Tag: Finance

Banking Regulators Publish Proposed Rule to Update Community Reinvestment Act Regulations

On May 5, 2022, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (collectively the agencies) issued a joint notice of proposed rulemaking (the Proposed CRA Rule) that proposes changes to the way the agencies evaluate a bank’s performance under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The team at Bradley is conducting an in-depth review of the Proposed CRA Rule and expects to release a detailed blog post on the significant number of proposed changes to the CRA regulations in the coming days. Below are highlights of a few of the changes the agencies seek to make through the Proposed CRA Rule.

If implemented as written, the Proposed CRA Rule would:

  • Update the CRA evaluation framework, with performance standards tailored to a bank’s size and business model
  • Create four new performance tests to evaluate large bank CRA performance: the Retail Lending Test, Retail Services and Products Test, Community Development Financing Test, and Community Development Services Test
  • Establish specific performance tests for small and intermediate-sized banks
  • Update the requirements for the delineation of assessment areas
  • Create updated record-keeping, data collection, reporting, and disclosure requirements for large banks

These highlights are only a partial selection of the changes proposed by the agencies. Stay tuned for a more expansive description of the details of the Proposed CRA Rule.

The agencies are accepting comments on the Proposed CRA Rule through August 5, 2022. If your organization is considering submitting a public comment on the proposed changes to the CRA regulations, we suggest that you begin reviewing the Proposed CRA Rule soon.

© 2022 Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
For more articles about banking regulations, visit the NLR Financial, Securities & Banking section.

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.

Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: Maximizing Insurance Coverage to Mitigate Financial Losses

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has led not only to severe humanitarian consequences, but also to severe economic consequences for Ukrainians, Russians, and others who conduct business within the region.  From the destruction of physical property in Ukraine, to forced abandonment of Ukrainian assets, to trade interruptions stemming from global sanctions on Russia, economic fallout from the invasion has been, and will continue to be, vast and wide-ranging.

Fortunately, political risk insurance policies may cover some of the economic distress that stems from precisely this type of situation.  While each is different, political risk policies often cover losses arising from forced divestiture or forced abandonment of assets, as well as political violence, currency inconvertibility, business interruption, and expropriation.  Such policies could come into play in a variety of ways with respect to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine:

  • Forced divestiture and forced abandonment of assets coverage protects a policyholder from losses arising from the necessary abandonment of a company’s operations.  This type of coverage often requires that a government agency (such as the U.S. Department of State) advise evacuation, either of all citizens or government personnel.  The United States issued such an advisory to citizens to leave Ukraine prior to the Russian invasion.  Thus, losses stemming from a U.S. company’s inability to conduct its business due to the evacuation of U.S. personnel may be covered.
  • Political violence coverage protects policyholders from losses arising from property damage due to riots, protests, other civil commotion, and sometimes war and politically-motivated terrorism.  Therefore, losses stemming from property damage due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine may be covered.
  • Currency inconvertibility coverage protects policyholders from losses arising from their inability to convert local currency into foreign exchange due to exchange restrictions posed by a foreign government.  Technically, the U.S. dollar is still tradeable in Russia, although the Russian ruble has sunk to record low levels.  Ukraine has suspended all currency trading; whether this type of coverage applies will depend heavily on policy language.
  • Business interruption coverage may offer protection when any of these events results in loss of business income.  Companies that have been required to cease operations due to the disruption that sanctions have had on supply chains may potentially seek coverage for losses stemming from such interruption.
  • Expropriation coverage protects against losses caused by government actions that deprive the insured of all or part of its interest in a foreign investment or enterprise.  This may include reducing the control or rights of the insured’s investment, such as depriving the insured of its tangible property or control over its funds.  Russian President Vladimir Putin has expressed support for a law to nationalize assets of foreign companies that leave Russia over its invasion of Ukraine.  To the extent such nationalization comes to pass, expropriation coverage may apply.

Understandably, insurance may not be a company’s first concern when seeking to protect the health and safety of its employees during violent conflict.  But it is important for companies to act quickly to ensure that they maintain their coverage rights.  Actions taken now may have a significant impact on potential insurance recovery later.

First, policyholders should examine all “notice” requirements under their policies.  These requirements prescribe when and how a policyholder must provide notice to the insurer that the policyholder intends to file a claim.  Particularly because these requirements may be subjective (such as requiring notice to be provided “as soon as reasonably practicable”), it is important to provide notice promptly and to keep clear records of all actions taken.  In addition, certain policies may have rigid documentation requirements; keeping good records now will make securing coverage an easier task later.

Second, policyholders should review any deductible (or self-insured retention) requirements, which typically are listed near the beginning of a policy.  Understanding the deductible amount and weighing it against the policyholder’s losses or potential losses will help the policyholder in evaluating the merits of pursuing coverage from an insurer.

After taking these initial steps, there are several provisions policyholders should be aware of in moving forward with a claim.  Many political risk policies contain choice of law provisions.  These policies may require the use of the foreign state’s law, and potentially the use of the foreign state’s jurisdictional forum.  Of course, filing a claim in such a forum may prove difficult or even impossible given the rapidly evolving, complex situation on the ground.  And application of Russian law to a coverage dispute that may involve questions over whether the insured’s losses stemmed from unlawful actions by the Russian government may pose substantial complications.  Policyholders should read the policy carefully to determine the scope and applicability of such choice of law and forum provisions. Of course, every insurance policy is different, and the scope of potentially available coverage will be driven by specific policy language and specific law in various jurisdictions.  It is important to analyze policy language carefully to preserve and maximize potential recoveries.

© 2022 Gilbert LLP

Article By Emily P. Grim, Alison Gaske and Brandon Levey of Gilbert LLP

For more articles on Ukraine, visit the NLR Global section.

Cryptocurrency As Compensation: Beware Of The Risks

A small but growing number of employees are asking for cryptocurrency as a form of compensation.  Whether a substitute for wages or as part of an incentive package, offering cryptocurrency as compensation has become a way for some companies to differentiate themselves from others.  In a competitive labor market, this desire to provide innovative forms of compensation is understandable.  But any company thinking about cryptocurrency needs to be aware of the risks involved, including regulatory uncertainties and market volatility.

Form of Payment – Cash or Negotiable Instrument

The federal Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to pay minimum and overtime wages in “cash or negotiable instrument payable at par.”  This has long been interpreted to include only fiat currencies—monies backed by a governmental authority.  As non-fiat currencies, cryptocurrencies therefore fall outside the FLSA’s definition of “cash or negotiable instrument.”  As a result, an employer who chooses to pay minimum and/or overtime wages in cryptocurrency may violate the FLSA by failing to pay workers with an accepted form of compensation.

In addition, various state laws make the form of wage payment question even more difficult.  For example, Maryland requires payment in United States currency or by check that “on demand is convertible at face value into United States currency.”  Pennsylvania requires that wages shall be made in “lawful money of the United States or check.”  And California prohibits compensation that is made through “coupon, cards or other thing[s] redeemable…otherwise than in money.”  It is largely unclear whether payment in cryptocurrency runs afoul of these state requirements.

Of note, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) allows employers to satisfy FLSA minimum wage and overtime regulations with foreign currencies as long as the conversion to U.S. dollars meets the required wage thresholds.  But neither the DOL nor courts have weighed in on whether certain cryptocurrencies (e.g., Bitcoin) are the equivalent, for FLSA purposes, of a foreign currency.

Volatility Concerns

When compared to the rather stable value of the U.S. dollar, the value of cryptocurrencies is subject to large fluctuations.  Bitcoin, for example, lost nearly 83% of its value in May 2013, approximately 50% of its value in March 2020, and recently lost and then gained 16% of its value in the span of approximately 15 minutes one day in February 2021.

Such volatility can give payroll vendors a nightmare and can, in some instances, lead to the under-payment of wages or violation of minimum wage or overtime requirements under the FLSA.

Tax and Benefits Considerations

Aside from wage and hour issues, the payment of cryptocurrency implicates a host of tax and benefits-related issues.  The IRS considers virtual currencies to be “property,” subject to capital gains tax rates.  It has also confirmed in guidance materials that any payment to employees in a virtual currency must be reported on a W-2 based upon the value of the currency in U.S. dollars at the time it was delivered to the employee.  This means that cryptocurrency wage payments are subject to Federal income tax withholding, Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax, and Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) tax.

For 401k plan fiduciaries, the Department of Labor recently issued guidance that should serve as a stern warning to any fiduciary looking to invest 401k funds into cryptocurrencies.  Specifically, the DOL wrote: “[a]t this early stage in the history of cryptocurrencies, the Department has serious concerns about the prudence of a fiduciary’s decision to expose a 401(k) plan’s participants to direct investments in cryptocurrencies, or other products whose value is tied to cryptocurrencies.”  Given the risks inherent in cryptocurrency speculation, the DOL stated that any fiduciary allowing such investment options “should expect to be questioned [by the DOL] about how they can square their actions with their duties of prudence and loyalty in light of the risks.”

Considerations for Employers

Given the combination of uncertain and untested legal risks, employers should consider limiting cryptocurrency compensation models to payments that do not implicate the FLSA or applicable state wage and hour laws.  For example, an employer might provide an exempt employee’s base salary in U.S. dollars and any annual discretionary bonus in cryptocurrency.

Whether investing in cryptocurrencies themselves to pay employees or utilizing a third-party to convert US dollars into cryptocurrency, employers should also stay abreast of the evolving tax and benefits guidance in this area.

Ultimately, the only thing that is clear about cryptocurrency compensation is that any decision to provide such compensation to employees should be made with a careful eye towards the unique wage, tax, and benefits-related issues implicated by these transactions.

Article By Daniel J. Butler and Kevin J. White of Hunton Andrews Kurth

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

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

French Insider Episode 12: Navigating the Metaverse with Jim Gatto [PODCAST]

Joining host Sarah Aberg is Jim Gatto. Jim joins us today to discuss the metaverse, the technology and business models involved in these virtual worlds, the role of NFTs and cryptocurrency in the digital economy, and the legal, regulatory, and governance issues that can arise when companies seek to enter that space.

Jim Gatto is a partner in Sheppard Mullin’s Washington, D.C. office, where he leads the  Blockchain & Fintech Team, Social Media & Games Team, and Open Source Team. Jim’s practice focuses on blockchain, interactive entertainment, digital art, AI, and online gambling. He advises clients on IP strategies, development and publishing agreements, licensing and technology transaction agreements, and tech regulatory issues. Jim has been involved with blockchain since 2012 and has been recognized as a thought leader by leading organizations including as a Cryptocurrency, Blockchain and Fintech Trailblazer by the National Law Journal.

Sarah Aberg is special counsel in the White Collar Defense and Corporate Investigations Group in Sheppard Mullin’s New York office. Sarah’s practice encompasses litigation, internal investigations and white collar defense.  Her areas of focus include financial services and securities, as well as corporate fraud in a variety of industries, including technology, construction, and non-profits.  Sarah’s regulatory practice encompasses market regulation, foreign registration and disclosure requirements, supervisory procedures, and sales practices.  Sarah represents corporations, financial services companies, and associated individuals in connection with investigations and regulatory matters before the U.S. Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, FINRA, the New York Stock Exchange, the New York State Department of Financial Services, and the New York Attorney General’s Office.

What We Discussed in This Episode:

  1. What is the Metaverse?
  2. How Do Metaverses Differ from Earlier Virtual Worlds?
  3. What Role Do NFTs Play in the Digital Economy?
  4. Investing in a Metaverse: What are the Risks?
  5. What are Legal, Regulatory, and Tax Considerations?
  6. What Governance Issues Exist for Brands Operating in a Metaverse?
  7. What are the Inflationary and Deflationary Aspects of the Virtual Economy?
  8. How Might Blockchain and Cryptocurrency Alter International Financial Transactions?
  9. Is the World Moving into a Virtual/Digital Economy?

Article By Sarah E. Aberg and James G. Gatto of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

For more technology and internet legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Debt Ceiling Shrinks for Small Business Bankruptcies

Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, which took effect in February 2020, creates a more streamlined and less expensive Chapter 11 reorganization path for small business debtors.  Under the law as originally passed, to be eligible for Subchapter V, a debtor (whether an entity or an individual) had to be engaged in commercial activity and its total debts — secured and unsecured – had to be less than $2,725,625.  At least half of those debts must have come from business activity.

In March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress passed the CARES Act, which raised the Subchapter V debt ceiling to $7.5 million for one year.  Congress extended it to March 27, 2022.  A bipartisan Senate bill would make the Subchapter V debt limit permanent at $7.5 million and index it to inflation.  But Congress has not yet passed the legislation or sent it to President Biden for signature.  So, for now, the debt ceiling has shrunk to the original $2,725,625.

Subchapter V has proven popular, with over 3,100 cases filed in the last two years (78 in North Carolina).  Many of those cases could not have proceeded under Subchapter V but for the higher debt limits.  The American Bankruptcy Institute has reported that Subchapter V cases are experiencing higher plan-confirmation rates, speedier plan confirmation, more consensual plans, and improved cost-effectiveness than if those cases had been filed as a traditional Chapter 11.  Anecdotally, most debtors in North Carolina are filing under Subchapter V if they are eligible.

We will continue to monitor legislative activity and report if Congress passes a law to reinstate the $7.5 million debt ceiling.

Article By Lance P. Martin of Ward and Smith, P.A.

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

© 2022 Ward and Smith, P.A.. All Rights Reserved.

Regulation by Definition: CFPB Broadens Definition of “Unfairness” to Rein in Discrimination

In a significant move, the CFPB announced on March 16 a revision to its supervisory operations to address discrimination outside of the traditional fair lending context, with future plans to scrutinize discriminatory conduct that violates the federal prohibition against “unfair” practices in such areas as advertising, pricing, and other areas to ensure that companies are appropriately testing for and eliminating illegal discrimination.  Specifically, the CFPB updated its Exam Manual for Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices (UDAAPs) noting that discrimination may meet the criteria for “unfairness” by causing substantial harm to consumers that they cannot reasonably avoid.

With this update, the CFPB intends to target discriminatory practices beyond its use of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) – a fair lending law which covers extensions of credit – and plans to also enforce the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), which prohibits UDAAPs in connection with any transaction for, or offer of, a consumer financial product or service.  To that end, future examinations will focus on policies or practices that, for example, exclude individuals from products and services, such as “not allowing African-American consumers to open deposit accounts, or subjecting African-American consumers to different requirements to open deposit accounts” that may be an unfair practice where the ECOA may not apply to this particular situation.

The CFPB notes that, among other things, examinations will (i) focus on discrimination in all consumer finance markets; (ii) require supervised companies to include documentation of customer demographics and the impact of products and fees on different demographic groups; and (iii) look at how companies test and monitor their decision-making processes for unfair discrimination, as well as discrimination under ECOA.

In a statement accompanying this announcement, CFPB Director Chopra stated that “[w]hen a person is denied access to a bank account because of their religion or race, this is unambiguously unfair . . . [w]e will be expanding our anti-discrimination efforts to combat discriminatory practices across the board in consumer finance.”

Putting it Into Practice:  This announcement expands the CFPB’s examination footprint beyond discrimination in the fair lending context and makes it likely that examiners will assess a company’s anti-discrimination programs as applied to all aspects of all consumer financial products or services, regardless of whether that company extends any credit.  By framing discrimination also as an UDAAP issue, the CFPB appears ready to address bias in connection with other kinds of financial products and services.  In particular, the CFPB intends to closely examine advertising and marketing activities targeted to consumers based on machine learning models and any potential discriminatory outcomes.

Article By Moorari Shah and A.J. S. Dhaliwal of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

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

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Department Of Financial Protection & Innovation Issues Guidance Regarding “Situation in Ukraine and Russia”

Last Friday, Commissioner Clothilde V. Hewlett issued guidance concerning the “situation in Ukraine and Russia”.   The guidance reminds licensees of their obligations under federal, and to a lesser extent, California law.  The guidance mentions three areas of concern: sanctions, virtual currency and cybersecurity.  I was somewhat taken aback by the guidance reference to the “situation”, but in several places, the guidance refers to the “Russian invasion”.

With respect to virtual currency, Commissioner Hewlett notes that the Russian invasion “significantly increases the risk that listed individuals and entities may use virtual currency transfers to evade sanctions”.   She advises that all licensees engaging in financial services using virtual currencies should have policies, procedures, and processes to protect against the unique risks that virtual currencies present.

When Russia Came To California

In may come as a surprise that Russia once had plans to expand into California and even occupied a fort here for nearly three decades.  Fort Ross, now a California state park, is situated on the California coast about 60 miles north of San Francisco.  It was established in 1812 and represents Tsarist Russia’s southernmost settlement on the North American continent.  The name of the fort is derived from the word “Russia”, which is derived from the name of a medieval people known as the Rus.

© 2010-2022 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
For more articles on cybersecurity, visit the NLR Cybersecurity, Media & FCC section.

US Crypto Regulatory Enforcement Ramps Up – NFTs Now More in Focus

For the past decade the crypto space has been described as the wild west. The crypto cowboys and cowgirls have innovated and moved the industry forward, despite some regulatory certainty. Innovation always leads regulatory clarity. There’s a new sheriff in crypto town – the US government and its various regulatory agencies. They seem intent on taming the wild west.

According to a recent report, the IRS Has Sent 10,000 Letters on Taxpayer Digital Assets seeking to collect taxes on gains from crypto assets including NFTs. This is no surprise and we have cautioned on this dating back to 2017. While many people have focused on the tax issues with crypto currencies, the IRS is also focusing on NFTs as reported here.

This comes on the heels of another report this week that the SEC is now targeting certain NFT uses. According to the report, the SEC is probing whether NFTs are being utilized to raise money like traditional securities. The SEC has reportedly sent subpoenas related to the investigation and is particularly interested in information about fractional NFTs. As we discussed here, fractionalization is just one of the potential securities law concerns with certain NFT business models. NFTs that represent a right to a revenue stream and NFT presales can also presents issues in some cases.

Other recent regulatory activity relating to NFTs includes the following. The Department of the Treasury published a study on the facilitation of money laundering and terrorist financing through the art trade, including NFTs. See our report on this here.  The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned a Latvia-based digital asset exchange and designated 57 cryptocurrency addresses (associated with digital wallets) as Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs). These designations appear to be the first time NFTs have been publicly impacted as “blocked property” – as one of the designated cryptocurrency addresses owns non-fungible tokens (NFTs). See our report on this here. A number of NFTs are also being used to facilitate illegal gambling.

In addition to the regulatory issues, the number of NFT-related lawsuits and other legal disputes continues to increase. Many of these disputes relate to IP ownership, IP infringement, failure to apply an clear or enforceable license to the NFT, among others.

Most of these issues are avoidable with proper legal counseling early on.

The use of NFT technology to tokenized and record ownership of physical and digital assets, as well as entitlements (e.g., tickets, access, etc.) is just getting started. We believe this technology will see wide scale adoption across many industries. The vast majority of the NFT business models are legal.

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.
For more about cryptocurrency regulations, visit the NLR Cybersecurity, Media & FCC 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.