On October 8, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) released the publication “Cryptocurrency: An Enforcement Framework,” (“Framework”) which described emerging threats and enforcement challenges associated with cryptocurrency. DOJ’s Cyber-Digital Task Force produced the Framework to highlight important relationships DOJ has built with other domestic and international regulatory and enforcement partners, and its strategic response to address emerging issues concerning cryptocurrency and the “blockchain” or “distributed ledger” technology underlying it.  The Framework’s stated goal is to ensure that cryptocurrencies and associated technologies are safe and do not imperil public safety or national security. While DOJ explicitly recognizes cryptocurrency’s potential in the Framework, it also outlines both threats and illicit opportunities that cryptocurrency provides for nefarious actors.

For a full discussion of the Framework, please refer to this BCLP client alert co-authored by Ashley Ebersole, Ben Saul, Mark Sere and Jason Semmes.

As previously discussed, on October 2, 2020, the SBA published Procedural Notice 5000-20057 addressing Paycheck Protection Program Loans and Changes of Ownership. Based on a review of memos on the subject by other law firms and accounting firms, four items stood out as not being regularly addressed (in addition to some expressing the mistaken belief that buyers have to assume the PPP loan in any asset transaction).

1. Any Merger Triggers the Procedural Notice.

The definition of a change of ownership includes any merger of the PPP borrower with or into another entity.  Even if the PPP borrower is the surviving entity and there is no change in shareholder ownership, it would appear to be pulled into the SBA Procedural Notice. Accordingly, either internal reorganizations or acquisitions could trigger the obligations of the Procedural Notice if structured as a merger.

2. Stock Transfers Between Existing Shareholders Can Trigger Procedural Notice.

Stock transfers to affiliates and existing owners are covered, not just sales to new owners. Any change in shareholder composition that results in a greater than 50% change since the receipt of the PPP loan triggers a change of ownership of ownership under the Procedural Notice.

3. Silence as to Already Completed Changes of Ownership.

The SBA Procedural Notice does not provide any guidance for what should be done about changes in ownership that closed prior to the publication of the Notice. The significance of this silence is then either amplified or minimized, depending on one’s

On October 15, 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced settled charges against U.S. refiner Andeavor LLC (“Andeavor”) for inadequate controls related to a stock buyback plan it executed while it was in talks to be acquired by Marathon Petroleum Corp. in 2018. Without admitting the SEC’s findings, Andeavor agreed to pay a $20 million penalty to settle the charges.

According to the SEC, in March of 2017 Andeavor’s then-Chairman and CEO began confidential discussion with Marathon’s Chairman and CEO about a potential business combination. After months of analysis regarding the potential synergies that a combined company would produce, the CEOs agreed to suspend their discussions. Then in February 2018, just two days before a meeting to resume talks about a potential deal, Andeavor’s CEO directed its then-CFO to initiate a share buyback to repurchase $250 million of shares. The SEC found that Andeavor’s internal accounting controls failed to ensure the buyback adhered to the company’s securities trading policy, a policy that prohibited repurchases while the company was in possession of material non-public information.

Andeavor used an abbreviated and informal process to evaluate whether the requirements for the buyback were satisfied. That process did not require conferring with persons reasonably likely to have material non-public information about corporate developments prior to approval of the share repurchase. As a result, no one involved in Andeavor’s process discussed with Andeavor’s CEO the prospects that Andeavor and Marathon would agree to a deal. Because they did not do so, the company

As public companies prepare their Q3 releases and filings, some of the key issues they should consider include:

• MD&A – as we reported last quarter, the SEC Staff issued COVID-19 guidance in June calling for companies to disclose the impact of the pandemic through the eyes of management, including, to the extent material:
• • The effects of the pandemic on a company’s operations, liquidity and capital resources; the short- and long-term impact of any federal relief received under the CARES Act; and the company’s ability to continue as a going concern
  • Operational changes as a result of the pandemic – from converting to telework to modifying supply chain and customer contracts, and now converting to the return to the workplace and business reopenings
  • Trends, events or uncertainties (such as possible events of default, breach of covenants, etc.), unless a company can conclude either that it is not reasonably likely that the trend, uncertainty or other event will occur, or that a material effect on the company’s liquidity, capital resources or results of operations is not reasonably likely to occur
• Non-GAAP Financial Measures – as we recently noted, it appears few companies are jumping on the EBITDAC bandwagon; however, the SEC staff has issued comments on such measures that include adjustments for COVID-19, as in Comment 6 here. Accordingly, companies should be prepared to explain the quantification of any such adjustments and their rationale, consistent with the guidance described in our earlier
  

The Small Business Administration recently published a procedural notice on changes of ownership for PPP borrowers. One specific area where we’ve seen confusion is whether the procedural notice requires a buyer to assume all of the PPP borrower’s obligations in an asset sale transaction. As discussed below, while the procedural notice does require the buyer to assume the PPP loan obligations in an asset sale in order to obtain the SBA’s prior approval, so long as the SBA’s prior approval is not required, then the parties remain free to structure the asset transaction in whatever manner makes economic sense for the parties, including leaving the PPP loan obligations with the seller.

Section 2.b. of the procedural notice indicates that, in connection with obtaining SBA pre-approval for a change of ownership, that SBA approval “will be conditioned on the purchasing entity assuming all of the PPP borrower’s obligations under the PPP loan, including responsibility for compliance with the PPP loan terms.” The procedural notice goes on to indicate that the purchase or sale agreement “must include appropriate language regarding the assumption of the PPP borrower’s obligations under the PPP loan by the purchasing person or entity, or a separate assumption agreement must be submitted to the SBA.” Accordingly, if SBA pre-approval is required in connection with a change of control structured as an asset sale, then it would be necessary to have the

For the second time this year (see our previous reported here), a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York determined that an initial coin offering (“ICO”) involving the Simple Agreement for Future Tokens (“SAFT”) framework constituted an unlawful unregistered securities offering, establishing a daunting precedent for both potential and past SAFT issuers.  The most recent such ruling came on September 30, 2020, in response to dueling Motions for Summary Judgment in the SEC v. Kik Interactive Inc. case, as profiled further here.

The SEC announced on October 7, 2002 that it had approved, by vote of 3-2, a proposed limited conditional exemption for individuals acting as “finders” in private market transactions with accredited investors.  The text of the proposed exemption can be found here.

When small businesses engage in capital raising transactions in reliance on exemptions from registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “1933 Act”), they often look to “finders” to assist in identifying and, in some cases, soliciting potential investors.  Such finders (and issuers using them) must determine whether they are required to register as “broker dealers” under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “1934 Act”). In making that assessment, finders and issuers (and their legal counsel) have been left to parse through various no-action letters and SEC enforcement actions to discern the SEC’s regulatory position.  In that context, certain activities, as well as the presence of “transaction-based compensation” in these arrangements, have proved to be particularly nettlesome. The proposal would provide a non-exclusive safe harbor from broker registration, and would enable those who qualify to receive transaction-based compensation.

The proposal would be limited to natural persons, and would create two categories: Tier I Finders and Tier II Finders.  Both tiers would be subject certain conditions:

• the issuer must not be required to file reports under the 1934 Act and must be conducting the offering in reliance on an applicable exemption from registration under the 1933 Act;
• the finder must not engage in a “general
  

In a fast-paced webinar, the Heartland NACD chapter recently explored the board’s role in SEC inquiries and discussed red flags for directors, as well as SEC trends and developments. Panelists included Terri Vaughan, a seasoned board leader; Lory Stone, an SEC enforcement attorney; and Terry Pritchard, an experienced securities litigator at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP.

During a discussion of red flags that should draw directors’ attention, Ms. Stone noted that the SEC may take a magnifying glass to disclosures involving significant judgements and estimates, particularly in the current economic conditions.  She quoted her former colleague Steven Peikin, previous Co-Director of the Division of Enforcement, who stated in a speech at a recent securities enforcement forum:

Recognizing that the economic impacts of any downturn may vary across different industries and sectors, the [SEC’s Coronavirus] Steering Committee has developed a systematic process to review public filings from issuers in highly-impacted industries, with a focus on identifying disclosures that appear to be significantly out of step with others in the same industry. We are also looking for disclosures, impairments, or valuations that may attempt to disguise previously undisclosed problems or weaknesses as coronavirus-related.

Other red flags discussed during the webinar included:

• Tips/hotline reports, which should be closely examined by the board;
• “Domineering” CEOs who may have unchecked power;
• Auditor resignations, which should prompt the board to understand the reason for the resignation;
• Management shake-ups, with abrupt terminations or resignations;
• Government investigations;
• Financial restatements;
• Practice changes in judgment areas (debt restructuring, revenue recognition practices);
  

A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit shows how an investor’s entering into a confidentiality agreement with an issuer of securities may support insider trading charges against the investor.

The decision, United States v. Kosinski, No. 18-3065 (2d Cir., Sept. 22, 2020), did not create new law in the Second Circuit.  But the court did reaffirm its earlier holding that by agreeing to keep confidential  information provided by an issuer, a trader had taken on a fiduciary-like duty to the issuer sufficient to support insider trading charges under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  And it rejected the argument that to create the requisite duty, the agreement needed to have a no-trading provision as well as a confidentiality provision.

What creates a sufficient duty has been a hotly disputed issue in insider trading law in recent years.  It elicited heightened attention during the SEC’s case against billionaire Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, where the SEC’s charges were based in part on an alleged promise by Cuban to maintain confidentiality as to information provided by issuer Mamma.com.

But Cuban’s case did not resolve that issue as a legal matter.  Rather, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, without addressing all of the legal questions posed,  held that the SEC had alleged enough to support a finding that Cuban had agreed both to maintain confidentiality and not to trade, so that the case could go to a jury.  It did,

On September 28, the SEC announced charges against two public companies, Interface, Inc. (“Interface”) and Fulton Financial Corporation (“Fulton”), for violations related to the reporting of improperly calculated earnings per share (“EPS”) that enabled the companies to meet or exceed consensus analyst estimates.  In the case of Interface, charges were also levied against the company’s former Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) and Chief Accounting Officer (“CAO”) for directing subordinates to book unsupported, manual accounting entries that did not comply with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). These enforcement actions are a result of the implementation of an “EPS Initiative” by the Division of Enforcement that seeks to leverage risk-based data analytics to identify potential instances of accounting and disclosure violations, including those resulting from earnings management practices.

The SEC focused on accounting entries recorded on Interface’s books during the period from the second quarter of 2015 through the second quarter of 2016. The SEC alleged that Interface reported financial results that did not accurately reflect the company’s actual performance, and, instead, inflated income and EPS figures to show consistent earnings growth.  The alleged misstatements were found to be materially misleading because the earnings reported in two quarters enabled the company to meet consensus analyst EPS estimates when, had the unsupported accounting entries not been made, the company would have delivered results below analyst estimates. The SEC alleged that a lack of adequate internal controls over financial reporting created an environment in which the CFO and CAO (then-Corporate Controller) were able to direct