Commercial Litigation Update

In the June 2024 edition of the American Bankruptcy Institute Journal the authors of “Why State Court Receiverships Are Becoming the Norm for Smaller Companies,” write that “state court receiverships are now poised to take center stage . . . as the preferred method for addressing financial distress of small companies.” The authors assert that for smaller middle-market businesses, receiverships are rebounding in popularity due to the expense associated with bankruptcy proceedings. The authors conclude: “With the difficult choice of filing for bankruptcy increasingly becoming a nonviable alternative for smaller companies due to the cost and complexity of doing so, the spreading adoption of model receivership statutes is poised to increase receivership in popularity as a method by which companies can address underlying insolvency issues on a simplified, more cost-effective basis while retaining the best features of federal bankruptcy law.”

I agree that receiverships will increase in popularity. While the spreading adoption of model receivership statutes may increase the uniformity of receivership law and thereby make the remedy more popular, I believe several advantages of receivership proceedings are already driving an increase in the number of receivership proceedings. As mentioned in my prior article, “Receiverships provide many of the protections afforded by bankruptcy proceedings, while having the added benefit that: (a) a receivership can be commenced by a lender; (b) the costs associated with a receivership can be less than in a bankruptcy proceeding; (c) in a receivership a lender has more control over who will be operating the business and the timing of decisions related to the disposition of the lender’s collateral; and (d) recoveries can be enhanced by instituting improvements in the business operations and the pursuit of claims against third parties.”

In Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., No. 22-1165, 601 U.S. ___ (April 12, 2024), the United States Supreme Court held that “pure omissions are not actionable” for securities fraud asserted specifically under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5(b) promulgated thereunder even in circumstances where regulations require disclosure of related information.

The case concerned a business that stores liquid commodities including oil products. In 2016, the United Nations adopted a regulation that ...

The United States Supreme Court’s pending decision in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America Ltd., et al. (“Community Financial Services Association of America Ltd.”) in which the high court was asked to determine the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (“CFPB”) independent funding structure, continues to impact pending civil investigative demands brought by the CFPB.

On March 29, 2024, in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Financial Asset Management, Inc., the United ...

Since 2018, seven states—California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, New York, Utah, and Virginia—have enacted laws requiring specific disclosures in commercial financing transactions. Three of those enactments came in 2023, and similar bills are currently pending in a handful of other states.

While these disclosure laws share the same aim—to encourage competition and provide for a more informed decision-making process—they are quite varied with respect to the transactions and institutions to which they apply as well as the information that must be disclosed. And a ...

On October 3, 2023, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Community Financial Services Association of America Ltd., et al. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, et al., in which the Court was asked to determine the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (“CFPB”) independent funding structure.

In Community Financial Services Association of America Ltd., et al. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, et al., the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held in a unanimous decision that the CFPB’s “unique” funding ...

Last week, blockchain analysis firm, Chainalysis, held its annual conference, Links 2023, in New York City, where private and public sector leaders met to discuss emerging issues impacting the blockchain, cryptocurrency, and digital asset space. The conference featured presentations from notable public and private sector leaders, including government regulators, enforcement bodies who investigate and assist in prosecuting virtual asset fraud, and executives from financial institutions.

A recent analysis of data released by the United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) suggests that the vast majority of Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans extended to small businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic have been forgiven. While positive, this news is cold comfort to PPP borrowers for whom forgiveness was denied, or, as we addressed previously, whose lenders required them to apply for forgiveness in amounts less than the full amount of their PPP loans. PPP borrowers can apply for forgiveness of their PPP loans any time up until the loan maturity date (2025 in many cases), and borrowers continue to receive denials of forgiveness for both first- and second-draw PPP loans. As a result, the PPP appeal process remains as important today as at its inception.

As we wrote recently, the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) was critical in helping small businesses stay afloat amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and resultant government restrictions on commerce. By now, most borrowers know that a crucial step in ensuring that they retain the benefits Congress intended is to submit a PPP loan forgiveness application. Unfortunately, in the process of applying for forgiveness, some borrowers have encountered difficulties when their lenders disagree that they are entitled to apply for forgiveness in the full amount of their PPP loans. In 2021, the United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) provided a partial solution to this problem by creating the PPP Direct Forgiveness Portal.

The pension trustees of Northwestern University, and those elsewhere, will need to take close note of the Court’s unanimous decision (Barrett, J., not participating) in Hughes v. Northwestern University in which the Court returns yet again to interpreting the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), this time in the context of determining the extent of ERISA fiduciaries’ duty to monitor investments and remove imprudent ones. See Tibble v. Edison International, 575 U.S. 523 (2015).

Last week, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Examinations (the “Division”) released its 2021 examination priorities.  The priorities reflect the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, including how it has increased risks related to cybersecurity; a new focus on climate change; and appear to recognize concerns raised by the recent trading in GameStop stock.

Impact of COVID-19

The onset of the work-from-home environment arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, has, among other things, increased the SEC’s concerns about “endpoint security, data loss, remote ...

Much ink has been spilled in recent weeks about how some recipients of Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) relief obtained their loans through mistakes or false pretenses. Now banks are coming under fire for their lending practices in connection with this hastily prepared and implemented program, which left them grappling with how to properly issue loans in the face of procedural and substantive gaps in the law. Many lenders tried to fill these gaps by supplementing the PPP application to address practical concerns not covered in the law. Two recent cases, however, demonstrate ...

The Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) provided forgivable loans to assist small businesses with expenses during the COVID-19 shutdown, seemingly creating a lifeline for many of these enterprises.  As explained here, a borrower could obtain a loan equal to the lesser of $10 million or the sum of its average monthly payroll costs for 2.5 months, (reduced to the extent that any individual was paid more than $100,000 per year) plus the balance of any Economic Injury Disaster Loan received between January 31, 2020 and April 3, 2020.  Like many federal programs, however ...

Recently, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) issued a Risk Alert to provide broker-dealers with guidance on examinations regarding regulation Best Interest (“Reg BI”).  Reg BI requires that when broker-dealers make a recommendation regarding securities to a retail customer it must act in the best interest of the customer, without placing its own financial or other interest ahead of the retail customer’s interest.  The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) also ...

On September 6, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California preliminarily approved a settlement in Harvey v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. The significance of the result is two-fold. First, substantively, it is a reminder to financial services firms of potential liability under California labor law when advisors are required to pay for business expenses. Second, procedurally, the court’s approval of the settlement is edifying on the subject of parallel class actions.

In the Harvey case, plaintiffs challenged Morgan Stanley Smith Barney’s ...

On August 20, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) charged Mosaic Capital, LLC, formerly known as AOC Securities, LLC (“AOC”), and its CEO with failing to adequately supervise an employee who engaged in securities fraud. Pursuant to the SEC Orders, AOC and its CEO were ordered to pay penalties of $250,000 and $40,000, respectively. The SEC’s actions serve as a reminder to broker-dealers—and members of firm management—of the potential for liability based on the actions of a self-dealing employee, and the need to guard against such activities.

The ...

Broker-dealers (“BDs”) should be aware that, on June 5, 2019, the SEC adopted “Regulation Best Interest” (“Reg BI”), which requires BDs and their registered representatives (“RRs”) to “act in the best interest of the retail customer,” when “making a recommendation” regarding “a securities transaction or investment strategy.” In addition, the SEC’s new rules require BDs to deliver Form CRS relationship summaries (“Form CRS”) to retail customers. BDs will need to be in compliance with Reg BI and Form CRS, which were accompanied by more than ...

On June 19, 2019, the New York State Senate and Assembly passed legislation that would, if signed into law, broaden the scope of last year’s ban on clauses requiring employees to arbitrate sexual harassment claims so as to prohibit such clauses with respect to all types of discrimination claims. As reported on this blog, this ban on mandatory arbitration clauses was deemed invalid, as contrary to federal law, by the June 26, 2019 decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Latif v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y. No. 18-11528). It is too early ...