Tag: Finance

The Future of Stablecoins, Crypto Staking and Custody of Digital Assets

In the wake of the collapse of cryptocurrency exchange firm FTX, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has ratcheted up its oversight and enforcement of crypto firms engaged in activities ranging from crypto staking to custody of digital assets. This is due in part to concerns that the historically free-wheeling and largely unregulated crypto marketplace may adversely impact U.S. investors and contaminate traditional financial systems. The arguments that cryptocurrencies and digital assets should not be viewed as securities under federal laws largely fall on deaf ears at the SEC. Meanwhile, the state of the crypto economy in the United States remains in flux as the SEC, other regulators and politicians alike attempt to balance competing interests of innovation and investment in a relatively novel and untested asset class.

Is Crypto Staking Dead?

First, what is crypto staking? By way of background, it’s necessary to understand a bit about blockchain technology, which serves as the underpinning for all cryptocurrency and digital asset transactions. One of the perceived benefits of such transactions is that they are decentralized and “peer-to-peer” – meaning that Person A can transact directly with Person B without the need for a financial intermediary to approve the transaction.

However, in the absence of a central authority to validate a transaction, blockchain requires other verification processes or consensus mechanisms such as “proof of work” (which in the case of Bitcoin mining ensures that transactions are valid and added to the Bitcoin blockchain correctly) or “proof of stake” (a network of “validators” who contribute or “stake” their own crypto in exchange for a chance to validate a new transaction, update the blockchain and earn a reward). Proof of work has come under fire by environmental activists for the enormous amounts of computer power and energy required to solve complex mathematical or cryptographic puzzles to validate a transaction before it can be recorded on the blockchain. In contrast, proof of stake is analogous to a shareholder voting their shares of stock to approve a corporate transaction.

Second, why has crypto staking caught the attention of the SEC? Many crypto firms and exchanges offer “staking as a service” (SaaS) whereby investors can stake (or lend) their digital assets in exchange for lucrative returns. This practice is akin to a person depositing cash in a bank account in exchange for interest payments – minus FDIC insurance backing of all such bank deposits to protect investors.

Recently, on February 9, 2023, the SEC charged two crypto firms, commonly known as “Kraken,” for violating federal securities laws by offering a lucrative crypto asset SaaS program. Pursuant to this program, investors could stake their digital assets with Kraken in exchange for annual investment returns of up to 21 percent. According to the SEC, this program constituted the unregistered sale of securities in violation of federal securities laws. Moreover, the SEC claims that Kraken failed to adequately disclose the risks associated with its staking program. According to the SEC’s Enforcement Division director:

“Kraken not only offered investors outsized returns untethered to any economic realities but also retained the right to pay them no returns at all. All the while, it provided them zero insight into, among other things, its financial condition and whether it even had the means of paying the marketed returns in the first place.”1

Without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, Kraken has agreed to pay a $30 million civil penalty and will no longer offer crypto staking services to U.S. investors. Meanwhile, other crypto firms that offer similar programs, such as Binance and Coinbase, are waiting for the other shoe to drop – including the possibility that the SEC will ban all crypto staking programs for U.S. retail investors. Separate and apart from potentially extinguishing a lucrative revenue stream for crypto firms and investors alike, it may have broader consequences for proof of stake consensus mechanisms commonly used to validate blockchain transactions.

NY DFS Targets Stablecoins

In the world of cryptocurrency, stablecoins are typically considered the most secure and least volatile because they are often pegged 1:1 to some designated fiat (government-backed) currency such as U.S. dollars. In particular, all stablecoins issued by entities regulated by the New York Department of Financial Services (NY DFS) are required to be fully backed 1:1 by cash or cash equivalents. However, on February 13, 2023, NY DFS unexpectedly issued a consumer alert stating that it had ordered Paxos Trust Company (Paxos) to stop minting and issuing a stablecoin known as “BUSD.” BUSD is reportedly the third largest stablecoin by market cap and pegged to the U.S. dollar.

The reasoning behind the NY DFS order remains unclear from the alert, which merely states that “DFS has ordered Paxos to cease minting Paxos-issued BUSD as a result of several unresolved issues related to Paxos’ oversight of its relationship with Binance in regard to Paxos-issued BUSD.”2 The same day, Paxos confirmed that it would stop issuing BUSD. However, in an effort to assuage investors, Paxos stated “All BUSD tokens issued by Paxos Trust have and always will be backed 1:1 with U.S. dollar–denominated reserves, fully segregated and held in bankruptcy remote accounts.”3

Separately, the SEC reportedly issued a Wells Notice to Paxos on February 12, 2023, indicating that it intended to commence an enforcement action against the company for violating securities laws in connection with the sale of BUSD, which the SEC characterized as unregistered securities. Paxos, meanwhile, categorically denies that BUSD constitute securities, but nonetheless has agreed to stop issuing these tokens in light of the NY DFS order.

It remains to be seen whether the regulatory activity targeting BUSD is the beginning of a broader crackdown on stablecoins amid concerns that, contrary to popular belief, such coins may not be backed by adequate cash reserves.

Custody of Crypto Assets

On February 15, 2023, the SEC proposed changes to the existing “custody rule” under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. As noted by SEC Chair Gary Gensler, the custody rule was designed to “help ensure that [investment] advisers don’t inappropriately use, lose, or abuse investors’ assets.”4 The proposed changes to the rule (referred to as the “safeguarding rule”) would require investment advisers to maintain client assets – specifically including crypto assets – in qualified custodial accounts. As the SEC observed, “[although] crypto assets are a relatively recent and emerging type of asset, this is not the first time custodians have had to adapt their practices to safeguard different types of assets.”5

A qualified custodian generally is a federal or state-chartered bank or savings association, certain trust companies, a registered broker-dealer, a registered futures commission merchant or certain foreign financial institutions.6 However, as noted by the SEC, many crypto assets trade on platforms that are not qualified custodians. Accordingly, “this practice would generally result in an adviser with custody of a crypto asset security being in violation of the current custody rule because custody of the crypto asset security would not be maintained by a qualified custodian from the time the crypto asset security was moved to the trading platform through the settlement of the trade.”7

Moreover, in a departure from existing practice, the proposed safeguarding rule would require an investment adviser to enter into a written agreement with the qualified custodian. This custodial agreement would set forth certain minimum protections for the safeguarding of customer assets, including crypto assets, such as:

  • Implementing appropriate measures to safeguard an advisory client’s assets8
  • Indemnifying an advisory client when its negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct results in that client’s loss9
  • Segregating an advisory client’s assets from its proprietary assets10
  • Keeping certain records relating to an advisory client’s assets
  • Providing an advisory client with periodic custodial account statements11
  • Evaluating the effectiveness of its internal controls related to its custodial practices.12

The new proposed, cumbersome requirements for custodians of crypto assets appear to be a direct consequence of the collapse of FTX, which resulted in the inexplicable “disappearance” of billions of dollars of customer funds. By tightening the screws on custodians and investment advisers, the SEC is seeking to protect the everyday retail investor by leveling the playing field in the complex and often murky world of crypto. However, it still remains to be seen whether, and to what extent, the proposed safeguarding rule will emerge after the public comment period, which will remain open for 60 days following publication of the proposal in the Federal Register.

1 SEC Press Release 2023-25 (Feb. 9, 2023).

2 NY DFS Consumer Alert (Feb. 13, 2023) found at https://www.dfs.ny.gov/consumers/alerts/Paxos_and_Binance.

3 Paxos Press Release (Feb. 13, 2023) found at https://paxos.com/2023/02/13/paxos-will-halt-minting-new-busd-tokens/.

4 SEC Press Release 2023-30 (Feb. 15, 2023).

5 SEC Proposed Rule, p. 79.

6 SEC Fact Sheet: Proposed Safeguarding Rule.

7 SEC Proposed Rule, p. 68.

8 For instance, per the SEC, this could require storing crypto assets in a “cold wallet.”

9 Per the SEC, “the proposed indemnification requirement would likely operate as a substantial expansion in the protections provided by qualified custodians to advisory clients, in particular because it would result in some custodians holding advisory client assets subject to a simple negligence standard rather than a gross negligence standard.” See SEC Proposed Rule, p. 89.

10 Per the SEC, this requirement is intended to “ensure that client assets are at all times readily identifiable as client property and remain available to the client even if the qualified custodian becomes financially insolvent or if the financial institution’s creditors assert a lien against the qualified custodian’s proprietary assets (or liabilities).” See SEC Proposed Rule, p. 92.

11 Per the SEC, “[in] a change from the current custody rule, the qualified custodian would also now be required to send account statements, at least quarterly, to the investment adviser, which would allow the adviser to more easily perform account reconciliations.” See SEC Proposed Rule, p. 98.

12 Per the SEC, the proposed rule would require that the “qualified custodian, at least annually, will obtain, and provide to the investment adviser a written internal control report that includes an opinion of an independent public accountant as to whether controls have been placed in operation as of a specific date, are suitably designed, and are operating effectively to meet control objectives relating to custodial services (including the safeguarding of the client assets held by that qualified custodian during the year).” See SEC Proposed Rule, p. 101.

Article By Anjali C. Das of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP

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

© 2023 Wilson Elser

Australia: ASIC Reveals 2023 Enforcement Priorities

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has revealed its key enforcement priorities for 2023. This year, ASIC has signalled an expanded focus on enforcement activity targeting:

  • sustainable finance practices and disclosure of climate risks;
  • financial scams;
  • cyber and operational resilience; and
  • investor harms involving crypto-assets.

In its release, ASIC has emphasised that the regulator’s prioritisation of monitoring in these areas intends to “address misconduct, market integrity threats and consumer harms in sectors including financial services, retail and crypto-assets.”

The warning coincides with this month’s release of ASIC’s enforcement and regulatory report that highlights the major uptick in enforcement and regulatory actions taken by ASIC during the last half of 2022, including:

  • 173 criminal charges being laid and $76.3 million in civil penalties imposed;
  • heightened action against money laundering risks;
  • the issuance of 22 design and distribution obligations (DDO) stop orders to prevent consumers and investors being targeted by products inappropriate to their objectives, financial situation and needs; and
  • the regulator’s first action for greenwashing and consequential issuance of infringement notices for misleading sustainability-related statements.

Another priority of ASIC for the coming year is to increase its transparency to industry and streamline its interactions with the entities it regulates. For the first time, ASIC has released a regulatory developments timetable setting out projected timeframes for ASIC regulatory work, such as the publication of draft or final guidance, and the anticipated making of a legislative instrument. ASIC’s release of these key enforcement priorities and regulatory developments timetable gives us a clear indication of ASIC’s intention to continue its heightened level of surveillance and enforcement action into 2023.

Article By Matthew J. Watts and Rebecca Mangos of K&L Gates

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

Copyright 2023 K & L Gates

Who Owns the Crypto, the Customer or the Debtor?

Whose crytpo is it? With the multiple cryptocurrency companies that have recently filed for bankruptcy (FTX, Voyager Digital, BlockFi), and more likely on the way, that simple sounding question is taking on huge significance. Last week, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Chief Judge Martin Glenn) attempted to answer that question in the Celsius Network LLC bankruptcy case.

The Facts of the Case

Celsius and its affiliated debtors (collectively, “Debtors”) ran a cryptocurrency finance platform. Faced with extreme turbulence in the cryptocurrency markets, the Debtors filed Chapter 11 petitions on July 13, 2022. As part of their regular business, the Debtors had allowed customers to both deposit cryptocurrency digital assets on their platform and earn a percentage yield, as well as take out loans by pledging their cryptocurrencies as security. One specific program offered by the Debtors was the “Earn” program, under which customers could transfer certain cryptocurrencies to the Debtors and earn “rewards” in the form of payment of in-kind interest or tokens. On the petition date, the Earn program accounts (the “Earn Accounts”) held cryptocurrency assets with a market value of approximately $4.2 billion. Included within the Earn Accounts were stablecoins valued at approximately $23 million in September 2022. A stablecoin is a type of cryptocurrency designed to be tied or pegged to another currency, commodity or financial instrument.

Recognizing their emerging need for liquidity, on November 11, 2022, the Debtors filed a motion seeking entry of an order (a) establishing a rebuttable presumption that the Debtors owned the assets in the Earn Accounts and (b) permitting the sale of the stablecoins held in the Earn Accounts under either section 363(c)(1) (sale in the ordinary course of business) or section 363(b)(1) (sale outside the ordinary course of business) of the Bankruptcy Code. The motion generated opposition from the U.S. Trustee, various States and State securities regulators and multiple creditors and creditor groups. The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors objected to the sale of the stablecoins under section 363(c)(1) but argued that the sale should be approved under section 363(b)(1) because the Debtors had shown a good business reason for the sale (namely to pay ongoing administrative expenses of the bankruptcy cases). On January 4, 2023, the court issued its forty-five (45) page memorandum opinion granting the Debtors’ motion.

The Court’s Decision

Although the ownership issue may appear complex given the nature of the assets (i.e., cryptocurrency), the bankruptcy court framed the issue into relatively straightforward state law questions of contract formation and interpretation. The court first analyzed whether there was a valid contract governing the parties’ rights to the cryptocurrency assets in the Earn Accounts. Under governing New York law, a valid, enforceable contract requires an offer and acceptance (i.e., mutual assent), consideration and an intent to be bound. The court found that all three elements were satisfied. The Debtors required that all customers agree to and accept “Terms of Use.” The Terms of Use was set up as a “clickwrap” agreement that required customers to agree to the terms and prevented the customers from advancing to the next page and completing their sign up unless they agreed to the Terms of Use. Under New York law, “clickwrap” agreements are sufficient to constitute mutual assent. The court also found that consideration was given by way of allowing the customers to earn a financing fee (i.e., the rewards in the form of payment of in-kind interest or tokens). Finally, the court noted that no party had presented evidence that either the Debtors or the customers lacked intent to be bound by the contract terms. Accordingly, the court held that the Terms of Use constituted a valid contract, subject to the rights of customers to put forth individual contract formation defenses in the future, including claims of fraudulent inducement based on representations allegedly made by the Debtors’ former CEO, Alex Mashinsky.

Having found a valid contract to presumptively exist, the court turned its attention to what the Terms of Use provided in terms of transfer of ownership. In operative part, the Terms of Use provided:

In consideration for the Rewards payable to you on the Eligible Digital Assets using the Earn Service … and the use of our Services, you grant Celsius … all right and title to such Eligible Digital Assets, including ownership rights, and the right, without further notice to you, to hold such Digital Assets in Celsius’ own Virtual Wallet or elsewhere, and to pledge, re-pledge, hypothecate, rehypothecate, sell, lend or otherwise transfer or use any amount of such Digital Assets, separately or together with other property, with all the attendant rights of ownership, and for any period of time, and without retaining in Celsius’ possession and/or control a like amount of Digital Assets or any other monies or assets, and use or invest such Digital Assets in Celsius’ full discretion. You acknowledge that with respect Digital Assets used by Celsius pursuant to this paragraph:

  1. You will not be able to exercise rights of ownership;
  2. Celsius may receive compensation in connection with lender or otherwise using Digital Assets in its business to which you have no claim or entitlement; and
  3. In the event that Celsius becomes bankrupt, enters liquidation or is otherwise unable to repay its obligations, any Eligible Digital Assets used in the Earn Service or as collateral under the Borrow Service may not be recoverable, and you may not have any legal remedies or rights in connection with Celsius’ obligations to you other than your rights as a creditor of Celsius under any applicable laws.

Based on this language, the court held that the Terms of Use unambiguously transferred ownership of the assets in the Earn Accounts to the Debtors. Central to the court’s decision was that under the Terms of Use customers had granted the Debtors “all right and title to such Digital Assets, including ownership rights.” Based on this language, the court found that title and ownership of the cryptocurrency held in the Earn Accounts was “unequivocally transferred to the Debtors and became property of the Estate on the Petition Date.”

Finally, the court found that the Debtors had shown that they needed to generate liquidity to fund the bankruptcy cases, and that additional liquidity would be needed early this year. Accordingly, the court held that the Debtors had shown sufficient cause to permit the sale of the stablecoins outside of the ordinary course of business in accordance with section 363(b)(1).

Implications

Given the turbulent nature of the cryptocurrency market and the likelihood of further cryptocurrency bankruptcy filings, the court’s ruling is sure to have significant implications. First, unless it is reversed on appeal, the opinion means that the Debtors’ Earn program customers do not own the funds in their digital accounts and will instead be relegated to the status of unsecured creditors with a highly uncertain recovery. Second, the opinion underscores the Wild West nature of crypto and the fact that unlike deposits at a federally insured financial institution, deposits at cryptocurrency exchanges are not similarly insured and may be at risk. Third, customers or account holders in other cryptocurrency exchanges or businesses should carefully review the applicable terms of use to determine if those terms transferred ownership of their digital assets to their cryptocurrency counterparty. It is likely a fair assumption that such other terms of use transferred ownership in the same way that the Celsius Terms of Use did, in which case customers must remain vigilant of the financial health of their cryptocurrency counterparty. Finally, all parties engaging in on-line business transactions, including those outside of cryptocurrency, are on notice that clickwrap agreements commonly found in such transactions are, at least under New York law, enforceable. In short, those agreements mean something, and the fact that a party did not read the terms before agreeing to them through a “click” is likely not going to be a viable defense to the enforcement of those terms.

For more Bankruptcy Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Copyright 2023 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

NFT Endorsed by Celebrities Prompts Class Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

©2022 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

Are Loans Securities?

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

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

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

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

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

Article By Leah Edelboim of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

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

© Copyright 2022 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

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

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

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

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

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

I.          General Background

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

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

II.         Arguments

a.         Series B Preferred Holders

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

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

b.         Debtors’ Response

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

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

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

III.        Analysis

a.         Bankruptcy Code & Rules & Forms

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

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

b.         Section 502(b)

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

IV.        The Court’s Order

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

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

V.         Cash Is Still King?

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

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

FOOTNOTES

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

2 Id. at ¶ 131.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(b)(1).

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

16 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9009(a).

17 Id.

18 General Order M-386 ¶ 9.

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

20 11 U.S.C. § 502(b).

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

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

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

24 Id. at ¶¶ 7, 8.

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

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

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

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

Article By Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

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

© Copyright 2022 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

CFPB Investigates Crypto Lender

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

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

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

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

Article By Scott H. Kimpel of Hunton Andrews Kurth

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

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

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

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

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

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

Start of Sixty-Day Period

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

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

Beginning Construction for Purposes of the Exemption

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

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

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

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

Prevailing Wage Determinations

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

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

Certain Defined Terms under the Prevailing Wage Requirements

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

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

The Good Faith Exception to the Apprenticeship Requirements

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

Certain Defined Terms under the Apprenticeship Requirements

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

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

Record-Keeping Requirements

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

Other Relevant Resources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© 2022 Bracewell LLP

SEC Ramps Up Enforcement against Public Companies and Subsidiaries in FY 2022

The SEC imposed $2.8 billion in monetary settlements, the largest total in any fiscal year recorded in the Securities Enforcement Empirical Database.

New York—The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed 68 enforcement actions against public companies and subsidiaries in the first full fiscal year of Chair Gary Gensler’s tenure. Monetary settlements imposed in public company or subsidiary actions reached $2.8 billion, according to a report released today by the NYU Pollack Center for Law & Business and Cornerstone Research.

The report, SEC Enforcement Activity: Public Companies and Subsidiaries—Fiscal Year 2022 Update, analyzes information from the Securities Enforcement Empirical Database (SEED). The 68 enforcement actions in FY 2022, which ended September 30, reflected a 28% increase from the previous fiscal year.

The SEC imposed monetary settlements on 97% of the 75 public company and subsidiary defendants that settled in FY 2022. Both the dollar amount and the percentage were the largest of any fiscal year recorded in SEED, which covers actions beginning in FY 2010.

“The number of defendants that settled in FY 2022 with admissions of guilt increased substantially from the previous fiscal year. This was driven by actions involving Broker Dealer allegations brought by the SEC in September,” said Stephen Choi, the Bernard Petrie Professor of Law and Business at New York University School of Law and director of the Pollack Center for Law & Business. “The 16 defendants admitting guilt was double the largest number in any previous fiscal year in SEED.”

The $2.8 billion in monetary settlements imposed in public company or subsidiary enforcement actions in FY 2022 was $921 million more than in FY 2021 and $321 million more than in any other fiscal year in SEED. The median monetary settlement in FY 2022 was $9 million, the largest in SEED. The average settlement was $42 million.

“The increase in monetary settlements is consistent with the SEC’s public statements that ‘robust remedies’ are an enforcement priority,” said report coauthor Sara Gilley, a Cornerstone Research vice president. “The $1.2 billion in monetary settlements with 16 public broker-dealer subsidiaries for recordkeeping failures represents 44% of total monetary settlements in the fiscal year.”

Issuer Reporting and Disclosure continued to be the most common allegation type in FY 2022, accounting for 38% of actions. Allegations in the SEC’s Broker Dealer classification were the second most common for the first time since FY 2018. Nearly 70% of the 16 Broker Dealer actions were filed against financial institutions for recordkeeping failures.

Click here to read the full report from Cornerstone Research.

Article By Sara E. Gilley, Lindsay Schick, and Heather B. Lazur of Cornerstone Research

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

Copyright ©2022 Cornerstone Research

What Brokers, Company Insiders, and Others Need to Know about Securities Litigation

Individuals, companies, and firms involved in all aspects of the securities industry face litigation risks daily. From whistleblower lawsuits and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement actions to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration and private-right-of-action cases under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, all types of securities litigation present risks for civil liability. In some cases, securities litigation can present risks for criminal penalties as well.

With this in mind, there is a lot that brokers, company insiders, investment advisers, and others need to know when targeted in lawsuits and investigations. When brokers, company insiders, and others make informed decisions based on the advice of experienced counsel, they can significantly mitigate their risk in both private and governmental securities litigation.

“Securities litigation can present substantial risks for individuals, companies, and firms. Whether facing allegations in civil litigation, SEC enforcement proceedings, or FINRA arbitration, the key to mitigating these risks is to build and execute a comprehensive, strategic and forward-thinking defense.” – Dr. Nick Oberheiden, Founding Attorney of Oberheiden P.C. law firms.

Answers to 10 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Securities Litigation

Here are answers to 10 frequently asked questions (FAQs) about securities litigation:

1. What Are Some of the Most Common Claims Against Brokers and Brokerage Firms in Securities Litigation?

Brokers and brokerage firms have faced a growing volume of litigation in recent years. This includes private litigation involving individual investors as well as litigation involving the SEC. Investigations, lawsuits, and arbitration filings targeting brokers and brokerage firms primarily focus on acts and omissions constituting investor fraud, though brokers and brokerage firms can face a variety of other claims in securities litigation as well.

Some examples of common claims against brokers and brokerage firms in securities litigation include:

  • Making unsuitable investment recommendations

  • Unauthorized trading and account churning

  • Charging excessive fees and commissions

  • Failing to disclose or misconstruing material information (especially in connection with structured products and other high-risk investments)

  • Failure to supervise or implement adequate internal controls

2. What Are Some of the Most Common Claims Against Company Insiders and Issuers in Securities Litigation?

Securities fraud lawsuits and enforcement actions targeting company insiders and securities issuers can also involve an extremely broad range of allegations. These cases are typically very different from those targeting brokers and brokerage firms; and, while both falls under the umbrella of “securities litigation,” the resemblances between the two categories are minimal. Some examples of common claims against company insiders and issuers in securities litigation include:

  • Accounting and recordkeeping violations

  • Submitting false SEC filings

  • Insider trading

  • Market manipulation

  • Selling unregistered securities and conducting unregistered IPOs

3. What Are Some of the Most Common Triggers for Securities Fraud Lawsuits and Investigations?

Many securities fraud lawsuits and investigations result from investor complaints. Typically, investors will have concerns about losses in their portfolios that they believe cannot be explained by ordinary market forces. These concerned investors will contact plaintiffs’ lawyers to help them file claims alleging fraud in federal courts, district courts or FINRA arbitration.

In some cases, concerned investors will file whistleblower claims with the SEC. The SEC has an obligation to investigate all whistleblower complaints that meet the basic filing requirements, and SEC whistleblowers can receive substantial compensation awards.

The SEC also initiates investigations on its own. Questionable EDGAR filings, market activity, media reports, and referrals from other federal law enforcement agencies can all trigger SEC investigations that may lead to civil or criminal enforcement action. The SEC also monitors activity on social media and other online platforms, and activity on these platforms is increasingly serving as the basis for SEC enforcement activity.

4. What Types of Claims Are Most Likely to Lead to Class Action Securities Litigation?

While all securities litigation presents liability risks for the individuals or entities targeted, companies and firms targeted in class action litigation face risk on an entirely different scale. Class action lawsuits lead to devastating liability that can threaten companies’ and firms’ viability as a going concern.

The types of claims that are most likely to lead to class action securities litigation are those that involve violations affecting large groups of investors. Inadequate brokerage controls that lead to systemic unsuitable investment recommendations, omitting material information from companies’ 10-K or 10-Q filings, mismanagement of investors’ funds, and market manipulation resulting in widespread losses are all examples of issues that can lead (and have led) to securities-related class action lawsuits.

5. How Does the SEC’s Whistleblower Program Work?

The SEC’s Office of the Whistleblower accepts tips from company employees, investors, and others who believe they have information about securities fraud. When a whistleblower complaint spurs enforcement action resulting in sanctions of $1 million or more, the whistleblower can receive between 10% and 30% of the amount collected.

As a result, individuals have a strong financial incentive to come forward and work with the SEC. Additionally, even if the SEC declines to pursue enforcement action based on a whistleblower’s tip, the whistleblower can still choose to pursue a claim directly, and whistleblower compensation awards are higher in these cases. Due to these incentives, whistleblower litigation is a key component of the SEC’s overall securities law enforcement strategy.

6. When Is It Advantageous to Settle a Securities Fraud Lawsuit or Arbitration Claim?

When facing substantiated allegations of securities fraud, settling will often prove to be the most cost-effective solution. However, targeted individuals and entities must be careful not to settle too soon, as there are numerous ways to fight securities fraud allegations even in scenarios that seem highly unfavorable (more on this below).

So, when is it advantageous to settle? Simply put, the costs of settling need to be less than the costs of any other alternative. This includes not only legal costs and any potential judgment liability, but reputational and administrative (i.e. suspension or debarment) costs as well.

7. When Can the U.S. Department of Justice Pursue Criminal Securities Fraud Litigation?

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) pursues criminal securities fraud litigation in cases involving intentional (or apparently intentional) securities law violations. According to the DOJ’s website, the Department’s Market Integrity and Major Frauds (MIMF) Unit, “focuses on the prosecution of complex securities, commodities, cryptocurrency, and other financial fraud and market manipulation cases.” In criminal securities fraud cases, the DOJ can seek penalties ranging from substantial fines to long-term imprisonment for company executives and other insiders.

8. What Remedies Can Investors Seek in Securities Litigation?

In private securities litigation and FINRA arbitration, retail investors can seek compensatory damages for their fraudulent investment losses. An investor’s losses may be deemed fraudulent if they result from either: (i) broker fraud or mismanagement (i.e., making unsuitable investment recommendations), or (ii) a drop in the value of their securities that is not attributable to ordinary market forces. Along with the recovery of their lost principal and investment earnings, investors can seek to recover interest, fees, and other costs as well.

9. What Remedies Can the SEC Seek in Securities Litigation?

When pursuing enforcement actions against brokers, brokerage firms, company insiders, and issuers, the SEC can seek a range of civil and administrative penalties. These include fines, disgorgement, and restitution as well as cease-and-desist orders, suspension, and debarment from the securities industry.

10. What Defenses Can Individuals, Companies, and Firms Use to Protect Themselves in Securities Litigation?

While securities litigation can involve a broad range of allegations and present substantial risk for liability and other penalties, targeted individuals and entities may be able to successfully defend themselves by several means. Whether securing a favorable result means avoiding liability entirely or negotiating a favorable settlement, the key to success is making informed decisions in light of the available opportunities.

For brokers and brokerage firms, some examples of potential defenses include:

  • Misguided Allegations – In many cases, investors (and their counsel) simply lack an adequate understanding of the law. Demonstrating that an investor’s allegations are misguided can serve as an efficient and complete defense against liability.

  • Investor Authorization – One particular area of confusion for many investors is the area of authorization (including discretionary authorization). If an investor is challenging a trade that he or she authorized, providing documentation of authorization can be sufficient to avoid liability.

  • Statutory and Regulatory Compliance – Brokers and brokerage firms will also be able to successfully defend against securities fraud allegations by demonstrating compliance with the relevant statutes, regulations, or FINRA rules.

For company insiders and issuers, some examples of potential defenses include:

  • Compliance with Pre-Arranged Trading Plans – In cases involving insider trading allegations, company insiders can avoid liability by demonstrating compliance with a pre-arranged trading plan.

  • Good-Faith Disclosure – Issuers accused of withholding material information or publishing incomplete or misleading information can often defend against fraud allegations by demonstrating good-faith efforts to maintain disclosure compliance.

  • Qualifying for a Registration Exemption – Issuers can qualify for registration exemptions in various scenarios. If security is exempt, then offering security without registration is 100% permissible.

The fact that these are just examples cannot be overemphasized. Securities litigation can involve an extraordinarily broad range of allegations under numerous laws, rules, and regulations. In many cases, targeted companies and individuals will be able to assert a successful defense by focusing on discrete elements of the plaintiff’s or SEC’s burden of proof. From asserting the applicable statute of limitations to preventing class certification, several technical defenses can prove highly effective in securities litigation as well. As with all types of litigation, the key is to explore all viable defenses, build a comprehensive and cohesive defense strategy, and then execute that strategy while remaining prepared to adapt as necessary.

Article By Dr. Nick Oberheiden of Oberheiden P.C.

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

Oberheiden P.C. © 2022