Tag: financial institutions

OFAC Offers Guidance in the Wake of Tornado Cash Sanctions

The U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) updated its “frequently asked questions” (FAQs) Tuesday, providing guidance relating to the sanctions against Tornado Cash, the Ethereum “mixer” it blacklisted in August, following allegations that North Korea used Tornado Cash to launder stolen digital assets. The updated information from OFAC comes as a welcome snippet of communication, allowing for clarity on the scope of the action taken against Tornado Cash, as well as providing guidance for U.S. persons affected by the blacklisting who, through no fault of their own, were caught up in federal action.

The updated FAQs provide guidance on four points: (1) the ability to withdraw funds from wallets associated with the Tornado Cash blacklist; (2) whether the OFAC reporting obligations apply to “dusting” transactions; (3) whether U.S. persons can engage in transactions involving addresses implicated in the blacklist without a license; and (4) what, more generally, is prohibited in the wake of the OFAC blacklisting of Tornado Cash.

(1)        Withdrawing Funds

If a U.S. person sent virtual currency to Tornado Cash, but did not complete the mixing transaction or otherwise withdraw such virtual currency prior to August 8, 2022 (the effective date of the OFAC blacklist), such person can request a specific license from OFAC to engage in transactions involving that virtual currency (assuming such person conducts the contemplated transactions within U.S. jurisdiction).

In order to obtain this license, such persons will need to provide, “at a minimum, all relevant information regarding these transactions with Tornado Cash, including the wallet addresses for the remitter and beneficiary, transaction hashes, the date and time of the transaction(s), as well as the amount(s) of virtual currency.”

OFAC indicates that they will embrace a favorable licensing policy towards such applications, so long as the contemplated transactions did not involve conduct that it deems to be otherwise sanctionable, and that licensing requests can be submitted by visiting the following link: https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/ofac-license-application-page.

(2)        “Dusting” Transactions

Dusting is the act of sending unsolicited and nominal amounts of virtual currency or other digital assets to third parties. This can be done in order to cause consternation on the part of the recipient, particularly in a situation where there is confusion as to the legality of receiving such funds or actions.

OFAC indicates that it has been made aware of Dusting involving virtual currency or other virtual assets from Tornado Cash, and indicates that while, technically, OFAC’s regulations would apply to these transactions, to the extent that these Dusting transactions have no other sanctions associated with them other than Tornado Cash, “OFAC will not prioritize enforcement against the delayed receipt of initial blocking reports and subsequent annual reports of blocked property from such U.S. persons.”

In short, while not a desirable transaction to take place, OFAC does not intend to pursue action against persons simply because they are the target of Dusting.

(3)        Engaging in Transactions With Tornado Cash

OFAC clarified that, without explicit license from OFAC, U.S. persons are prohibited from engaging in any transaction involving Tornado Cash, including any transaction done via currency wallet addresses OFAC has identified as part of the blacklist.

Specifically, “[i]f U.S. persons were to initiate or otherwise engage in a transaction with Tornado Cash, including or through one of its wallet addresses, such a transaction would violate U.S. sanctions prohibitions, unless exempt or authorized by OFAC.”

(4)        Further Tornado Cash Guidance

Referencing FAQs 561 and 562, OFAC reemphasized their authority to include as identifiers on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) specific virtual currency wallet addresses associated with blocked persons, and that such SDN List entry for Tornado Cash included as identifiers certain virtual currency wallet addresses associated with Tornado Cash, as well as the URL address for Tornado Cash’s website.

While the Tornado Cash website has been deleted, it remains available through certain Internet archives, and accordingly OFAC emphasized that engaging in any transaction with Tornado Cash or its blocked property or interests in property is prohibited for U.S. persons.

Interacting with open-source code itself, in a way that does not involve a prohibited transaction with Tornado Cash, is not prohibited. By way of example, “U.S. persons would not be prohibited by U.S. sanctions regulations from copying the open-source code and making it available online for others to view, as well as discussing, teaching about, or including open-source code in written publications, such as textbooks, absent additional facts.  Similarly, U.S. persons would not be prohibited by U.S. sanctions regulations from visiting the Internet archives for the Tornado Cash historical website, nor would they be prohibited from visiting the Tornado Cash website if it again becomes active on the Internet.”

While this update to FAQs come as a welcome bit of clarity, Web3 investors, entrepreneurs, and users should continue to tread carefully when engaging with opportunities and technologies on the periphery of Tornado Cash and the accompanying OFAC action. When questions arise, it is important to seek out informed counsel, to discuss the risks of proposed actions and how best to mitigate that risk while working to pioneer new and emerging technologies.

Article By David A. Lopez-Kurtz of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

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

© 2022 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

Practical and Legal Considerations for Extending Cash Runway in a Changing Economy

The funding environment for emerging companies has fundamentally shifted in 2022 for both venture capital and IPOs, particularly after a banner year in 2021. Whether these headwinds suggest significant economic changes or a return to previous valuation levels, companies need to be realistic about adapting their business processes to ensure they have sufficient cash runway to succeed through the next 2-3 years.

This article provides a comprehensive set of tactics that can be used to extend cash runway, both on the revenue/funding and cost side. It also addresses areas of liability for companies and their directors that can emerge as companies change business behaviors during periods of reduced liquidity.

Ways to Improve and Extend Cash Runway

Understanding Your Cash Runway

Cash runway refers to the number of months a company can continue operations before it runs out of money. The runway can be extended by increasing revenue or raising capital, but in a down economy, people have less disposable income and corporations are more conservative with their funds. Therefore companies should instead focus on cutting operating costs to ensure their cash can sustain over longer periods.

As a starting point, companies can evaluate their business models to determine expected cash runway based on factors such as how valuations are currently being determined, total cash available, burn rate, and revenue projections. This will help guide the actions to pursue by answering questions such as:

  1. Is the company currently profitable?
  2. Will the company be profitable with expected revenue growth even if no more outside funding is brought in?
  3. Is there enough cash runway to demonstrate results sufficient to raise the next round at an appropriate valuation?

Even if companies expect to have sufficient cash runway to make it through a potential economic downturn, tactics such as reducing or minimizing growth in headcount, advertising spend, etc. can be implemented as part of a holistic strategy to stay lean while focusing on the fundamentals of business model/product-market fit.

Examining Alternative Sources of Financing

Even though traditional venture capital and IPO financing options have become more difficult to achieve with desired valuations, companies still have various other options to increase funding and extend runway. Our colleagues provided an excellent analysis of many of these options, which are highlighted in the discussion below.

Expanding Your Investor Base to Fund Cash Flow Needs

The goal is to survive now, excel later; and companies should be open to lower valuations in the short term. This can create flexibility to circle back with investors who may have been open to an earlier round but not at the specific terms at that time. Of course, to have a more productive discussion, it will be helpful to explain to these investors how the business model has been adapted for the current environment in order to demonstrate that the new valuation is tied to clear milestones and future success.

Strategic investors and other corporate investors can also be helpful, acting as untapped resources or collaborators to help drive forward milestone achievements. Companies should understand how their business model fits with the investor’s customer base, and use the relationship to improve their overall position with investors and customers to increase both funding and revenue to extend runway.1

If the next step for a company is to IPO, consider crossover or other hybrid investors, understanding that much of the cash deployment in 2022 is slowing down.

Exploring Venture Debt

If a company has previously received venture funding, venture debt can be a useful tool to bridge forward to future funding or milestones. Venture debt is essentially a loan designed for early stage, high growth startups who have already secured venture financing. It is effective for targeting growth over profitability, and should be used in a deliberate manner to achieve specific goals. The typical 3-5 year timeline for venture debt can fit well with the goal of extending cash runway beyond a currently expected downturn.

Receivables/Revenue-Based Financing and Cash Up Front on Multi-Year Contracts

Where companies have revenue streams from customers — especially consistent, recurring revenue — this can be used in various ways to increase short-term funds, such as through receivables financing or cash up front on long-term contracts. However, companies should take such actions with the understanding that future investors may perceive the business model differently when the recurring revenue is being used for these purposes rather than typical investment in growth.

Receivable/revenue-based financing allows for borrowing against the asset value represented by revenue streams and takes multiple forms, including invoice discounting and factoring. When evaluating these options, companies should make sure that the terms of the deal make sense with runway extension goals and consider how consistent current revenue streams are expected to be over the deal term. In addition, companies should be aware of how customers may perceive the idea of their invoices being used for financing and be prepared for any negative consequences from such perceptions.

Revenue-based financing is a relatively new financing model, so companies should be more proactive in structuring deals. These financings can be particularly useful for Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) and other recurring revenue companies because they can “securitize the revenue being generated by a company and then lend capital against that theoretical security.”2

Cash up front on multi-year contracts improves the company’s cash position, and can help expand the base where customers have sufficient capital to deliver up front with more favorable pricing. As a practical matter, these arrangements may result in more resources devoted to servicing customers and reduce the stability represented by recurring revenue, and so should be implemented in a manner that remains aligned with overall goal of improving product-market fit over the course of the extended runway.

Shared Earning Agreements

A shared earning agreement is an agreement between investors and founders that entitles investors to future earnings of the company, and often allow investors to capture a share of founders’ earnings. These may be well suited for relatively early stage companies that plan to focus on profitability rather than growth, due to the nature of prioritizing growth in the latter.

Government Loans, Grants, and Tax Credits

U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) loans and grants can be helpful, particularly in the short term. SBA loans generally have favorable financing terms, and together with grants can help companies direct resources to specific business goals including capital expenditures that may be needed to reach the next milestone. Similarly, tax credits, including R&D tax credits, should be considered whenever applicable as an easy way to offset the costs.

Customer Payments

Customers can be a lifeline for companies during an economic downturn, with the prioritization of current customers one way companies can maintain control over their cash flow. Regular checks of Accounts Receivable will ensure that customers are making their payments promptly according to their contracts. While this can be time-consuming and repetitive, automating Accounts Receivable can streamline tasks such as approving invoices and receiving payments from customers to create a quicker process. Maintenance of Accounts Receivable provides a consistent flow of cash, which in turn extends runway.

To increase immediate cash flow companies should consider requiring longer contracts to be paid in full upon delivery, allowing the company to collect cash up front and add certainty to revenue over time. This may be hard to come by as customers are also affected by the economic downturn, but incentivizing payments by offering discounts can offset reluctance. Customers are often concerned with locking in a company’s services or product and saving on cost, with discounts serving as an easy solution. While they can create a steady cash flow, it may not be sustainable for longer cash runways. Despite their attractive value, companies should use care when offering discounts for early payments. Discounts result in lower payments than initially agreed upon, so companies should consider how long of a runway they require and whether the discounted price can sustain a runway of such length.

Vendor Payments

One area where companies can strategize and cut costs is vendor payments. By delaying payments to vendors, companies can temporarily preserve cash balance and extend cash runway. Companies must review their vendor agreements to evaluate the potential practical and legal ramifications of this strategy. If the vendor agreements contain incentives for early payments or penalties for late payments, then such strategy should not be employed. Rather, companies can try to negotiate with vendors for an updated, extended repayment schedule that permits the company to hold on to their cash for longer. Alternatively, companies can negotiate with vendors for delayed payments without penalty. Often vendors would prefer to compromise rather than lose out on customers, especially in a down economy.

Lastly, companies can seek out vendors who are willing to accept products and services as the form of payment as opposed to cash. Because the calculation for cash runway only takes into account actual cash that companies have on hand, products and services they provide do not factor into the calculation. As such, companies can exchange products and services for the products and services that their vendors provide, thereby reserving their cash and extending their cash runway.

Bank Covenants

In exercising the various strategies above, it is important to be mindful of your existing bank covenants if your company has a lending facility in place. There are often covenants restricting the amount of debt a borrower can carry, requiring the maintenance of a certain level of cash flow, and cross default provisions automatically defaulting a borrower if it defaults under separate agreements with third parties. Understanding your bank covenants and default provisions will help you to stay out of default with your lender and avoid an early call on your loan and resulting drain on you cash position.

Employee Considerations

As discussed extensively in our first article Employment Dos and Don’ts When Implementing Workforce Reductions, the possibility of an economic downturn not only will have an impact on your customer base, but your workforce as well. Employees desire stability, and the below options can help keep your employees engaged.

Providing Equity as a Substitute for Additional Compensation.

Employees might come to expect cash bonuses and pay raises throughout their tenure with an employer; in a more difficult economic period this may further strain a business’s cash flow. One alternative to such cash-based payments is the granting of equity, such as options or restricted stock. This type of compensation affords employees the prospect of long-term appreciation in value and promotes talent retention, while preserving capital in the immediate term. Further, to the employee holding equity is to have “skin in the game” – the employee now has an ownership stake in the company and their work takes on increasing importance to the success of the company.

To be sure, the company’s management and principal owners should consider how much control they are ceding to these new minority equity holders. The company must also ensure such equity issuances comply with securities laws – including by structuring the offering to fit within an exemption from registration of the offering. Additionally, if a downturn in the company’s business results in a drop in the value of the equity being offered, the company should consider conducting a new 409A valuation. Doing so may set a lower exercise price for existing options, thus reducing the eventual cost to employees to exercise their options and furnishing additional, material compensation to employees without further burdening cash flow.

Transitioning Select Employees to Part-Time.

Paying the salaries of employees can be a major burden on a business’s cash flow, and yet one should be wary of resorting to laying off employees to conserve cash flow in a downturn. On the other hand, if a business were to miss a payroll its officers and directors could face personal liability for unpaid wages. One means of reducing a business’s wage commitments while retaining (and paying) existing employees is to transition certain employees to part-time status. In addition to producing immediate cash flow benefits, this strategy enables a business to retain key talent and avoid the cost of replacing the employees in the future. However, this transition to part-time employees comes with important considerations.

Part-time employees are often eligible for overtime pay and must receive the higher of the federal or state minimum hourly wage. And if transitioned employees are subject to restrictive covenants, such as a non-competition agreement, they might argue their change in status should release them from such restrictions. Particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic, courts have shown reluctance to enforce non-competes in the context of similar changes in work status when the provision is unreasonable or enforcement is against the public interest.

Director Liability in Insolvency

Insolvency and Duties to Creditors

There may be circumstances where insolvency is the only plausible result. A corporation has fiduciary duties to stockholders when solvent, but when a corporation becomes insolvent it additionally owes such duties to creditors. When insolvent, a corporation’s fiduciary duties do not shift from stockholders to creditors, but expand to encompass all of the corporation’s residual claimants, which include creditors. Courts define “insolvency” as the point at which a corporation is unable to pay its debts as they become due in the ordinary course of business, but the “zone of insolvency” occurs some time before then. There is no clear line delineating when a solvent company enters the zone of insolvency, but fiduciaries should assume they are in this zone if (1) the corporation’s liabilities exceed its assets, (2) the corporation is unable to pay its debts as they become due, or (3) the corporation faces an unreasonable risk of insolvency.

Multiple courts have held that upon reaching the “zone of insolvency,” a corporation has fiduciary duties to creditors. However, in 2007 the Delaware Supreme Court held that there is no change in fiduciary duties for a corporation upon transitioning from “solvent” to the “zone of insolvency.” Under this precedent, creditors do not have standing to pursue derivative breach of fiduciary duty claims against the corporation until it is actually insolvent. Once the corporation is insolvent, however, creditors can bring claims such as for fraudulent transfers of assets and for failure to pursue valid claims, including those against a corporation’s own directors and officers. To be sure, the Delaware Court of Chancery clarified that a corporation’s directors cannot be held liable for “continuing to operate [an] insolvent entity in the good faith belief that they may achieve profitability, even if their decisions ultimately lead to greater losses for creditors,” along with other caveats to the general fiduciary duty rule. Still, in light of the ambiguity in case law on the subject, a corporation ought to proceed carefully and understand its potential duties when approaching and reaching insolvency.

1 Diamond, Brandee and Lehot, Louis, Is it Time to Consider Alternative Financing Strategies?, Foley & Lardner LLP (July 18, 2022)

2 Rush, Thomas, Revenue-based financing: The next step for private equity and early-stage investment, TechCrunch (January 6, 2021)

Article By Natasha Allen, David W. Kantaros, Nikhil T. Pradhan, and Graham P. MacEwan of Foley & Lardner LLP

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

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

Federal Reserve Doubles Down on Oversight of Crypto Activities for Banks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2022 K & L Gates

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

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

Background on the Dispute

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

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

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

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

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

Service Via Airdrop

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

CFTC Wades Into Climate Regulation

On June 2, 2022, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued a Request for Information (“RFI”) for “public comment on climate-related financial risk to better inform its understanding and oversight of climate-related financial risk as pertinent to the derivatives markets and underlying commodities markets.”  According to the RFI, the CFTC is contemplating “potential future actions including, but not limited to, issuing new or amended guidance, interpretations, policy statements, regulations, or other potential Commission action within its authority under the Commodity Exchange Act as well as its participation in any domestic or international fora.”

Specifically, the RFI issued by the CFTC is quite wide-ranging, and engages with numerous aspects of the CFTC’s authority, focusing on both systemic and narrow issues.  For example, the CFTC has, among other things, issued a broad request for comment on how “its existing regulatory framework and market oversight . . . may be affected by climate-related financial risk” and “how climate-related financial risk may affect any of its registered entities, registrants, or other market participants, and the soundness of the derivatives markets.”  It is hard to imagine a broader request by the CFTC–it is effectively asking for input on how “climate-related financial risk” may impact any portion of its regulatory purview.  Conversely, the CFTC has also posed very specific questions, including as to how the CFTC “could enhance the integrity of voluntary carbon markets and foster transparency, fairness, and liquidity in those markets,” and how it could “adapt its oversight of the derivatives markets, including any new or amended derivative products created to hedge-climate-related financial risk.”  In short, based upon the RFI, the CFTC could conceivably adopt a narrow or broad view of how it should adjust its regulations to account for climate-related financial risk.  Notably, however, the CFTC also asked if there were “ways in which updated disclosure requirements could aid market participants in better assessing climate-related risks,” which suggests that the CFTC may echo the SEC’s recent proposed rule for mandatory climate disclosures.

Most significantly, the fact that yet another financial regulatory agency is focused on “climate-related financial risk” suggests that the Biden Administration is willing to expend significant resources and energy in engaging in this type of regulation to advance its climate agenda.  When considered in tandem with the SEC’s recent proposed rules for mandatory climate disclosures and to combat greenwashing, it is apparent that there is a significant regulatory focus on climate issues and the financial markets.  This move by the CFTC also suggests that the Biden Administration will fully support the SEC’s proposed rules against the inevitable legal challenge.  (And, based upon the concurrences of the Republican CFTC commissioners to this RFI, it is likely that any climate-related regulation proposed by the CFTC will also be subject to legal challenge, likely on the grounds that such a regulation exceeded the CFTC’s authority.)  Most importantly, this move by the CFTC–that seeks to “understand how market participants use the derivative markets to hedge and speculate on various aspects of physical and transition [climate] risk”–demonstrates that the regulatory focus on climate and the financial markets will remain a top priority for the foreseeable future.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission today unanimously voted to release a Request for Information (RFI) to seek public comment on climate-related financial risk to better inform its understanding and oversight of climate-related financial risk as pertinent to the derivatives markets and underlying commodities markets.

Article By Jacob H. Hupart of Mintz

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

©1994-2022 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

Beware OFAC in a Time of Sanctions

On Monday, April 25, 2022, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (“OFAC”) announced a settlement with Toll Holdings Limited (“Toll”), an Australian freight forwarding and logistics company, with respect to Toll’s originations and/or receipt “of payments through the U.S. financial system involving sanctioned jurisdictions and persons.” Toll, which is not an American entity, and is neither owned by Americans nor located in the U.S. or any of its territories, was involved in almost 3000 transactions where payments were made in connection with sea, air, and rail shipments to, from, or through North Korea, Iran, or Syria, AND/OR involving the property of a person on OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List. OFAC did not have direct jurisdiction over Toll, BUT because the payments for Toll’s freight forwarding and logistics services flowed through U.S. financial institutions, Toll “caused the U.S. financial institutions to be engaged in prohibited activities with … sanctioned persons or jurisdictions.”

Each OFAC violation can be the basis of civil sanctions. Here the 2853 violation would have supported the imposition of civil sanctions totaling over $826 million. Toll was “happy” to settle OFAC’s enforcement action for $6 million. OFAC found that the Toll violations were “non-egregious,” in part due to the rapid growth of Toll after 2007 through acquisitions of smaller freight forwarding companies. OFAC noted that by 2017 Toll had almost 600 invoicing, data, payment, and other systems spread across its various units. OFAC also noted that Toll did not have adequate compliance procedures and procedures in place and did not attend to those issues until an unnamed bank threatened to cease doing business with Toll because Toll was using its U.S. dollar account to transact business with sanctioned jurisdictions and/or persons. OFAC took note of Toll’s voluntary self-disclosure, well-organized internal investigation, and extensive remedial measures.

OFAC traces its origins to the War of 1812, when the then Secretary of the Treasury imposed sanctions on the United Kingdom in retaliation for the impressment of American sailors. The Treasury Department has had a special office dealing with foreign assets since 1940 (and the outbreak of World War II), with statutory authority found in the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917 (as World War I raged), and a series of federal laws involving embargoes and economic sanctions. OFAC received its current name as part of a Treasury Department order on October 15, 1962 (contemporaneous with the Cuban missile crisis).

The Toll settlement reflects the growing use by OFAC of public enforcement against foreign businesses for “causing” violations by involving U.S. payment systems. The use of U.S. dollars in any part of a transaction will typically involve the U.S. financial system, directly or indirectly – that subjects the entirety of the transaction to U.S regulatory jurisdiction, including that of OFAC. The Toll settlement evidences OFAC’s increasing willingness to exercise its expansive jurisdiction over foreign businesses, even those involving primarily extraterritorial transactions — for example, the increase in OFAC sanctions of foreign businesses seen as facilitating the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Foreign businesses must give serious and continuing attention to having substantial policies and procedures in place to insure compliance with U.S. sanctions and, thereby, to avoid OFAC enforcement actions. Companies can start by reviewing OFAC’s Framework for Compliance Commitments and implementing the recommendations there. In addition, all parties to a transaction should be screened against sanction lists (OFAC’s, and also those of the U.K. and E.U.). Companies should consider adopting preventive measures, not only to deter violations, but also to demonstrate a vigorous compliance program.  Similarly, these issues MUST be considered as part of any merger or acquisition (as the Toll experience suggests).Finally, all counterparties, including financial intermediaries, should be evaluated for potential sanction list issues. Otherwise, a foreign business may have to “pay the Toll” for its shortcomings.

Experienced American business lawyers may prove helpful in designing and/or evaluating the compliance programs of non-U.S. companies.

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

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

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

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.

Let’s Eat Grandma = Let’s Eat, Grandma?

To the possible dismay of grammar purists, a federal court recently found that an insurance policy provision meant the same thing whether or not it included a comma before a key phrase. After poking fun at insurance policies (“long been the butt of jokes”), the court recognized that they can “provide fodder for scores of attorneys, grammarians, and logophiles” like when “the placement (or omission) of one comma can make the difference.” This case is an example.

The policy covered Constantin for claims related to “services directed toward expertise in banking finance, accounting, risk and systems analysis, design and implementation, asset recovery and strategy planning for financial institutions.” Constantin sought coverage for an underlying litigation that involved “services directed toward expertise in . . . accounting.” But that litigation did not involve services “for financial institutions.”

So the question was whether “for financial institutions” applied just to the service immediately preceding it or to all services identified in the provision, including accounting services. The court found that it modified the entire series, explaining that “while commas at the end of a series can avoid ambiguity, the use of such commas is discretionary.”

Bottom line: While a comma can save grandma’s life, it couldn’t save coverage here.

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

Article By Patrick M. McDermott and Casey L. Coffey of Hunton Andrews Kurth

For more articles on insurance, visit the NLR Insurance Reinsurance & Surety section.

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.