Opportunity Zones Update: NEW PROPOSED TREASURY REGULATIONS (PART I)

By Amy Tranckino, Judith Fiorini and John Crisp on April 30, 2019 Posted in Tax

Background

In December 2017, as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”), Congress established a new tax incentive program to promote investment in certain low-income communities designated by the IRS as qualified opportunity zones. Section 1400Z-2 of the Internal Revenue Code provides three compelling tax incentives to encourage investment in qualified opportunity funds (“QOFs”).

Taxpayers can defer paying taxes on capital gain from the sale or exchange of appreciated assets by investing such gain in a QOF within 180 days following such sale or exchange. Such gain may be deferred until the earlier of (i) when the investment is sold or exchanged or (ii) December 31, 2026.
Investors receive a step-up in the basis equal to 10% of the original deferred gain if the investment in the QOF is held for at least five years, with an additional 5% basis step-up if the investment is held for seven years. These basis step-ups can result in permanent exclusion from taxation of up to 15% of the originally deferred gain.
If the investor holds the investment in the QOF for at least 10 years, an elective basis adjustment made upon sale of the interest in the QOF provides a permanent exclusion from taxation for any appreciation in excess of the deferred gain.

On April 17, 2019, the Treasury Department released its second round of guidance on opportunity zone investment in the form of proposed regulations (the “New Proposed Regulations”). These newly proposed regulations supplement and in some cases revise the proposed regulations issued in October 2018 (The “October Proposed Regulations”). Continue Reading

New Effort to Exempt Crypto Currency from Certain SEC, Tax and Other Regulatory Burdens

By James Gatto on April 19, 2019 Posted in Cryptocurrency, Securities and Exchange Commission

A new bill, the Token Taxonomy Act was introduced to congress to amend the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to exclude digital tokens from the definition of a security, to direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to enact certain regulatory changes regarding digital units secured through public key cryptography, to adjust taxation of virtual currencies held in individual retirement accounts, to create a tax exemption for exchanges of one virtual currency for another, to create a de minimis exemption from taxation for gains realized from the sale or exchange of virtual currency for other than cash, and for other purposes. Continue Reading

United States Supreme Court Holds That Knowing Dissemination of False Statements Made by Others Can Constitute Primary “Scheme Liability” In Violation of Rule 10b-5(a) and (c)

By John Stigi on April 1, 2019 Posted in Investigations and Enforcement, Securities and Exchange Commission, Securities Litigation

In Lorenzo v. Securities & Exchange Comm., No. 17-1077, 2019 WL 1369839 (U.S. Mar. 27, 2019), the Supreme Court of the United States (Breyer, J.) held that an individual who did not “make” a false or misleading statement within the meaning of Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. 135 (2011) (blog article here), but instead disseminated it to potential investors with intent to defraud, can be held to have employed a scheme to defraud and/or engaged in an act, practice or course of business to defraud in violation of subsections (a) and (c) of Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. This decision broadens the scope of primary liability under Rule 10b-5 beyond those who make false and misleading statements to include those who knowingly “disseminate” (i.e., communicate to potential investors) such false or misleading statements. Although this decision involved an SEC enforcement action, it is likely to be invoked by plaintiffs in private securities litigation to expand the scope of named defendants beyond the issuer and individuals directly responsible for making public statements on the issuer’s behalf. Continue Reading

Second Circuit Holds That Issuer’s Alleged Statements Concerning Its Regulatory Compliance Efforts Do Not Constitute Material Misstatements

By John Stigi and John Landry on March 12, 2019 Posted in Securities Litigation

In Singh v. Cigna Corp., No. 17-3484-cv, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 6637 (2d Cir. Mar. 5, 2019), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a class action complaint that purported to base a securities fraud claim upon alleged statements made by defendant Cigna Corporation (“Cigna” or the “Company”) about its efforts to comply with Medicare regulations. According to the complaint, the statements materially misled investors and, when news of regulatory non-compliance surfaced, the Company’s stock price declined. The Second Circuit held the statements to be only “generic” descriptions of the Company’s compliance efforts. The Court held that no reasonable investor would rely upon them as “representations of [the Company’s] satisfactory compliance,” and so they did not constitute material misstatements sufficient to support a securities claim. Continue Reading

With the SEC, Cooperation is Key

By Andrea Cataneo and Winnie Weil on March 8, 2019 Posted in Securities and Exchange Commission

As an expensive “slap on the wrist,” the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or the “Commission”) recently concluded that approximately $12.7 million worth of funds raised in a 2017 Initial Coin Offering (“ICO”) by Gladius Network LLC (“Gladius”) were part of an unregistered securities offering, and all proceeds must be returned to investors. However, the penalty to Gladius for their regulatory violations was zero. Continue Reading

Ninth Circuit Holds That Statutes Do Not Constitute “Rules or Regulations of the SEC” for Purposes of Sarbanes-Oxley Act Whistleblower Claims

By John Stigi, Jennifer Redmond and Kristi Thomas on March 4, 2019 Posted in Corporate Governance, Labor & Employment

In Wadler v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., No. 17-16193, 2019 WL 924827 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2019), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that statutes, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), do not constitute “rule[s] or regulation[s] of the Securities and Exchange Commission” (“SEC”) for purposes of determining whether an employee engaged in protected activity in a whistleblower claim under Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”). This decision clarifies the proper application of the express statutory language of Section 806. Continue Reading

SEC Issues New Guidance on Diversity Disclosure Requirements

By Jeffrey Fessler and Justin Anslow on February 11, 2019 Posted in Disclosure, Securities and Exchange Commission

On February 6, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission released two Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (CDIs) discussing disclosure requirements in instances where a director or board nominee self-identifies specific diversity characteristics, such as race, gender, ethnicity, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation and cultural background. Continue Reading

Court Finds Cybersecurity-Related Claims Sufficient in Securities Class Action

By Jonathan E. Meyer and Elfin Noce on February 6, 2019 Posted in Courts and ADR, Cybersecurity, Disclosure, Securities Litigation

In the aftermath of Equifax’s data breach, a federal court recently found that allegations of poor cybersecurity coupled with misleading statements supported a proper cause of action. In its decision, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia allowed a securities fraud class action case to continue against Equifax. The lawsuit claims the company issued false or misleading statements regarding the strength and quality of its cybersecurity measures. In their amended complaint, the plaintiffs cite Equifax’s claims of “strong data security and confidentiality standards” and “a highly sophisticated data information network that includes advanced security, protections and redundancies,” when, according to the plaintiffs’ allegations, Equifax’s cybersecurity practices “were grossly deficient and outdated” and “failed to implement even the most basic security measures.” The court found that data security is a core aspect of Equifax’s business and that investors are likely to review representations on data security when making their investment decisions. Continue Reading

SEC Administrative Proceedings Against Public Companies for Failure to Remediate Material Weaknesses in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

By Jeffrey Fessler, Andrea Cataneo and Nazia Khan on February 5, 2019 Posted in Compliance, Corporate Governance, Disclosure

Public reporting companies that have material weaknesses in their internal control over financial reporting (“ICFR”) are required under Rule 308 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, to report such material weaknesses in their quarterly and annual reports along with proposed remedial measures. A material weakness is defined as a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of an issuer’s financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Continue Reading

Expansion of Regulation A to Reporting Companies: Increased Alternatives Now Available to Public Companies Seeking to Raise Capital or for Mergers and Acquisitions

By Richard A. Friedman and Nazia Khan on February 1, 2019 Posted in Capital Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission

On December 19, 2018, the SEC announced that it had adopted final rules that allow reporting companies to rely on the Regulation A exemption from registration for their securities offerings.^[1]

Until recently, the only way that companies subject to the reporting requirements of Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) have been able to access the capital markets has been through a private placement in public equity (PIPE) or a traditional registered public offering. PIPE’s have presented a number of issues regarding confidentiality, illiquidity of securities, limitations on offering size^[2] and greater pricing discounts, whereas registered public offerings can be both time-consuming and costly. These issues are particularly magnified for smaller public companies that may not be eligible to use S-3 shelf registrations. Continue Reading

By scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to browse our website, you consent to our use of cookies as described in our Cookie and Advertising Policy. If you do not wish to accept cookies from our website, or would like to stop cookies being stored on your device in the future, you can find out more and adjust your preferences here.

Agree