the FRB and the FRB decides to grant such relief under its reservation of authority powers.

In his statement dissenting on the issuance of the U.S. Basel III endgame proposed rules—our discussion of which is available here—Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) Director Jonathan McKernan argued for increased clarity on the FRB’s position with respect to CLNs in order to provide U.S. banks with better parity in relation to their European counterparts (which routinely issue CLNs in different formats). While these FAQs may not fully address FDIC Director McKernan’s concerns, they do begin to provide some clarity concerning the effective use by banks of CLNs as capital management tools.

© Copyright 2023 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
Article about by: Daniel Meade , Jed Miller of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
For more articles on finance, visit the NLR Financial Institutions & Banking section.

Upstream and Affiliate Guaranties in NAV Loans

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

Upstream Guaranties

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

Affiliate Guaranties

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

Use of Such Guaranties

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

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

Enforceability Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Copyright 2023 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

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

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

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

Systemic Risk Exception

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

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

Sale of SVB and Signature Loans

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

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

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

Borrowing Under an SVB or Signature Line of Credit

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

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

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

SVB Contact Information

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

Signature Contact Information

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

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

Loan Payoff/Lien Release Information

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

Continue Performing Obligations under Loan Documents

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

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

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

2023 Goulston & Storrs PC.

Federal Reserve Doubles Down on Oversight of Crypto Activities for Banks

The Federal Reserve Board (the “FRB”) issued Supervision and Regulation Letter 22-6 (“SR 22-6”), providing guidance for FRB-supervised banking organizations (referred to collectively herein as “FRB banks”) seeking to engage in activities related to cryptocurrency and other digital assets.  The letter states that prior to engaging in crypto-asset-related activities, such FRB banks must ensure that their activities are “legally permissible” and determine whether any regulatory filings are required.  SR 22-6 further states that FRB banks should notify the FRB prior to engaging in crypto-asset-related activities.  Any FRB bank that is already engaged in crypto-asset-related activities should notify the FRB promptly regarding the engagement in such activities, if it has not already done so.  The FRB also encourages state member banks to contact state regulators before engaging in any crypto-asset-related activity.

These requirements send a clear message to FRB banks and in fact to all banks that their crypto-asset related activities are considered to be risky and not to be entered into lightly.

Indeed, the FRB noted that crypto-asset-related activities may pose risks related to safety and soundness, consumer protection, and financial stability, and thus a FRB bank should have in place adequate systems, risk management, and controls to conduct such activities in a safe and sound manner and consistent with all applicable laws.

SR 22-6 is similar to guidance previously issued by the OCC and FDIC; in all cases, the agencies require banks to notify regulators before engaging in any kind of digital asset activity, including custody activities. The three agencies also released a joint statement last November in which they pledged to provide greater guidance on the issue in 2022.  Further, in an August 17, 2022 speech, FRB Governor Bowman stated that the FRB staff is working to articulate supervisory expectations for banks on a variety of digital asset-related activities, including:

  • custody of crypto-assets
  • facilitation of customer purchases and sales of crypto-assets
  • loans collateralized by crypto-assets, and
  • issuance and distribution of stablecoins by banking organizations

Interestingly, SR 22-6 comes a few days after a group of Democratic senators sent a letter to the OCC requesting that the OCC withdraw its interpretive letters permitting national banks to engage in cryptocurrency activities and a day after Senator Toomey sent a letter to the FDIC questioning whether it is deterring banks from offering cryptocurrency services.

Although past guidance already required banks to notify regulators of crypto activity, this guidance likely could discourage additional banks from entering into crypto-related activities in the future or from adding additional crypto services. In the end, it could have the unfortunate effect of making it more difficult for cryptocurrency companies to obtain banking services.

Article By Grant F. Butler, Jeremy M. McLaughlin, Anthony R.G. Nolan, and Judith E. Rinearson of K&L Gates

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

Copyright 2022 K & L Gates

Are You Being Served? Court Authorizes Service of Process Via Airdrop

In what may be the first of its kind, a New York state court has authorized service via token airdrop in a case regarding allegedly stolen cryptocurrency assets. This form of alternative service is novel but could become a more routine practice in an industry where the identities of potential parties to litigation may be difficult to ascertain using blockchain data alone.

Background on the Dispute

According to the Complaint in the case, the plaintiff LCX AG (“LCX”) is a Liechtenstein based virtual currency exchange. As alleged in the Complaint, on or about January 8, 2022, the unknown defendants (named in the Complaint as John Does 1-25) illegitimately gained access to LCX’s cryptocurrency wallet and transferred $7.94 million worth of digital assets out of LCX’s control. Cryptocurrency wallets are similar in many ways to bank accounts, in that they can be used to hold and transfer assets. In the same way a thief can transfer funds from a bank account if they gain access to that account, thieves can also transfer cryptocurrency assets if they gain access to the keys to the wallet holding digital assets.

Following the alleged theft, LCX and its third-party consulting firm determined that the suspected thieves used “Tornado Cash,” which is a “mixing” service designed to hide transactions on an otherwise publicly available blockchain ledger by using complicated transfers between unrelated wallets. While Tornado Cash and other mixing services have legal purposes such as preserving the anonymity of parties to legitimate transactions, they are also utilized by criminals to launder digital funds in an illicit manner.

Even the use of these mixing services, however, can often also be unwound. This is especially true in transactions of large amounts of cryptocurrency, similar to how transactions utilizing complex money laundering schemes in the international banking system can be unwound. According to the blockchain data platform Chainalysis, although Illicit crypto transactions reached an all-time high of $14 billion in 2021, these suspected nefarious transactions accounted for 0.15% of crypto volume last year, down from 0.62% in 2020.

While the Complaint alleges the suspected thieves used Tornado Cash, LCX believes its hired consultants were able to unwind those mixing services to identify a wallet which is alleged to still hold $1.274 million of the allegedly stolen assets.

Unlike bank accounts which have associated identifying information, there are often no registered addresses or other identifying information connected to digital wallets. This makes it difficult to provide the actual proof of service required to institute an action or obtain a judgement against an individual where the only known information is their digital wallet addresses. Service via token airdrop into those wallet addresses solves that issue.

Service Via Airdrop

Service of lawsuits is traditionally made on the defendant personally at a home or business address via special process servers. In cases where service on the individual is not possible for some reason, many states authorize alternative means of service if the plaintiff can show that the alternative means of service likely to provide actual notice of the litigation to the defendant. For example, courts have historically allowed notice via newspaper publication as an alternative means of service where the defendant cannot be serviced personally.

Here, the Court permitted service via “airdrop” in which a digital token is placed in a specific cryptocurrency wallet, similar to how a direct deposit can place funds in a traditional bank account. This particular token contained a hyperlink to the associated court filings in the case, and a mechanism which allowed the data of any individual who clicked on the hyperlink to be tracked. While this is a novel way to serve notice of a lawsuit, similar airdrops have been used to communicate with the owners of otherwise anonymous cryptocurrency wallet owners. Such was the case recently when actor Seth Green had his Bored Ape non-fungible token (“NFT”) stolen and the unknowing buyer of the stolen NFT was otherwise difficult to locate.

While this type of digital service is new, it could be implemented in many disputes in the future regarding digital assets. Similar to the authorization of service that was seen recently in the Facebook Biometric Information Privacy Act litigation (where notice was served on potential class members via email and directly on the Facebook platform), service via airdrop may be the most efficient way to inform potential lawsuit participants of the pending dispute and how they can protect their rights in that dispute.

This type of airdropped service is not without issues, though. First, transactions on the blockchain are largely publicly available, meaning any individual with the wallet address would also be able to see service of the lawsuit notice. Additionally, many users are hesitant to click on unknown links (such as the one in the airdropped LCX) due to legitimate cybersecurity concerns.

While service via airdropped token is unlikely to replace traditional methods of service, it may be a useful means of serving process on unknown persons where there is a digital wallet linked to the acts which the applicable lawsuit relates.

Article By Bryan M. Westhoff, Daniel L. McAvoy, and Jonathan E. Schmalfeld of Polsinelli PC

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

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

A Fool in Idaho; SEC Sues Idahoans for Insider Trading Scheme

In July 1993 two brothers, David and Tom Gardner, and a friend, Erik Rydholm, founded a private investment advisory firm in Alexandria, Virginia. They named that firm Motley Fool after the court jester in “As You Like It,” a play written by William Shakespeare (it is believed in 1599). The Motley Fool, or Touchstone as he is known in the play, was the only character who could speak the truth to Duke Frederick without having his head cut off. Similarly, Motley Fool, the advisory firm, sought to give investors accurate advice, even if it flew in the face of received wisdom. For example, in advance of April Fool’s Day 1994, Motley Fool issued a series of online messages promoting a non-existent sewage-disposal company. The April Fool’s Day prank was intended to teach investors a lesson about penny stock companies. The messages gained widespread attention including an article in The Wall Street Journal.

Over time Motley Fool grew into a worldwide subscription stock recommendation service. It now releases new recommendations every Thursday, and subscribers receive them through computer interfaces provided by Motley Fool. The terms of service in a Motley Fool subscription agreement (in the words of the May 3, 2022 Complaint brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission [“SEC”] in the Federal Court for the Southern District of New York) “expressly prohibit unauthorized access to its systems.”  David Lee Stone of Nampa, Idaho (southwest of Boise), is a 36-year-old computer design and repair person with a degree in computer science.  Since June 2021, he and his wife have lived periodically in Romania, a fact cited in the Complaint, suggesting, perhaps, some involvement with Romania-based computer hackers. In any event, Stone is alleged in the Complaint to have used deceptive means beginning in November 2020 to obtain pre-release access to upcoming Motley Fool stock picks. Using that information, Stone and a co-defendant made aggressive investments, typically in options, which generated more than $12 million in gains. Stone, his codefendant, and his family and friends all benefited financially from knowing in advance the Motley Fool picks.

The SEC seeks injunctions against Stone and his co-defendant, as well as disgorgement with interest and civil penalties, for violating the antifraud provisions of federal law. The Commission also seeks disgorgement with interest from the family and friends. In addition, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York has filed criminal charges against Stone.

This case is in many ways reminiscent of the 1985 federal prosecution by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (who happened to be Rudolph Giuliani at the time) of R. Foster Winans. Winans was, from 1982 to 1984, the co-author of “Heard on the Street,” a column in The Wall Street Journal. Winans leaked advance word of what would be in his column to a stockbroker who then invested with the benefit of that information, sharing some of the profits with Winans. Winans argued that his actions were unethical, but not criminal. He was found guilty of insider trading and wire fraud and was sentenced to 18 months in prison. He appealed his conviction all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court rulings.

Attempting to profit on market sensitive information can be both a civil and a criminal offense. The SEC Enforcement Division and the relevant U.S. Attorney are prepared to introduce a perpetrator to those consequences.

Article By Peter D. Hutcheon of Norris McLaughlin P.A.

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

©2022 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved

Community Banks and Overdrafts — Time for Reconsideration?

Bank consumer overdraft fees (together with nonsufficient funds (NSF) fees and returned check fees) have long been a target of attacks by consumer advocacy groups and progressive politicians who claim that such fees are disproportionately levied on the most vulnerable consumers. The Obama-era Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) initiated efforts to regulate overdraft programs, which were shelved during the Trump administration, and legislation to restrict overdraft fees has regularly been proposed and considered by Congress, but not enacted.

2022, however, may be the year that the US financial regulatory agencies finally move to impose formal restrictions on banks’ overdraft fee programs. In particular, the CFPB, increasingly assertive in President Biden’s second year in office, has clearly signaled its intent to take action in this area:

  • Rohit Chopra, the director of the CFPB, has spoken out on numerous occasions — in public appearances, opinion pieces, and blog posts — regarding the imperative of reining in so-called junk fees charged by banks and other financial companies.
  • On January 26, 2022, the CFPB published a request for public comment targeting “exploitative junk fees,” including overdraft and NSF fees. The CFPB stated that the goal of its information request was to assist the agency’s plan to “craft rules, issue industry guidance, and focus supervision and enforcement resources,” with the goals of reducing excessive fees and eliminating illegal practices.

The attack on overdraft fee programs has been echoed by other administration officials as well as by allied politicians. Acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael Hsu has called traditional bank overdraft programs “a significant part” of a “regressive system” that penalizes the poor and has stated that “banks that hesitate to adopt pro-consumer overdraft programs will soon be negative outliers.” On March 31, 2022, the House Financial Services Subcommittee held a hearing on possible government intervention to restrict overdraft programs, clearly showing coordination by the committee majority with the Biden administration’s initiatives. In March 2022, a group of US Senate Democrats (including Banking Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown) sent letters to seven large banks urging them to abolish or significantly reduce overdraft and other fees, and in early April, New York Attorney General Letitia James, in recent letters signed by numerous other state attorneys general, asked the country’s four largest banks to eliminate consumer overdraft fees altogether by summer 2022.

Adding to the chorus of Biden administration and other political voices critical of overdraft fees has been a steady stream of announcements over the past year by many large banks regarding plans to eliminate or greatly restrict their overdraft and related fees. In January 2022 alone, five of the country’s largest banks announced the planned elimination of NSF fees and certain overdraft charges. These announcements add weight to the CFPB’s attacks on overdraft fee programs and will inevitably result in additional pressure on other large banks to follow suit.

The bottom line is that federal regulation of this area may finally be on the horizon, if not imminent, although it is anyone’s guess what form regulatory action will take. The initial targets of any action taken by the CFPB — whether formal rulemaking, statements of policy, or increased enforcement activity — are likely to be banking companies that have total assets in excess of $10 billion and that are thus subject to direct supervision by the CFPB. However, whatever new policy is implemented by the CFPB in this area will inevitably be applied by the three principal federal banking agencies to financial institutions of all sizes, and community banks should prepare themselves for increased examination scrutiny of their overdraft fee programs and the potential for enforcement actions.

Accordingly, community banks — especially those heavily reliant on overdraft fee income — should review their overdraft programs, ensure that they are compliant with existing regulations and best practices, and consider changes to respond to possible regulatory concerns. While it is impossible to react effectively to a regulatory regime that has not been proposed, much less implemented, reports and statements by the CFPB and other banking agencies provide some guidance. First, the CFPB has indicated that it will demand transparent and fully disclosed pricing of overdraft solutions that allow consumers to make an informed choice. In addition, Acting Comptroller Hsu stated in a December 2021 speech — in which he notably did not call for banks to eliminate overdraft fees — that the OCC had identified several features of bank overdraft programs that could be modified or recalibrated to help achieve the goal of improving the financial health of vulnerable consumers. He stated that these changes included:

  • Requiring consumer opt-in to the overdraft program.
  • Providing a grace period before charging an overdraft fee.
  • Allowing negative balances without triggering an overdraft fee.
  • Offering consumers balance-related alerts.
  • Providing consumers with access to real-time balance information.
  • Linking a consumer’s checking account to another account for overdraft protection.
  • Collecting overdraft or NSF fees from a consumer’s next deposit only after other items have been posted or cleared.
  • Not charging separate and multiple overdraft fees for multiple items in a single day and not charging additional fees when an item is re-presented.

Finally, community banks should closely monitor CFPB and other bank regulators’ overdraft fee initiatives, through state and national bankers associations and otherwise, and continue to explore potential methods of managing their overdraft programs in line with stated and possible future regulatory concerns.

© 2022 Jones Walker LLP
For more about banking institutions, visit the NLR Financial, Securities & Banking section.

California Considers Unclaimed Property Voluntary Disclosure, Interest Forgiveness Legislation

The California State Assembly is considering Assembly Bill 2280, which would launch a much-anticipated opportunity for businesses to report unclaimed property to California – interest-free – under an amnesty program.

Unclaimed property is a regulatory challenge for businesses in every industry and commonly results when company financial obligations remain unsatisfied or inactive for a legally defined period.

The unclaimed property is often owed to vendors, employees, customers, or shareholders stemming from ordinary business transactions, including:

  • accounts receivable credits
  • bank and investment accounts
  • gift cards
  • royalties
  • securities and dividends
  • uncashed payroll and vendor payments
  • virtual currencies

California has tried passing voluntary compliance legislation since its amnesty program expired several years ago, but has been unsuccessful. The sleeping giant has again awakened.

Any company with operations in California, with California-formed entities, or with customers, vendors, or employees in California should proactively evaluate its unclaimed property compliance and monitor this legislation carefully.

Every state’s law requires companies to report unclaimed property to the state annually, yet compliance rates are low nationwide. AB 2280 estimates that 1.3 million California tax-filing businesses did not correctly report unclaimed property in 2020. To close this compliance gap, California and most other states regularly audit companies to identify unreported unclaimed property. Such audits often involve detailed reviews of company accounting records for 10 or more years by third-party auditors on behalf of numerous states.

Currently, California imposes 12 percent annual interest on any past-due unclaimed property identified, which likely deters annual compliance, with companies electing to wait for the state to authorize an audit rather than pay the interest assessment. The new bill aims to fix that.

Under AB 2280, California’s Controller is authorized to establish a voluntary disclosure agreement (VDA) or voluntary compliance program for any company that:

  • is not currently under examination by California
  • is not involved in a civil or criminal action involving unclaimed property compliance
  • has not been notified of an unclaimed property interest assessment or negotiated a waiver of interest in the last five years

The proposed law would allow the state to forgive the interest if the company:

  • participates in an educational training program
  • reviews accounting records for unclaimed property for 10 years
  • makes sufficient efforts to reunite property with owners
  • timely files initial reports and remits all identified unclaimed property for the 10 years

The bill may be heard in committee March 19 and it is unclear whether this legislation will become a reality. AB 2280 is not California’s first voluntary disclosure effort. California had a temporary unclaimed property amnesty program in the early 2000s, and the State Assembly declined to advance voluntary disclosure program legislation in February 2018.

Notably, even if AB 2280 successfully becomes law, the voluntary compliance program is contingent upon the legislature appropriating funds in the Budget Act.

Beyond AB 2280, California is ramping up other efforts to drive unclaimed property compliance:

  • In the 2019 California Budget Act, the State Controller’s Office was tasked with increasing unclaimed property compliance, including through adopting an unclaimed property amnesty program; it’s unclear whether this particular bill satisfies that task or if there is more to come
  • In July 2021, California’s governor approved and signed into law Assembly Bill 466, which authorizes the Franchise Tax Board to share information with the Controller’s

Office regarding the taxpayer’s revenue and previous unclaimed property compliance (or lack thereof). This development is notable because revenue and reporting history detail is often used by states to identify companies for unclaimed property enforcement initiatives.

Voluntary compliance programs and VDAs that include an interest abatement are a common-sense incentive for voluntary compliance for states, and the advantages for companies merit thoughtful consideration.

© 2022 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
For more articles about California legislation, visit the NLR California law section.

District Court Declines to Dismiss 401(k) Fee Litigation Case in First Decision Post-Hughes

In the first decision since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hughes v. Northwestern Univ., No. 19-1401, 595 U.S. ___ (U.S. Jan. 24, 2022) (discussed further here), a Georgia federal district court held in favor of plaintiffs and declined to dismiss allegations that defendant’s 401(k) plan included costly and underperforming funds and charged excessive recordkeeping fees. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that defendants breached ERISA’s fiduciary duty of prudence by: (1) offering retail share class mutual funds despite the availability of identical lower-cost institutional share classes of these same funds; (2) including actively managed mutual funds which were more expensive than available passively managed funds; (3) selecting and maintaining underperforming funds; and (4) overpaying for recordkeeping services.

In declining to dismiss plaintiffs’ investment management fee claims, the district court relied heavily on Hughes. The court expressed its view that Hughes “suggested” that a defined contribution plan participant may state a prudence claim by merely alleging that the plan offered higher priced retail class mutual funds instead of available identical lower-cost institutional class funds. The district court also rejected defendant’s argument that plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed in part because the plan offered a variety of investment options that participants could select, including lower-cost passive investment options. The district court explained that Hughes rejected this exact argument in holding that a fiduciary’s decisions are not insulated merely by giving participants choice over their investments and that fiduciaries have a continuing duty to monitor plan investments.

The court declined to dismiss plaintiffs’ recordkeeping claims because plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the plan paid nearly double the fees charged by similarly sized plans and that defendant failed to monitor those costs. In regards to plaintiffs’ underperformance claims, the court held that the existence and extent of the alleged underperformance was better left for summary judgment given the parties’ differing views on the issue.

Proskauer’s Perspective

While plaintiffs seemingly scored a victory in the first decision since Hughes, the decision does not indicate that this will (or should be) the trend. First, the district court issued its decision one day after Hughes was decided without the benefit of additional briefing, which would have likely included briefing on the Supreme Court’s direction that district courts give “due regard” to the reasons why a fiduciary made the challenged decisions. Second, the district court appears to have, at a minimum, over-emphasized the Supreme Court’s holding as to the plausibility of mutual fund retail share class claims; the Supreme Court did not hold directly or in dicta that a plaintiff may survive dismissal merely by alleging the availability of identical lower-cost mutual fund share classes.

The case is Goodman v. Columbus Reg’l Healthcare Sys., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13489 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 25, 2022).

© 2022 Proskauer Rose LLP.
For more articles about 401(k) plans, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Federal Regulators Issue New Cyber Incident Reporting Rule for Banks

On November 18, 2021, the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued a new rule regarding cyber incident reporting obligations for U.S. banks and service providers.

The final rule requires a banking organization to notify its primary federal regulator “as soon as possible and no later than 36 hours after the banking organization determines that a notification incident has occurred.” The rule defines a “notification incident” as a “computer-security incident that has materially disrupted or degraded, or is reasonably likely to materially disrupt or degrade, a banking organization’s—

  1. Ability to carry out banking operations, activities, or processes, or deliver banking products and services to a material portion of its customer base, in the ordinary course of business;
  2. Business line(s), including associated operations, services, functions, and support, that upon failure would result in a material loss of revenue, profit, or franchise value; or
  3. Operations, including associated services, functions and support, as applicable, the failure or discontinuance of which would pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States.”

Under the rule, a “computer-security incident” is “an occurrence that results in actual harm to the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of an information system or the information that the system processes, stores, or transmits.”

Separately, the rule requires a bank service provider to notify each affected banking organization “as soon as possible when the bank service provider determines it has experienced a computer-security incident that has materially disrupted or degraded or is reasonably likely to materially disrupt or degrade, covered services provided to such banking organization for four or more hours.” For purposes of the rule, a bank service provider is one that performs “covered services” (i.e., services subject to the Bank Service Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1861–1867)).

In response to comments received on the agencies’ December 2020 proposed rule, the new rule reflects changes to key definitions and notification provisions applicable to both banks and bank service providers. These changes include, among others, narrowing the definition of a “computer security incident,” replacing the “good faith belief” notification standard for banks with a determination standard, and adding a definition of “covered services” to the bank service provider provisions. With these revisions, the agencies intend to resolve some of the ambiguities in the proposed rule and address commenters’ concerns that the rule would create an undue regulatory burden.

The final rule becomes effective April 1, 2022, and compliance is required by May 1, 2022. The regulators hope this new rule will “help promote early awareness of emerging threats to banking organizations and the broader financial system,” as well as “help the agencies react to these threats before they become systemic.”

Copyright © 2021, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.
For more articles on banking regulations, visit the NLR Financial Securities & Banking section.