Tag: Finance

Class Actions Begin: Plaintiffs Target Banks for PPP Loan Processing

A number of class-action lawsuits have been filed targeting national and community banks for their processing of loans under the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). It is not surprising that disputes have already arisen, given the swift creation of the vital relief program and equally rapid depletion of the $349 billion in initial funding. The suits allege that banks violated the CARES Act and state law by prioritizing high-value and existing customers over other small businesses.  More suits are likely to follow, whether based on similar theories or new ones that arise out of the next round of funding.

Plaintiffs in these class actions have accused banks of inappropriately processing and funding larger loans for “bigger business” clients and favoring current customers over other applicants who were unable to obtain loans before the funding ran out. One of the first class actions, filed in federal court in Maryland, sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent banks from prioritizing current bank customers over individuals and businesses that were not current customers of the bank. The court denied plaintiffs’ request for emergency relief, concluded that there is no private right of action under the CARES Act, and found that plaintiffs’ claims were unlikely to survive. See here for a link to the decision. Plaintiffs have appealed to the Fourth Circuit. Two similar class actions have been filed in Texas federal court.

Another class action was filed this week in state court in Texas against a community bank, alleging fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, all arising out of claims that the bank gave preference to customers eligible for larger loans in order to obtain more lucrative fees. Similarly, several small businesses have filed federal class actions in California and New York, accusing banks of false advertising, fraud, violations of state unfair competition law and deceptive trade practices, among others. Additional disputes are likely to arise as small businesses continue to face unprecedented circumstances; reportedly up to 80% of small businesses were unable to obtain loans during the first round of the program.

© 2020 Bracewell LLP

For more on CARES Act PPP Loans, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

Regulators Provide No Meaningful Relief or Guidance to Financial Institutions Struggling with Bank Secrecy Act and Compliance Due to COVID-19

While many disclosure and reporting requirements imposed on regulated entities are being relaxed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has taken a different approach with respect to financial institutions’ duties to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”). In an April 3, 2020, release – one of just two issued by the agency in response to COVID-19 – FinCEN recognized that “financial institutions face challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic,” but confirmed that it “expects financial institutions to continue following a risk-based approach” to combat money laundering and related crimes and “to diligently adhere to their BSA obligations.” 1

Thus, even as financial institutions reduce personnel to attempt to weather the economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 and limit in-office personnel to comply with state quarantine orders, financial institutions must maintain adequate staff and resources to ensure BSA compliance. In the world of broker-dealers in securities, these BSA obligations generally revolve around complying with anti-money laundering (AML) compliance program requirements, analyzing transactions for potentially suspicious activity and preparing and timely filing suspicious activity reports (SARs).

As detailed below, with very limited exceptions, regulators have offered broker-dealers no relief from these obligations as a result of business disruptions caused by COVID-19.  Indeed, these already onerous burdens may be heightened by the increased risks of fraud, insider trading and other unusual financial activity by customers in these times of financial uncertainty. This “business as usual” attitude denies the reality that companies are coping with stay-at-home orders in the best-case scenarios and employees at home infected and unable to work in the worse-case scenarios.

FinCEN Requires Broker-Dealers to Implement Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Programs and SAR Reporting

In the PATRIOT Act of 2001, Congress required that all broker-dealers establish and implement AML programs designed to achieve compliance with the Bank Security Act (BSA) and the regulations promulgated thereunder, including the requirement that broker-dealers file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) with FinCEN.2

Under FinCEN’s regulation, a broker-dealer “shall be deemed” to satisfy the requirements of Section 5318(h) if it, inter alia, “implements and maintains a written anti-money laundering program approved by senior management” that complies with any applicable regulations and requirements of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) for anti-money laundering programs.3 Required program requirements include the implementation of “policies, procedures and internal controls reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the BSA,” independent testing, ongoing training, and risk-based procedures for conducting ongoing customer due diligence.4  FinCEN also required broker-dealers to establish and maintain a “customer identification program” (CIP) designed to help broker-dealers avoid illicit transactions through “know your customer” directives.5  FINRA largely duplicated these requirements in FINRA Rule 3310.

FinCEN also promulgated broker-dealer SAR filing requirements that largely mirror those applicable to banks. In short, a broker dealer is required to file a SAR on any transaction “conducted or attempted by, at or through a broker-dealer,” involving an aggregate of at least $5,000, where the broker-dealer “knows, suspects or has reason to suspect that the transaction” or “a pattern of transactions” involves money laundering, structuring, unusual and unexplained customer activity or the use of the broker-dealer to “facilitate criminal activity.”6  Broker-dealers must file SARs within “30 calendar days after the date of the initial detection” by the broker-dealer “of facts that may constitute a basis for filing a SAR.”7

These requirements are strictly enforced and sanctions for noncompliance can be extreme for both broker-dealers and their responsible officers and employees. Enforcement actions for “willful” noncompliance frequently result in civil money penalties against firms exceeding $10 million. In December of 2018, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York brought the first ever criminal action against a U.S. broker-dealer for a willful failure to file a SAR to report the illicit activities of one of its customers.8 In addition, because the primary purpose of an AML program is to detect and report suspicious activity, a failure to file SARs frequently gives rise to separate claims for violations of both the SAR filing and AML compliance program requirements.

Regulators Offer No Meaningful Relief from BSA Obligations Regardless of the Logistical issues Resulting from the COVID-19 Crisis

Despite recognizing the challenges broker-dealers and other financial institutions face in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, to date regulators have offered no meaningful relief from the regulatory burdens imposed by the SAR and AML program requirements of the BSA. These steps are currently limited to:

  • FinCEN has created an “online contact mechanism” for “financial institutions to communicate to FinCEN COVID-19 related concerns while adhering to their BSA obligations,” but indicated that volume constraints may limit it to responding “via an automated message confirming receipt to communications regarding delays in filing of BSA reports due to COVID-19.”9

  • FinCEN also opaquely encouraged “financial institutions to consider, evaluate and, where appropriate, responsibly implement innovative approaches to meet their BSA/anti-money laundering compliance obligations.”10

  • FINRA “reminded” broker-dealer members that they have until December 31, 2020 to perform the annual independent testing of the member’s AML compliance program.11

The creation of a hotline and a directionless suggestion to “innovat[e],” at the risk that doing so incorrectly may expose a firm to criminal charges or regulatory enforcement actions, are of little practical use or comfort to firms. In short, it is business as usual for broker-dealers and other financial institutions with respect to their AML and SAR obligations under the BSA, even as they grapple with heightened compliance challenges because of COVID-19.

Heightened BSA Compliance Challenges Surrounding COVID-19

The AML program and SAR reporting requirements under the BSA create substantial compliance burdens even in the best of times. These obligations are resource-heavy, requiring yearly testing, ongoing monitoring of customers and transactions at the broker-dealer for potentially suspicious activity and dedicated personnel and systems to review transactional and customer information and to prepare SARs.

In addition, determining when a SAR filing is required is no easy task. The SAR regulation, as detailed above, is both expansive and vague, equally applying to transactions that may be criminal in any respect, may involve funds from other illegal activity or that may simply be unusual for a customer. Most broker-dealer compliance personnel are not trained in law enforcement, and yet are expected to analyze a host of characteristics about a particular customer and a particular trade to determine whether the transaction crosses an ill-defined threshold of suspiciousness, and to do so within 30 days. Law enforcement and regulators, such as the SEC, by contrast, frequently take years to investigate potentially illicit activity. While guidance issued by regulators has identified a number of “red flags” designed to help compliance personnel identify suspicious transactions, any of these red flags may seem innocuous or explainable in a given transaction, particularly in the limited time provided for review, leaving firms and compliance personnel open to regulatory second-guessing, with the benefit of hindsight, and at the risk of significant sanctions for interpreting the situation incorrectly.

A recent GAO report from August 2019, evaluating the effectiveness of BSA reporting, indicated that affected industry participants have raised questions about “the lack of a feedback loop or clear communication from FinCEN, law enforcement and supervisory agencies on how to most effectively comply with BSA/AML requirements, especially BSA reporting requirements.”12  Representatives from the securities industry in particular raised concerns that “compliance expectations are communicated through enforcement actions rather than through rulemaking or guidance.13

Of course, these are not the best of times. On March 16, 2020, FinCEN warned financial institutions to “remain alert about malicious or fraudulent transactions similar to those that occur in the wake of natural disasters.”14 As relevant to broker-dealers, FinCEN warned about an increase in insider trading, imposter scams, and COVID-19 related “investment scams,” such as promotions that falsely claim the products or services of publicly traded companies can prevent, detect or cure coronavirus.15

While this conduct, if occurring, is undoubtedly criminal, it is often unclear what steps a broker-dealer must take and what indicia of suspicion it must find before it is required to identify a trade as sufficiently suspicious for SAR reporting.  For example, with respect to the COVID-19 related “investment scams,” at what point does the broker-dealer, in the exercise of due diligence, unearth enough indicia that this issuer may be misrepresenting the efficacy of its product or services in preventing or treating COVID-19 to create at least a “reasonable suspicion” of fraud?  The signs may be very subtle and overlooked by compliance personnel at the time, but characterized as glaring red flags by regulators after the fact.

Similarly, a sudden spike in trading volume and price could be indicative of a pump-and-dump scheme, particularly where media coverage and a microcap stock are involved. However, with the current volatility of this market, large volume and price swings are increasingly common. And, the media is adding to the frenzy, and following the lead of the administration, by rushing to report any and all potential COVID-19 treatments.  Such developments can make it difficult for firms to separate suspicious trading activity from innocuous activity, causing them to either fail to file a SAR where they should or filing a SAR where they should not.

Compounding the difficulty of the analysis, the broker-dealer’s customer – and the putative subject of the SAR – will not be the issuer, but generally someone who is trading in the stock.  Accordingly, even if the there is a reason to suspect that the issuer or persons associated with the issuer are involved in an “investment scam,” this does not necessarily mean that the transaction at issue is suspicious within the meaning of the SAR regulation. The trading customer may simply be reacting to the news in buying or selling the securities at issue, as either an opportunistic trader or a victim of a potential issuer fraud, neither of which would appear to raise any indicia of suspicion for SAR reporting.

An examination of the totality of the circumstances of a transaction can help firms make the crucial distinctions between transactions that warrant a SAR and those that do not.  For example, determining the source of the publicity –is it a CNN article or a paid newsletter – or whether the customer is affiliated in some way with the issuer or the promotion are questions, among many others, that must be investigated.

It is unfortunate that FinCEN has failed to provide any meaningful or practical guidance for financial institutions dealing with these heightened risks of fraud during a period when they may have difficulty in even staffing their offices. Performing this work remotely creates its own challenges, given high level of confidentiality of SAR filings under Section 5318(g)(2), and the consequences – including criminal liability – for violating these confidentiality provisions.

Nonetheless, that is the situation broker-dealers are in, and this is likely the point:  FinCEN, law enforcement and regulatory agencies do not want to relax these requirements because of the heightened risks of financial crime during the pandemic and the government has become accustomed to this front-line reporting from private businesses. Even in these unprecedented times of economic disruption, broker-dealers must protect themselves from regulatory criticism and enforcement actions by continuing to follow their AML compliance programs and conducting the necessary due diligence on each transaction they process.

1  https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/financial-crimes-enforcement-network-provides-further-information-financial

2  31 U.S.C. §5318(h), (g)

3  31 C.F.R. § 1023.210

4  Id.

5  31 C.F.R. § 1023.220

6  31 C.F.R. § 1023.320(a)(2)

7 31 C.F.R. § 1023.320(b)(3)

8 https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/manhattan-us-attorney-announces-bank-secrecy-act-charges-against-kansas-broker-dealer.

9 https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/financial-crimes-enforcement-network-provides-further-information-financial

10  Id.

11  https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/key-topics/covid-19/faq#aml

12   See GAO-19-583, Agencies and Financial Institutions Share Information but Metrics and Feedback Not Regularly Provided (August 2019), at pp. 3-4.

13   Id. at 24

14  https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/financial-crimes-enforcement-network-fincen-encourages-financial-institutions.

 15  Id.

Copyright © 2020 by Parsons Behle & Latimer. All rights reserved.

For more on COVID-19’s financial implications, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

Stimulus, IRS Extended Deadline and Gifting Opportunities

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act)

  • President Trump signed the CARES Act on March 27, 2020, a $2 trillion stimulus package providing $560 billion of relief for individuals, including:
    • Cash Payments: $1,200 per individual ($2,400 for couples); plus $500 per qualifying child1
    • Retirement Funds: Early withdrawal penalties waived for distributions of up to $100,000, if withdrawal is for coronavirus related purposes
    • 401(k) Loans: Loan limit increased from $50,000 to $100,000
    • Required Minimum Distributions: Suspended in 2020 for IRA/401(k) plans, including inherited IRAs
    • Charitable Deduction: Up to $300 charitable deduction for 2020 taxpayers who utilize the standard deduction

Extension of filing and payment deadlines

  • The federal and Wisconsin income tax return filing and payment deadline for the 2019 tax year was automatically extended to July 15, 2020
  • The federal gift tax return filing and payment deadline for the 2019 tax year was automatically extended to July 15, 2020

Gifting opportunities

  • Low valuations, low interest rates, and the anticipated reduction in the federal estate/gift tax exemption from $11.58 million to approximately $6.5 million on January 1, 2026 have created many planning opportunities, including:
    • Gifts and/or sales to existing or newly established Trusts to take advantage of low valuations and use the $11.58 million exemption while it is still available;
    • Amending intra-family loans to take advantage of low interest rates; and
    • Creation of charitable lead trusts, grantor retained annuity trusts, and other estate planning techniques that benefit from low interest rates are particularly attractive right now.

Now may also be a good time for clients to review their existing estate plans to make certain that their plans are up to date and consistent with their wishes.

1Amounts are phased down for individuals making more than $75,000 ($150,000 for couples) and phased out for individuals making more than $99,000 ($198,000 for couples)

Copyright © 2020 Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

UK’s Financial Conduct Authority Consults on New Climate-Related Disclosure Requirements following TCFD Recommendations

In March 2020, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (the “FCA”) released a consultation paper entitled: “Proposals to enhance climate-related disclosures by listed issuers and clarification of existing disclosure obligations” (“CP20/3”).

The proposal would introduce a new listing requirement for commercial companies with a Premium Listing on the London Stock Exchange. If implemented, these companies’ annual reports for financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2021, will have to include climate-related disclosure as recommended by the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (“TCFD”), and/or to explain any non-compliance. The deadline for comments and feedback on CP20/3 is 5 June 2020. Following consideration of the feedback received on CP20/3, the FCA aims to publish a Policy Statement, along with the finalised rules and an FCA Technical Note, later in 2020.

TCFD Recommendations

The TCFD is a task force established by the Financial Stability Board with the aim of establishing a global framework for companies to disclose the impact of climate change on their business with the aim of helping investors to understand which companies are most at risk, which are best-prepared, and which are taking decisive action on climate change.

Its recommendations were published in 2017, and recommend clear disclosure on the impact of climate-related risks in the following areas of a company’s business:

  1. Governance: the organisation’s governance around climate-related risks and opportunities;
  2. Strategy: the actual and potential impacts of climate-related risks and opportunities on the organisation’s businesses, strategy, and financial planning;
  3. Risk Management: the processes used by the organisation to identify, assess, and manage climate-related risk; and
  4. Metrics & Targets: the metrics and targets used to assess and manage relevant climate-related risks and opportunities.

In each category, the TCFD has recommended the specific topics to be described or disclosed, and it has provided additional general guidance and sector-specific guidance relating to financial companies (in particular, banks, insurance companies, asset owners and asset managers) and non-financial companies (energy, transportation, materials and buildings and agriculture, food, and forest products).

CP20/3 – Proposed New Disclosure Requirements

CP20/3 adopts the TCFD standards for disclosure wholesale. If adopted, UK premium-listed commercial companies (i.e., companies subject to Listing Rules 9 and 21) will have to become familiar with these standards and report in accordance with them on a comply-or-explain basis.

The comply-or-explain approach is the standard required by the UK’s Corporate Governance Code, and was adopted as the proposed standard for climate-related disclosure despite mixed feedback, as the FCA acknowledges that issuers’ capabilities are still developing in some areas, and they may not yet have the data and capabilities to fully comply with certain of the TCFD recommendations, particularly those relating to scenario analysis and setting climate-related targets. The FCA also notes it does not want to be overly prescriptive at this stage, given the evolving nature of climate-related disclosure and modelling frameworks

CP20/3 – Guidance on Existing Climate-Related Disclosure Obligations

The other key element of CP20/3 is the proposed issuance of an FCA Technical Note to clarify existing climate-related and other environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) disclosure. The FCA-proposed Technical Note is aimed at all issuers subject to existing EU legislation and rules contained in the FCA Handbook (i.e., all issuers with securities listed on the London Stock Exchange, not just those in the premium-listed segment to whom the proposed rule on TCFD disclosure will apply).

It reminds those issuers that even where climate-related risks are not mentioned by name, they may still be important, and required to be disclosed under more general disclosure and internal controls obligations. For example, this proposed Technical Note will advise issuers that their existing obligations under the Listing Rules, the Prospectus Regulation, the UK Corporate Governance Code, the Disclosure and Transparency Rules, and the Market Abuse Regulation, may all involve a review of climate-related risks and, if necessary, related disclosure.

Conclusion

The TCFD’s framework encourages businesses to face and evaluate the financial risk that climate change poses to their business, both in terms of physical risk posed by extreme weather and its consequences, and the “transition risk”, meaning the large category of risks posed by behavioural changes as well as policy changes related to mitigating climate change. The TCFD framework has the aim of moving towards helpful, comparable disclosures related to these risks. This should allow investors (and consumers and regulators) to add a new dimension to their assessment of companies, and modify their behaviour accordingly.

Investors across the board agree that ESG factors are now routinely incorporated into mainstream investment decisions, and companies are required to demonstrate their insight and oversight on these topics. It is still not the case that a single framework dominates reporting on these matters, but this consultation paper shows that the TCFD framework will continue to grow in importance, at least in the UK. The FCA believes its proposals in CP20/3 are consistent with the UK Government’s Green Finance Strategy, published in July 2019, and is a first step towards the adoption of the TCFD’s recommendations more widely within the FCA’s regulatory framework.

© Copyright 2020 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

ARTICLE BY the Financial Regulation practice group at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP.
For more financial regulation, see the National Law Review Financial Institutions & Banking section.

FCA Issues Coronavirus Statement

On March 4, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) issued a statement on Covid-19, the novel coronavirus that originated in China in December 2019 and recently spread to Italy and Iran, among many other countries globally (the Statement).

In the Statement, the FCA explained that they are working with the Bank of England and HM Treasury to engage with firms, trade associations and industry bodies to understand the pressures they are facing. This work includes actively reviewing the contingency plans of a wide range of firms.

The FCA noted that all firms are already expected to have contingency plans in place to deal with major events such as this and that firms should be taking all reasonable steps to meet their regulatory obligations. While the FCA has no objection in principle to staff working from home or from alternative sites, firms still need to be able to, for example, use recorded lines when trading and give staff access to any compliance support they may need.

The Statement is available here.

©2020 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

Mitigating Payment Fraud Risks

For businesses that thrive on person-to-person transactions, cash is quickly being replaced by cards, as well as tap-to-pay systems, mobile wallets and QR-based payment systems. These technologies will continue to dominate the market in the near future, but the long-term future of the payment card industry will likely be shaped by the impact of blockchain and artificial intelligence. These developments will eventually also impact risk management, marketing and financial planning, as they present opportunities for serious risks, including fraud. Hence, it is imperative for risk management professionals to plan for these short- and long-term changes in the industry.

Strong risk monitoring requires proactively assessing threats and planning mitigation measures to minimize risk impact on the company or organization. To help mitigate payment fraud risks, businesses can take the following steps:

Train your Employees Regularly

The more regularly you train your employees, the more likely are they to spot suspicious behavior, no matter what payment technology the business uses. Repeated and regular trainings are essential because employees tend to forget what they have learned with time. These training workshops should teach the workers to never accept damaged cards from customers, confirm customer identities, and never enter a card number manually.

Use Contactless and EMV-Enabled Terminals

As payment technology changes, businesses must evaluate what options are safest and least prone to fraud. Currently, businesses should use EMV (short for Europay, Mastercard and Visa), which involves chips embedded into payment cards—a significant step in making transactions safer. The introduction and adoption of EMV-enabled secure terminals, particularly when using PIN and EMV security together, has helped merchants and customers prevent fraudulent transactions.

Contactless smartcards such as chip and magnetic stripe cards use contactless payment, which can present another secure way to process transactions. Most EMV terminals are also enabled with contactless payment. At such terminals, a fast and secure transaction is possible using Near Field Communication (NFC) or Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) via smartcard or smartphone. If a merchant chooses to use contactless payment without PIN, they can put a limit to the amount spent on each contactless transaction to further minimize risk.

Beware Uncommon Transactions

Transactions that involve unusually large purchases could be a sign of potential fraud. Businesses should examine such transactions closely and confirm the identity of the customer. Similarly, if several purchases are made with a card in a short timeframe, it could indicate that the card was stolen and being used by someone other than the owner.

Maintain Online Security

As merchants and consumers shift to contactless and EMV-enabled point of sale terminals, risk has shifted towards online transactions. To mitigate this risk, it is important for online businesses to use the Address Verification Service (AVS), which verifies that the billing information matches the one registered with the card issuer. Vendors should also ask for Card Verification Value 2 (CVV2) to verify that the user has the card in hand when placing the order. Another important check is to put a limit on an IP address for the number of cards it can use for online transactions.

Prevent Employee Fraud

Employee fraud is always a major concern for risk management professionals.  Businesses should remember to keep an eye on credit card activity, particularly returns, as employee theft often shows up in fake discounts or returns. Companies should create alerts that set limits on returns at stores and notify management any time those limits are exceeded.

 

Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2020 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

What Constitutes “Reasonable” Compensation For Private Foundation Insiders?

Private foundations are created as independent legal entities for solely charitable purposes, and many are run by unpaid family members and other volunteers. But what happens when a private foundation wishes to pay officers, directors or trustees, who are also family members of the individual funding, the foundation?

Because private foundations are “private” as opposed to public charities, there are strict rules around paying family members. Specifically, Section 4941 of the Internal Revenue Code prohibits any financial transaction between a private foundation and a “disqualified person” or an “insider,”[i] – generally the donor and the donor’s family – as it may constitute “self-dealing,” which is deemed a misuse of charitable assets. Family compensation would seem to fall directly under this restriction. However, there is one notable exception to this rule: compensation paid for “personal services” to carry out foundation affairs is permissible, provided that the services rendered are “reasonable and necessary” to carry out the exempt purposes of the foundation, and the compensation is “not excessive.” What constitutes “reasonable” and “not excessive” compensation may vary widely, depending on underlying facts and circumstances.

The services provided to the foundation must be “necessary” for the foundation to carry out its tax-exempt purpose and “personal” in nature. Although the IRS has not specifically defined “personal services,” the regulations cite examples such as investment management, legal and banking services. And, they include professional and managerial services rendered by an insider in his or her capacity as an officer, director, trustee or executive director of the foundation.

The services provided to the foundation must also be “reasonable.” Public charities can more easily determine whether compensation paid to an insider is “reasonable” because there are specific IRS regulations that define unreasonable compensation for public charities called “excess benefit transactions.” Private foundations, however, do not have clear-cut guidelines but will often defer to the regulations that public charities follow. The standards set forth in the regulations require that compensation should be what “would ordinarily be paid for like services by like enterprises under like circumstances.” This depends on the individual’s job title and description, the skill or knowledge required to perform the duties, the amount of time needed to fulfill the functions required, and the salaries paid for comparable positions. In practice, many foundations compare their proposed compensation amounts to what other for-profit and non-profit companies and organizations pay to similarly qualified individuals with comparable levels of responsibility.

Some factors to be considered:

(i) the size of the organization;

(ii) the employment history of the candidate and any special qualifications (e.g., licenses and certifications);

(iii) the geographic location of the foundation (some regional markets pay more than others);

(iv) the specific job responsibilities and duties;

(v) the time commitment; and

(vi) the total value of the compensation package, including benefits.

It is highly recommended that the compensation of foundation insiders meet the following requirements:

(i) the compensation is approved in advance by an authorized body of disinterested individuals such as the independent board members;

(ii) the authorized body obtains appropriate comparable data prior to making its determination as to reasonableness; and

(iii) the authorized body concurrently makes its determination and adequately documents the basis for that determination, all without the participation of the individuals whose compensation is being set.

Conflicts of interest frequently arise when setting compensation or benefits for officers, directors or trustees of private foundations. As such, the IRS requires that private foundations adopt a conflict of interest policy to help ensure that when actual or potential conflicts of interest arise, the organization has a process in place to resolve the conflict and assure that the affected individual will advise the governing body about all of the relevant facts concerning the situation. A conflict of interest policy is also intended to establish procedures under which individuals who have a conflict will be excused from voting on such matters.

States also have rules around conflicts of interest. In New York, a conflict of interest policy for private foundations became mandatory after the passage of the New York Non-Profit Revitalization Act of 2013.[ii]

A private foundation’s conflict of interest policy, among other things, must include the following:

(i) a definition of the circumstances that constitute a conflict of interest;

(ii) procedures for disclosing a conflict to the board;

(iii) a requirement that the person with the conflict not be present to vote on matters giving rise to such conflict;

(iv) a requirement that existence and resolution of a conflict be properly documented;

(v) procedures for disclosing, addressing and documenting related party transaction; and

(vi) a requirement that each officer, director and key employee submit to the secretary of the foundation prior to initial election of the board, and annually thereafter, a written statement identifying possible conflicts of interest.

The penalties for disregarding the compensation rules are severe. If foundation insiders fail to meet the “personal services” and “reasonable and necessary” requirements, the foundation will be subject to substantial fines. The foundation is assessed a penalty equal to 20% of the portion of compensation that is considered unreasonable. And each foundation manager who agrees to pay the unreasonable compensation could be personally liable for a penalty equal to 5% of the unreasonable compensation. On top of these penalties, the violation must be corrected, which could require returning the portion of the compensation deemed unreasonable to the foundation, along with interest. If all of this is not corrected in a timely manner, the IRS may impose additional taxes on the foundation, currently 100% of the amount of the unreasonable compensation. Similarly, an additional tax of 50% may be imposed on any foundation manager who refuses to correct the violation.

The good news is that a private foundation may pay its insiders for their foundation work as long as it follows the rules and takes all necessary steps to remain in compliance.

[i] A “disqualified person” or “insider” is any of the following: (1) foundation managers (officers, directors, trustees or persons with similar powers); (2) substantial contributors and individuals or entities with a 20% or greater interest in an entity that is a substantial contributor; (3) the family members of all such individuals; (4) certain entities partially or wholly owned, directly or indirectly, by disqualified persons; and (5) certain government officials.

[ii] The Non-Profit Revitalization Act of 2013 was signed into law by Governor Andrew M. Cuomo on December 18, 2013, and became effective on July 1, 2014.

© 1998-2020 Wiggin and Dana LLP

For more information, see the National Law Review Financial Law section.

Venmo’ Money: Another Front Opens in the Data Wars

When I see stories about continuing data spats between banks, fintechs and other players in the payments ecosystem, I tend to muse about how the more things change the more they stay the same. And so it is with this story about a bank, PNC, shutting off the flow of customer financial data to a fintech, in this case, the Millennial’s best friend, Venmo. And JP Morgan Chase recently made an announcement dealing with similar issues.

Venmo has to use PNC’s customer’s data in order to allow (for example) Squi to use it to pay P.J. for his share of the brews.  Venmo needs that financial data in order for its system to work.  But Venmo isn’t the only one with a mobile payments solution; the banks have their own competing platform called Zelle.  If you bank with one of the major banks, chances are good that Zelle is already baked into your mobile banking app.  And unlike Venmo, Zelle doesn’t need anyone’s permission but that of its customers to use those data.

You can probably guess the rest.  PNC recently invoked security concerns to largely shut off the data faucet and “poof”, Venmo promptly went dark for PNC customers.  To its aggrieved erstwhile Venmo-loving customers, PNC offered a solution: Zelle.  PNC subtly hinted that its security enhancements were too much for Venmo to handle, the subtext being that PNC customers might be safer using Zelle.

Access to customer data has been up until now a formidable barrier to entry for fintechs and others whose efforts to make the customer payment experience “frictionless” have depended in large measure on others being willing to do the heavy lifting for them.  The author of Venmo article suggests that pressure from customers may force banks to yield any strategic advantage that control of customer data may give them.  So far, however, consumer adoption of mobile payments is still miniscule in the grand scheme of things, so that pressure may not be felt for a very long time, if ever.

In the European Union, the regulators have implemented PSD2 which forces a more open playing field for banking customers. But realistically, it can’t be surprising that the major financial institutions don’t want to open up their customer bases to competitors and get nothing in return – except a potential stampede of customers moving their money. And some of these fintech apps haven’t jumped through the numerous hoops required to be a bank holding company or federally insured – meaning unwitting consumers may have less fraud protection when they move their precious money to a cool-looking fintech app.

A recent study by the Pew Trusts make it clear that consumers are still not fully embracing mobile for any number of reasons.  The prime reason is that current mobile payment options still rely on the same payments ecosystem as credit and debit cards yet mobile payments don’t offer as much consumer protection. As long as that is the case, banks and fintechs and merchants will continue to fight over data and the regulators are likely to weigh in at some point.

It is not unlike the early mobile phone issue when one couldn’t change mobile phone providers without getting a new phone number – that handcuff kept customers with a provider for years but has since gone by the wayside. It is likely we will see some sort of similar solution with banking details.

Copyright © 2020 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP All Rights Reserved.

For more on fintech & banking data, see the National Law Review Financial Institutions & Banking law page.

Five Suggestions for Elder Care If You or Your Elderly Parents Have “One Foot on the Banana Peel”

Shana and I recently had a new client, “Jane,” that came to see us because she was concerned about her elderly parents. Both are in their 90s and although they are still living independently, she is noticing both a physical and cognitive decline in both.  She described them as having “one foot on the banana peel,” recognizing that they are one fall or illness away from no longer being able to maintain their current lifestyle.

As with many of our clients, they are resistant to making any changes and she is worried about what will happen. Jane lives a distance from her parents, works full time, and has her own teenage children. She came to us for assistance in understanding what she can do to help them. Here are five suggestions we made for her:

1. Changes to Powers of Attorney and Health Care Proxy

Jane’s parents’ existing legal documents have each other as primary agents and neither is able to act in that capacity. Jane is handling their bill paying and taking them to MD appointments and it will be easier for her to continue this role with the appropriate legal documents naming her as the primary agent.

2. Financial Planning

Jane’s parents have limited liquid assets and own their home. Their monthly income does not cover their expenses, so they are drawing from those assets every month. This plan will not work long term if either needs to hire a caregiver to help them at home due to the high cost. We helped Jane to understand the realities of paying for care and the limited coverage of Medicare. We also explained the criteria for Medicaid eligibility, the application process and the problem with using Medicaid to pay for home care. We stressed the importance of Jane and her parents exploring alternative living situations that may better meet their needs while they still had funds and ensuring that they found a facility that would allow them to spend down to Medicaid when their funds are exhausted.

3. Home Evaluation

Jane’s parents live in a bi-level home with stairs to enter and Jane is very concerned about their safety. We recommended a home evaluation to determine what modifications can be done to the home to make it safer. These modifications can be simple such as a tub bench, so they don’t have to step over the tub to get into the shower or more complex such as a stairlift or emergency alert system.

4. Medication Management

Jane’s parents have multiple medical conditions and each takes many medications. They often forget to take their medications or take them incorrectly. This is a very serious issue and often leads to unnecessary hospitalization which can precipitate a downward spiral. We discussed a variety of options, including a visiting nurse and an automatic medication dispenser.

5. Take a Deep Breath

As with all our clients, Jane loves her parents and wants what is best for them. However, her vision of what is best for them doesn’t necessarily coincide with their vision. As a caregiver-child myself, I can very much relate to her frustration of having a clear idea of what will improve an elderly parent’s quality and/or quantity of life and having that parent refuse to make a change. Sometimes small changes are acceptable and they can make a difference and prolong stability. But very often the best we can do is to plan for the emergency and know we have done the best we can.

©2020, Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A., All Rights Reserved

For more on caring for elderly relations, see the National Law Review Family Law, Divorce & Custody type-of-law section.

Sexual Harassment Training Becomes Mandatory for All Professionals Licensed by IDFPR

All professionals licensed by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) whose licenses come up for renewal after January 1, 2020 and who must satisfy continuing education requirements need to complete one hour of sexual harassment and prevention training under a law that Governor J.B. Pritzker recently signed.

Health care companies that employ registered nurses, pharmacists, doctors and other health care professionals licensed by IDFPR should start making plans to conduct sexual harassment training to help their employees avoid license renewal issues next year.

Most large and medium-sized corporations have conducted in-house harassment and discrimination training for years. More than 20 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that companies may have an affirmative defense against lawsuits alleging that a supervisor sexually harassed a subordinate if the employer adopted and annually trained its employees on policies that:

  • define the different forms of sexual harassment,

  • detail to whom to report harassment complaints,

  • detail how the company will investigate such complaints, and

  • prohibit retaliation for good-faith reporting of such complaints

After those Supreme Court decisions, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission adopted a similar standard for all forms of illegal discrimination.

The new Illinois law, an outgrowth of the #MeToo movement, governs only sexual harassment, not other forms of discrimination. But smart employers will protect their employees and themselves by combining sexual harassment training with training on other types of discrimination. That approach allows employees to obtain the needed continuing education credits under the new law while simultaneously ensuring that employees understand what constitutes harassment and discrimination, to whom employees can report complaints and how their employers will investigate such complaints.

The new state statute is short on details. It simply says that all professionals who have continuing education requirements and are renewing their licenses after January 1, 2020 need one hour of continuing education credits on sexual harassment. The statute authorizes IDFPR to provide detailed regulations on such training, which IDFPR has not yet done.

© 2019 Much Shelist, P.C.

For more states requiring sexual harassment training, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.