Corporate Transparency Act’s Reporting Requirements: Is Your Company Prepared?

10 4 Advisory Ctabeneficialownershiprules Linkedin

To give law enforcement additional tools to fight financial crime and fraud, Congress passed the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). The CTA requires certain legal entities (each, a “reporting company”) to report, if no exemption is available, specific information about themselves, certain of their individual owners and managers (“beneficial owners”), and certain individuals involved in their formation (“company applicants”) to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) of the U.S. Department of Treasury.

As the first of three rulemakings required by the CTA, FinCEN issued the Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirements final rule (
BOI Rule) on September 30, 2022. More recently, FinCEN released a Small Entity Compliance Guide and a list of Frequently Asked Questions, both of which FinCEN has continued to update. FinCEN intends to issue additional materials and guidance.

The BOI Rule imposes new and significant reporting burdens on affected companies.
As a business owner or manager, you may need to prepare now.

When do the new reporting requirements come into effect?

  • The BOI Rule is set to take effect on January 1, 2024.
  • Reporting companies created or registered to do business in the United States prior to January 1, 2024 must file their initial BOI Reports by January 1, 2025.
  • Reporting companies created or registered to do business in the United States during calendar year 2024 will have 90 days after receiving notice of the company’s registration or creation to file their initial BOI Reports under the BOI Rule.
  • Reporting companies created or registered to do business in the United States on or after January 1, 2025 will have 30 days after receiving notice of the company’s registration or creation to file their initial BOI Reports under the BOI Rule. 

Which entities are subject to the new reporting requirements?

An entity is classified as a “reporting company” if it is any of the following and does not qualify for a specific exemption:

  • A corporation, limited liability company, or other entity created under the laws of a U.S. state or Indian tribe by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or similar office under the law of a U.S. state or Indian tribe.
  • An entity created under the laws of a foreign country and registered to do business in any U.S. state or tribal jurisdiction by filing a document with a secretary of state or similar office of the U.S. state or Indian tribe.

Whether trusts and partnerships qualify as “reporting companies” depend on statutes, regulations and procedures of the state or tribe under whose laws they were formed.

Which entities are exempt from the new reporting requirements?

A reporting company is exempt only if it falls into one of twenty-three prescribed exemptions, including SEC reporting companies, insurance companies, financial institutions, broker-dealers, investment companies and advisers, and other publicly registered entities.

Exemptions of particular interest to privately held companies include:

  • Large operating companies that directly employ more than 20 full time employees in the United States, have an operating presence at a physical office in the United States, and have filed a federal income tax return or information return demonstrating more than $5 million in gross receipts or sales from sources within the United States;
  • Subsidiaries of certain exempt entities, where the entity’s ownership interests are held, directly or indirectly, by certain enumerated exempt entities; and
  • Inactive entities formed prior to January 1, 2020, not engaged in active business or owned in whole or in part by a foreign person, which has not undergone a recent change in control and holds no assets (including interests in any other legal entity).

Additionally, there is a three-pronged exemption for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the following types of tax-exempt entities are exempt from the CTA’s reporting requirements:

  • Organizations described in IRC 501(c), determined without regard to IRC 508(a);
  • Certain political organizations; and
  • Certain non-exempt charitable or split interest trusts.

The first prong encompasses all IRC 501(c) organizations, including most charities, schools and other educational institutions, churches and other religious organizations, private foundations, social welfare organizations, labor organizations, trade associations, chambers of commerce, and social clubs. Notably, this prong applies without regard to whether the qualifying organization has filed an application for recognition of tax-exempt status pursuant to IRC 508(a).

Keep in mind, however, that other types of tax-exempt entities exist but fall outside the exemption from the CTA’s reporting requirements. For example, homeowner associations, including condominium associations, covered by IRC 528 are not exempt from these requirements.

Note that if a reporting company is relying on an exemption and subsequently loses that exemption, it must file a report to stay compliant within 30 days of the loss of the exemption. However, if a qualifying tax-exempt entity loses its IRC 501(c) status, the organization has a 180-day grace period during which it will continue to be deemed an IRC 501(c) organization solely for purposes of the exemption.

Importantly, there is no separate exemption for holding companies – FinCEN expressly declined to provide for one. For example, if a large operating company is owned by an entity that does not qualify for a prescribed exemption and is a reporting company, the parent (or holding company) will need to file BOI Reports even though its subsidiary (the large operating company) does not.

FinCEN also clarified that a parent company may not file a single BOI Report on behalf of its group of companies – each reporting company that is not exempt must file its own report. Therefore, it is imperative to assess each legal entity within an affiliated group for CTA purposes.

What information must be provided by or on behalf of reporting companies?

A nonexempt reporting company must submit to FinCEN a report (a “BOI Report”) containing specific information about itself and each of its beneficial owners and certain company applicants:

  • The reporting company must provide its legal name, all trade names or DBAs, a complete address for the reporting company’s principal place of business in the United States, its jurisdiction of formation or first place of U.S. registration, and its employer identification number (EIN) or taxpayer identification number (TIN).
  • The reporting company must provide, for each beneficial owner and company applicant, his or her full legal name, date of birth, complete U.S. residential (or, for certain company applicants, business) address, and information from (along with an image of) the individual’s unexpired U.S. passport, state driver’s license or other government-issued identification document.

Reporting companies created or registered to do business in the United States prior to January 1, 2024 are exempt from the requirement to provide disclosure with respect to company applicants.

Who qualifies as a “beneficial owner”?

A “beneficial owner” is any individual who, directly or indirectly, (1) owns or controls at least 25 percent of the ownership interests of the reporting company or (2) exercises substantial control over the reporting company.

An individual’s ownership interest in the reporting company will be determined by examining ownership of equity, stock or voting rights; capital or profits interests; convertible instruments (as converted); options or privileges (as exercised); and any other instrument, contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship or mechanism used to establish ownership. Reporting companies will need to “look through” ownership interests held by intermediary companies to identify the individuals who beneficially own such interests. Special rules apply to interests held by trusts.

An individual may exercise substantial control over the reporting company if such person is:

  • a senior officer of the reporting company;
  • a person who has the authority to appoint or remove certain officers or a majority of the board of directors;
  • a person who directs, determines or has substantial influence over important decisions of the reporting company, including decisions about its business, finances or structure; or
  • a person who otherwise exercises substantial control over the reporting company.

Any individual holding the position or exercising the authority of a president, chief financial officer, general counsel, chief executive officer or chief operating officer is a “senior officer.” On the other hand, whether an individual serving on the board of directors (or equivalent body) exercises substantial control over the reporting company is a question that must be analyzed under the above criteria on a director-by-director basis.

Among other areas of concern, it may be challenging for a reporting company to identify the individuals with substantial influence over important decisions of the reporting company. Importantly, “substantial control” is determined independently from the “ownership interests” determination. FinCEN expressly contemplates a situation where a reporting company is structured such that multiple individuals (e.g., LLC members) exercise “essentially equal authority” over important decisions, in which case each such individual likely has substantial influence even though no single individual directs or determines them.

There is no limit to the number of beneficial owners of each reporting company that may be subject to reporting requirements under the BOI Rule.

Who qualifies as a “company applicant”?

A “company applicant” is:

  • the individual who directly filed the document (either physically or electronically) causing the reporting company to be created or registered to do business in the United States; and
  • if more than one individual was involved in the filing, the individual primarily responsible for directing or controlling such filing.

In no event will a reporting company have more than two company applicants.

Does a reporting company need to update FinCEN when any reported information changes?

Yes, and this aspect of the BOI Rule will require active monitoring of relevant information. Reporting companies will be required to report any change in the information required to be reported within 30 days after the date on which the change becomes effective. Changes that may require an updated BOI Report include:

  • Any change to the legal or trade name of the reporting company, or any new trade name.
  • Any change of the “beneficial owners” of the reporting company, which could occur as a result of the death, resignation or replacement of an officer or director; a change in equity ownership (including via sale transaction); an equity owner turning 18 years of age; or a change to certain provisions of the governance documents of the reporting company.
  • Any change of name, address or unique identifying number (e.g., driver’s license or passport number) as reported to FinCEN for any beneficial owner.
  • The loss of an exemption previously held by the reporting company, or a reporting company gaining exempt status.

Companies that fail to submit timely updates may be subject to criminal and civil penalties. Liability extends to senior officers, as well as those who willfully cause a company not to file a required BOI Report or to report incomplete or false information to FinCEN.

FinCEN has clarified that a mere change to the “type” of ownership interest held by a beneficial owner (e.g., conversion of preferred stock to common stock) will not require an updated BOI Report because the type of ownership interest is not information that is required to be reported.

How do I file?

BOI Reports must be completed and submitted to FinCEN via online portal that remains under development, referred to as the Beneficial Ownership Secure System (BOSS). FinCEN has reported that information collected and stored on BOSS will not be publicly available or subject to public information requests and will be securely maintained.

Reporting companies may submit information to BOSS directly or via third-party service provider.

When a filing is made, the reporting company must certify that its report is true, correct, and complete. FinCEN has noted its expectation that reporting companies will “verify” the information they receive from their beneficial owners and company applicants before reporting it to FinCEN.

What are the penalties for failing to satisfy the new reporting requirements?

Persons who fail to meet these new reporting requirements or who engage in unauthorized disclosure of reported information may be subject to civil or criminal penalties:

  • A person who willfully fails to file a correct and complete initial BOI Report or an updated BOI Report required by law is subject to a fine of $500 per day, up to a maximum fine of $10,000, and is subject to imprisonment for up to two years.
  • A person who knowingly discloses reported information without authorization is subject to a fine of $500 per day, up to a maximum fine of $250,000, and is subject to imprisonment for up to five years.

If a person voluntarily submits a report correcting inaccurate information within 90 days of the deadline for the original report, the person may benefit from a safe harbor from penalty. However, the willful failure to report complete or updated beneficial ownership information to FinCEN, or the willful provision of or attempt to provide false or fraudulent beneficial ownership information, is not protected by the safe harbor. Note that senior officers of an entity that fails to file a required BOI report may be held accountable.

For example, according to FinCEN, providing false or fraudulent beneficial ownership information could include providing false identifying information about an individual identified in a BOI report, such as by providing a copy of a fraudulent identifying document.

Additionally, if an individual who qualifies as a beneficial owner or a company applicant refuses to provide required information, or if such an individual provides false information to a company knowing that information is meant to be reported to FinCEN, that person may be held accountable.

What should I do to prepare my company to comply with these reporting requirements?

Get organized – make sure you have your company’s current capitalization table, governing documents, and equity and debt documents. You will need to account for contractual rights of control and ownership, in addition to outstanding ownership interests.

Make a plan – if your company is subject to the reporting requirements, you will need to consider how to collect the required information from direct and any indirect owners and others. You will also need to continuously monitor for changes that may trigger reporting requirements. Companies with complex beneficial ownership structures may want to designate a CTA compliance officer.

Reach out to Varnum – contact your Varnum attorney or any member of Varnum’s CTA Taskforce to learn more and for assistance with:

  • assessing whether your entity is a reporting company, whether it qualifies for an exemption, and what individuals may qualify as beneficial owners and company applicants;
  • reviewing and updating governance documents and internal control procedures so that your company can timely collect and report the required information to FinCEN; and
  • making arrangements for submitting to FinCEN any required BOI Reports.

By engaging Varnum, you will also receive updates on any rule changes or newly issued guidance, as well as other developments that may affect the timing and scope of CTA reporting requirements.

Companies may also consult FinCEN’s BOI website at www.fincen.gov/boi for additional information, including its Small Entity Compliance Guide and list of Frequently Asked Questions.

Please contact your Varnum attorney or any member of Varnum’s CTA Taskforce if you have any questions about how the Corporate Transparency Act may impact you or your business.

Originally published on October 4, 2023. Revised on December 13, 2023.

Will I Have to Pay My Spouse?: Understanding the 11 Factors to Navigating Alimony

10 10 Advisory Willihavetopayalimony Linkedin

When considering a divorce, most people dread the thought of paying support to an ex-spouse in the wake of a dissolved marriage. Conversely, a spouse may dread the thought of not receiving enough support from their former economic partner. The truth is that spousal support is raised as an issue in nearly every case. Some cases warrant a comprehensive analysis of the issue while in others, the issue can be dismissed rather quickly. In all cases, it’s critical to have a skilled attorney assist you with navigating the various pitfalls.

In its simplest form, alimony can be explained as a balance between what a spouse needs versus what the opposing spouse is able to pay. To assist with finding this equilibrium, most practitioners consider a software program that is designed to produce guidelines. The guidelines act as a tool to begin the discussion, which is then further refined after considering the eleven factors derived from caselaw:

  1. The past relations and conduct of the parties;
  2. The length of the marriage;
  3. The abilities of the parties to work;
  4. The source and amount of property awarded to the parties;
  5. The parties’ ages;
  6. The abilities of the parties to pay alimony;
  7. The present situation of the parties;
  8. The needs of the parties;
  9. The parties’ health;
  10. The prior standard of living of the parties; and
  11. The general principles of equity.

It’s important to understand that while the courts are bound by considering the factors above, the parties are free to negotiate without using judicial resources. One of the more influential variables in the negotiation phase is the amount of property awarded to the parties. It is well established that a property award can shift the framework of a monthly obligation and duration of payments. However, one party should not be required to dissipate a property award to support themselves.

While the concept of support may sound dreadful, it can be a useful tool to amicably untangle you from your spouse. Let the Family Law Team at Varnum assist you with a tailored strategy that best suits your circumstances.

EPA Issues Final Rule on “Waters of the United States”

9 18 Advisory Newwotusrule Linkedin

On August 29, 2023, the Biden administration’s U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers unveiled a final rule poised to reshape environmental regulations. This rule, in alignment with the Supreme Court’s May verdict in Sackett v. EPA, redefines “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act (CWA), affecting wetlands nationwide. Under this ruling, agencies face more stringent criteria when determining jurisdiction over wetlands. (Please see Varnum’s May 31, 2023 Advisory). 

To conform with the Court’s Sackett decision, the EPA amended its definition of “adjacent” to apply to only adjacent wetlands “having a continuous surface connection” with a “waters of the United States.” Worth noting, the EPA also struck keywords from its prior “adjacent” definition like “bordering, contiguous, or neighboring” wetlands—further demonstrating that only wetlands having a continuous surface connection with a “waters of the United States” are under federal jurisdiction.

Some commentators have suggested that the new rule falls short of Sackett’s requirements.  The new “adjacent” definition does not speak to a wetland’s geographic proximity to a “waters of the United States” (WOTUS). As a result, any wetland with a “continuous surface connection” to a WOTUS could be governed by the CWA, even if the “adjacent” wetland was miles away with some hydrologic surface connection. This does not appear to be Sackett’s intention. 

Additionally, the amended rule no longer uses the prior “significant nexus” test—which analyzed whether wetlands “significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity” of a covered water—when considering if a body of water is regulated by the CWA.

This rule sets the stage for a contentious debate between environmental advocacy groups and states advocating for stringent regulation, and business interests and states favoring industry-friendly policies. However, given the EPA’s need to conform its rule with the Sackett decision, the agency has explained that the new WOTUS rule will not go through the typical federal Administrative Procedures Act’s procedures (like notice and public comment). 

For more information about the EPA’s new WOTUS rule, or wetland regulation contact a member of Varnum’s Environmental Law Practice Team. 

Strikes, Layoff, and Furloughs: Employer Considerations Amid UAW Labor Dispute with Automotive OEMs

9 15 Advisory Navigatinguawslabordispute Linkedin

With the United Auto Workers (UAW) beginning its strike against Ford, General Motors and Stellantis yesterday, many automotive suppliers and industry participants are now activating their contingency plans to navigate the downstream impact of this disruption. As the rubber hits the road, one particular management tool that cannot be overlooked is the ability to adjust your own workforce in the face of uncertain demand. In this advisory, Varnum’s labor and employment attorneys address key considerations involving furloughs and layoffs, their impact to employee benefits, unemployment benefits, employee retention and WARN Act compliance.

Furlough vs Layoff

A furlough is temporary mandatory time off for employees, normally without pay. Furlough’s may be utilized for a short block of time or a reduced work week. A layoff is a termination of employment, which may be intended to be temporary as a result of a business disruption or other economic reason. However, a layoff ends the employment relationship with a possible impact on employee benefit eligibility.

From the employee retention and benefits perspectives, the most critical difference is that furloughs depending on the actual plan documents, may permit employees to remain on the company plan for a greater period of time before being forced to elect COBRA. A key component of employee continuity is ensuring employee benefits continue to the extent possible. Furloughed employees may remain eligible to continue to participate in certain company benefits, such as health, dental, and vision for a period of 60 or more days depending on the plan language. Contributions to retirement/401k plans generally do not continue during a furlough because the contributions are determined by and derived from the employee’s compensation, but furloughed employees remain active participants, preserving key benefits and features such as vesting. Promptly having your benefits language reviewed is critical to successful continuation of benefits. With a layoff, benefits generally stop immediately or, at the latest, the end of the month.

Unemployment Benefits (for non-striking employees) 

In several states, including Michigan, the unemployment process can be simplified for the company and employees via a portal that allows the company to register furloughed employees thus reducing processing time. 

WARN Act

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act requires employers with 100 or more employees to provide 60 days of advance notice to employees and certain administrative agencies in advance of plant closings and mass layoffs in certain situations impacting 50 or more employees subject to exceptions. WARN Act notice requirements do not apply to strikers, or workers who have been locked out in a labor dispute. Additional exceptions to the WARN Act notice requirements include:

  • plant closing or mass layoff resulting is job loss for less than 50 at a single site of employment;
  • a loss of employment for 50 to 499 workers but that number is less than 33% of the employer’s total active workforce at a single site; and
  • a layoff for 6 months or less; or a reduction of work hours of not greater than 50% in each month of any 6-month period. 

WARN Act requirements are not initiated for a temporary furlough lasting less than six months. Some states have mini-WARN Acts providing stricter notice requirements than the federal WARN Act. Applicable state law should be consulted. More detail on the WARN Act to be provided in our next advisory.

* * * * *

Contact a member of our experienced labor, employment, and benefits team for assistance and with any questions if you are contemplating a temporary workforce reduction as a result of the UAW strike. Coordinating with legal counsel and benefit providers ensures that the company’s employee communications are clear, legally accurate, and effectively achieve the company’s goal. 

SECURE 2.0: New Distribution Options

9 13 Advisory Distributionchanges Linkedin

As part of our ongoing exploration of the change to retirement plans under SECURE 2.0, this advisory takes a closer look at the new distribution options. Beyond required distributions, plan sponsors have had several choices for when to allow distributions from defined contribution retirement plans. Common distribution options include at separation from service, death, disability, once the participant reaches age 59 1/2 or normal retirement age (often 65), as well as hardship distributions and loans. SECURE 2.0 creates several more distribution options, most of which are optional. As there are several changes and many are optional, it is important that plan sponsors take time now to decide which will be added to a retirement plan. Even though plan amendments are not immediately required, coordination with administrators, legal counsel and other service providers will help minimize the compliance risks.

New Options

The following chart provides some of the most important information about each distribution option, including whether adding the distribution option is voluntary and when it goes into effect.

Distribution OptionSummaryAmountIs Repayment Permitted?Is the Provision Optional?Effective Date
Federally Declared Disasters  For presidentially declared disasters, there is no longer a need to wait for IRS to issue guidance. Instead, once the disaster is declared, a distribution is permitted.  Up to the lesser of (a) $22,000; (b) the amount needed because of the disaster; and (c) account balance.  Yes, over three years following distribution date.No1/26/20
Emergency Personal Expenses  The distribution must be for a necessary personal or family emergency expense. Participants must wait three years between distributions.  Up to the lesser of (a) $1,000 and (b) the account balance, if less than $1,000.Yes, over three years following distribution date.Yes1/1/24
Domestic Abuse and Violence  Participants who self-certify to having experienced domestic abuse or violence.  Up to the lesser of (a) $10,000 and (b) 50% of account balance.  Yes, over three years following distribution date.  Yes1/1/24
Terminal Illness  Those diagnosed with a condition expected to result in death within 84 months may take a distribution. The plan is permitted to rely on certification from a physician.  No additional restrictions beyond the plan’s existing restrictions on distributions.SometimesYes1/1/24
Long Term Care Insurance Policy  For participants who obtain long term care insurance, some or all of the premium can be paid with their retirement plan account balance.Up to the lesser of (a) the amount of the long-term care; (b) $2,500 (adjusted annually); and (c) 10% of vested account balance.  NoYes12/29/25

SECURE 2.0 also creates the option for emergency accounts, beginning January 1, 2024. These emergency accounts are effectively non-retirement savings accounts within defined contribution plans that allow for pre-tax savings that are more readily available in an emergency. Participants in the retirement plan must be eligible to make contributions to the plan and cannot be a highly compensated employee. Contributions are treated as Roth contributions and subject to matching contributions from the employer. The amount a participant can contribute each year will depend on the amount already in the emergency account. Generally, contributions can be in an amount equal to 3% or less of compensation each year. However, the account balance cannot exceed $2,500, unless the plan sponsor sets a lower maximum. Plan sponsors who allow emergency accounts can also choose to automatically enroll eligible participants in an emergency account. Once contributions are made, the investment of the emergency fund is more limited than other assets of the plan. Each year participants can take up to four distributions without fees and additional distributions can be subject to reasonable fees.

Next Steps

With many of these options first available in the coming plan year, now is a prudent time to start the decision-making process on whether to incorporate the optional provisions. These new options are technical, and this summary covers only the most prominent aspects of the distribution provisions. A discussion with your recordkeepers, administrators and legal counsel now can help you make an informed decision that enables compliant administration of the new options.

DOL Proposes to Increase Salary Threshold Required for Most White-Collar Exemptions

8 30 Advisory Deptlaborissuesproposesrulechangingsalaryexemption Linkedin

Update: On April 23, 2024 the U.S. Department of Labor issued a final rule raising the salary threshold for exempt employees starting July 1, 2024. Read more about the potential impact to businesses in our latest update.

On August 30, 2023, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a new proposed rule that would change the required salary threshold for many salaried exempt employees. Under the proposal, the guaranteed salary that most employees must receive to qualify as exempt from the overtime rules will increase dramatically, to over $55,000 annually.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, employees who work in executive, administrative, professional, and certain computer positions must generally meet both the salary basis test and the job duty requirements to be classified as exempt from the overtime rules. In addition to being paid on a salary basis (which means there can be no deductions from salary, subject to certain limited exceptions), the threshold salary is currently $684 a week, amounting to $35,568 annually. The proposed rule seeks to raise the threshold for salaried employees significantly to $1,059 per week, or $55,068 annually—an increase of approximately $20,000 per year.

In addition, the new proposal would increase the total annual compensation threshold for exempt highly compensated employees from $107,432 to $143,988 annually—an increase of more than $36,000 per year. With these changes, the Department of Labor also proposes to add an automatic updating mechanism to increase these salary thresholds every three years based on available earnings data. No changes are proposed to the duties tests necessary to qualify for one of these exemptions.

After the proposal is published, the public will have 60 days to comment on the proposed rule. If the proposal is accepted as currently written, it will mean significant changes for employers in compensation structure, as more employees nationwide will qualify for overtime pay unless their salaries are increased over the new threshold.

Employers should immediately review their workforces to determine what changes, if any, may be necessary if the proposal is adopted as currently written. Possible considerations include:

  • raising the salary of employees who meet the duties test to at least $55,068 annually to retain their exempt status;
  • converting employees to non-exempt status and paying the overtime premium of one-and-one half times the employees’ regular pay rates for all overtime hours worked; or
  • converting employees to non-exempt status and eliminating or reducing the amount of overtime hours worked by such employees.

Similar considerations should be undertaken with highly compensated employees. While it is wise to review pay practices proactively and identify potential changes that may become necessary, employers may wish to continue to monitor developments prior to actually implementing changes. As employers may recall from the most previous instance in which a major overhaul of the salary basis regulations was proposed, in 2016, significant changes can occur between the announcement of a proposed rule and the ultimate adoption of the final regulation.

Employers are encouraged to consult with legal counsel to discuss their options and strategies for implementing these changes, if necessary. Varnum’s Labor and Employment Practice Team stands ready to assist employers with any questions or concerns they may have about this proposed rule.

Preparing Automotive Parts Suppliers for a Potential UAW Strike

Considerationsforautosuppliersinadvanceofapotentiauawstrike

Members of the United Auto Workers (UAW) union recently voted overwhelmingly to authorize a strike against General Motors, Ford, or Stellantis if the ongoing negotiations regarding a new labor contract fails. If your company is a parts supplier for any of these three automobile manufacturers, you should be aware that a UAW strike may lead these manufacturers to attempt to avoid or delay performance under their supplier contracts. A strike could therefore present issues that significantly effect contractual relationships in the automotive industry, including contracts through which your company supplies parts to the automobile manufacturers and contracts with your company’s suppliers.

With the potential of a UAW strike looming, it is essential for automobile parts suppliers to prepare to navigate this situation. If you are a supplier, the most important action that you should take is to ensure you fully understand the contractual rights between your company and both your customers and your suppliers. With a full understanding of how the strike affects your contractual rights, you can position your business to effectively manage the potential implications a UAW strike may have on the industry.

If you supply parts to one of the three Detroit automakers involved in the UAW negotiations – General Motors, Ford or Stellantis – your contract with that company may have provisions that alter each parties’ rights in the event of a strike. These provisions could include, but are not limited to, force majeure clauses, termination clauses, indemnification agreements, and limitation of liability clauses. You should ensure that you understand all rights and obligations under each agreement that you have with these three companies. An analysis of how those rights and obligations could be impacted can help your company analyze its options and the associated risks if the current UAW negotiations result in a strike.

In the same way that the three Detroit Automakers may attempt to leverage provisions of their supplier agreements to cancel, delay, or reduce orders, your company may be entitled to invoke contractual provisions that are contained in your contracts with your suppliers in order to reduce your exposure or prevent losses. You should be aware of your options under each supplier agreement and be prepared to analyze the impact that enforcing those provisions may have on both the immediate and long-term future of your company.

Given the uncertainty surrounding the immediate future of the automotive industry, strategic preparation is critical to ensuring your business is able to navigate this situation. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the impact the impending strikes may have on your contractual rights or obligations, Varnum’s experienced automotive supply chain attorneys are available to assist with contractual analysis and provide tailored guidance and support to protect your interests.

Streamlining M&A Transactions: New Broker-Dealer Exemption Empowers Intermediaries

8 28 Advisory Streamliningmatransactions Linkedin

As a part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, President Biden signed into law several provisions aimed at promoting private mergers and acquisitions (M&A) activity by easing the regulatory burden faced by M&A intermediaries. The new law grants additional broker-dealer registration exemptions for M&A intermediaries engaging in M&A transactions involving certain qualified privately held companies. This new exemption took effect on March 29, 2023 and represents a significant change from previous M&A intermediary qualifications in the M&A space.

For background, an M&A intermediary (or M&A advisor) is a professional or firm that facilitates and acts on behalf of companies in the process of buying, selling, merging, or acquiring other companies. M&A intermediaries can undertake a wide range of services in order to help clients navigate the various stages and strategic decisions involved in a potential M&A transaction. M&A intermediaries can take several different forms, including investment banks, boutique advisory firms, business brokers, and legal or financial consulting firms, and provide a wide range of services at various levels that can include business valuation, deal identification, deal structuring, negotiation, due diligence, regulatory compliance, and integration planning.

Before enacting the new exemption, M&A intermediaries facilitating the sale or purchase of businesses were subject to a more rigorous regulatory framework enforced by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The prior framework required M&A intermediaries to register as broker-dealers with the SEC, imposing various registration requirements, as well as various licensing and disclosure obligations. These requirements often proved to be significant impediments to engaging in M&A transactions for potential parties.

This summary explores the details, implications, and potential benefits to M&A intermediaries.

The New Exemption

In recent years, the SEC has recognized the need to streamline onerous obligations and make the regulatory environment for M&A intermediaries more accessible and efficient. As a result, these newly adopted exemptions provide significant relief to M&A intermediaries from a large portion of the previous registration and compliance requirements. In order to qualify for the new exemption, M&A intermediaries must meet a specific set of conditions, including, but not limited to:

  1. Deal Size: The exemption applies to transactions involving privately held companies with (i) an enterprise value of $250 million or less or (ii) a prior-year EBITDA of $25 million or less.
  1. Transaction Structure: The exemption covers various transaction structures, including equity purchases, asset purchases, mergers, and similar business combinations.
  1. Active Control: The buyer or group of buyers involved in the proposed transaction must have the ability to actively manage and operate the target company or the assets acquired through the transaction.
  1. Limited Compensation: M&A intermediaries must receive transaction-based compensation, which cannot be in the form of payment in securities of the buyer or the target company. Typically, this means a standard success fee or commission.

Additional Exemption Limitations

In addition to the limitations and requirements mentioned above, there are several activities that M&A intermediaries must refrain from engaging in to qualify for the exemption. An M&A intermediary cannot:

  1. Have control/custody of a buyer or target company’s funds or securities;
  1. Form a consortium of potential buyers;
  1. Hold or provide financing for a transaction;
  1. Obtain or facilitate financing for a transaction without full disclosure to all parties involved, including the lender;
  1. Facilitate a transaction involving a shell company;
  1. Engage in a public offering of securities as part of the transaction;
  1. Acquire authority to legally bind either the buyer or the target company;
  1. Represent both the buyer and seller without written consent from each party.

Participating in any of the aforementioned activities will disqualify an M&A intermediary from qualifying for the new exemption. Some of these areas fall into gray areas, and specific activities should be discussed with an attorney on a case-by-case basis.

Implications and Benefits

The new exemption for M&A intermediaries provides several benefits and potential implications for all participants in a proposed M&A transaction:

  1. Regulatory Relief and Transaction Efficiency: M&A intermediaries who qualify for the exemption will no longer be required to formally register as broker-dealers with the SEC. Removing this regulatory burden and its associated costs allows M&A intermediaries to focus more on executing potential transactions without the distraction of burdensome regulatory requirements. This is expected to lead to more flexible and expeditious operations by M&A intermediaries, resulting in smoother deal negotiations and closures. 
  1. Access to Broader Markets: The exemption provides breathing room for smaller M&A intermediaries who may have found it challenging to comply with extensive broker-dealer registration requirements. Additionally, this should lead to broader market access, encourage competition, and enhance deal flow across various sectors.
  1. Market Liquidity: Simplifying the regulatory landscape is expected to increase market liquidity. This should enable private companies to explore more strategic options and capital formation, contributing to more widespread economic growth across many market sectors. 

The new exemption for M&A intermediaries from federal broker-dealer registration signifies a meaningful step toward market efficiency by streamlining the transaction process, fostering competition, and enhancing market liquidity. This does not, however, imply that the exemption opens the floodgates to a new “wild west” of M&A intermediary activity. As mentioned earlier, several disqualifying activities and narrow requirements must still be met to qualify for this exemption, and state-level requirements should always be considered. 

The above is a high-level summary of the new exemption, and there are several details and excluded activities that may result in a registration requirement. For further discussion and answers to any questions, please reach out to any member of Varnum’s M&A Team.