Corporate Transparency Act Enforcement Remains Paused
On January 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay of the nationwide preliminary injunction issued by a federal district court in Texas in December 2024 in the Texas Top Cop Shop litigation.
However, a second nationwide injunction against the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) was issued earlier this month in the Smith v. Treasury litigation. The Supreme Court’s order in the Texas Top Cop Shop litigation does not specifically address the injunction in the Smith v. Treasury litigation. Because the injunction in the Smith v. Treasury litigation remains in effect, enforcement of the CTA remains paused.
FinCEN today stated that, because the nationwide injunction issued in the Smith v. Treasury litigation remains in place, reporting companies:
“are not currently required to file beneficial ownership information with FinCEN despite the Supreme Court’s action in Texas Top Cop Shop. Reporting companies also are not subject to liability if they fail to file this information while the Smith order remains in force. However, reporting companies may continue to voluntarily submit beneficial ownership information reports.”
The Texas Top Cop Shop and Smith v. Treasury litigations both originated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. While the Supreme Court’s order in the Texas Top Cop Shop litigation does not specifically address the injunction in the Smith v. Treasury litigation, Foley’s CTA team would not be surprised if the injunction in the Smith v. Treasury litigation was to be stayed or lifted soon. Therefore, companies may want to keep preparing their beneficial ownership information reports so that, if CTA enforcement resumes, they will be ready to submit their required reports by the applicable filing deadlines.
SEC Withdraws Crypto Accounting Bulletin
With little fanfare, on January 23, 2025, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) withdrew controversial Staff Accounting Bulletin 121 regarding custody of digital assets. In its place, new Staff Accounting Bulletin 122 directs registrants to Accounting Standards Codification 450-20, Loss Contingencies and International Accounting Standard 37, Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets.
SAB 121 proved highly controversial, and during the last Congress both the House and Senate voted to repeal it under the Congressional Review Act. President Biden vetoed that repeal.
SAB 122 instructs SEC registrants to “continue to consider existing requirements to provide disclosures that allow investors to understand an entity’s obligation to safeguard crypto-assets held for others,” and points to other accounting literature that may be instructive. The issuance of SAB 122 and withdrawal of SAB 121 comes just days after the SEC announced a new “Crypto 2.0” initiative on its approach to digital assets.
Update: California State Assembly Passes AB 3129 Requiring State Approval of Private Equity Healthcare Deals
California’s AB 3129, which would require private equity firms and hedge funds to obtain prior approval to consummate certain healthcare-related transactions, is now one step closer to becoming law following the State Assembly’s May 22, 2024 passage of the pending legislation. The legislation is now being considered by the California State Senate, where approval must be obtained prior to the end of the legislative session in August if it is to be enacted into law this year.
As previewed in our prior blog post, if enacted, AB 3129 would require private equity firms and hedge funds to file an application with the state Attorney General at least 90 days in advance of a transaction involving the acquisition or change of control of healthcare facilities and provider groups and in most cases, await approval to close the transaction. Furthermore, the bill would place significant restrictions on the ability of private equity and other investors to implement “friendly PC-MSO” and similar arrangements, which are widely used today by stakeholders as an investment structure to avoid violating California’s prohibition on the corporate practice of medicine.
While the bill has not yet been enacted into law, the State Assembly’s passage of the bill does represent positive momentum for proponents of the legislation, and stakeholders should be aware of the legislation’s broad implications on the structuring and consummation of healthcare-related transactions in the state.
President Trump’s Executive Order Steering Digital Assets Policy
As promised during his campaign, President Trump has taken significant steps to support the digital asset industry during his first week in office. On 23 January 2025, he signed an executive order initiating digital asset regulatory rollbacks and a new federal framework governing cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, and other digital assets (the Order).
On the same day, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rescinded the controversial Staff Accounting Bulletin 121, which required crypto custodians and banks to reflect digital assets in their custody as both an asset and a liability on their balance sheets. Earlier in the week, the SEC established Crypto 2.0, a crypto task force designed to provide paths for registration and reasonable disclosure frameworks, and to allocate enforcement resources “judiciously.”
The Order recognizes the role the digital asset industry serves in our economy and aims to support the responsible growth and use of digital assets by promoting dollar-backed stablecoins and providing regulatory clarity. The Order lays the groundwork for a regulatory shift furthering digital assets policy, focusing on the creation of “technology-neutral regulations” tailored to digital assets.
In addition to prohibiting agencies from facilitating any central bank digital currencies, the Order establishes a working group comprised of the heads of various agencies (the Working Group) and sets three deadlines:
22 February 2025: Federal agencies must report to the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto with the regulations or other agency guidance that affect the digital asset sector.
24 March 2025: Federal agencies must submit recommendations on whether to rescind or modify these regulations and guidance.
22 July 2025: The Working Group must submit a report to the President on regulatory and legislative proposals to advance digital assets policy. This report must include a proposed Federal framework for the issuance and operation of digital assets, including stablecoins, and evaluate whether establishing a national digital assets stockpile is possible.
Navigating New York’s Proposed Cost Market Impact Review
In January 2025, New York Governor Kathy Hochul proposed legislation within her FY 2026 Executive Budget that could significantly reshape healthcare transactions in the state. This legislation introduces a “Cost Market Impact Review” (CMIR) process for material transactions involving healthcare entities, aiming to assess their effects on cost, quality, access, health equity, and competition. While the proposal has sparked conversations across the healthcare and private equity sectors, it offers a pivotal opportunity for strategic planning and collaboration if approached with foresight.
At its core, the CMIR process signals a broader regulatory shift prioritizing transparency and accountability in healthcare transactions. Under the proposed legislation, healthcare entities contemplating material transactions would face an extended pre-closing notice period, new annual reporting obligations, and the potential for lengthy delays due to comprehensive reviews by the New York Department of Health (DOH). For stakeholders, this represents both a challenge and an opportunity to align transactions with the state’s goals of improving healthcare outcomes and equity while ensuring compliance.
Understanding the Proposal’s Scope and Ambiguities
The legislation’s potential impact hinges on several undefined terms, such as what constitutes a “healthcare entity,” “material transaction,” and “de minimis exception.” Currently, healthcare entities broadly include physician practices, health systems, insurers, and management services organizations, among others. The law would apply to transactions that increase a healthcare entity’s gross in-state revenues by $25 million or more. However, how “in-state revenues” are calculated remains ambiguous, leaving room for interpretation.
The proposed legislation also empowers the DOH to require extensive documentation during its preliminary review and potential CMIR. While these measures aim to protect patients and communities by fostering competition and health equity, they may add layers of complexity and delay to transactions, particularly for private equity sponsors and healthcare systems accustomed to more streamlined processes.
Strategic Planning Amid Heightened Scrutiny
Private equity firms, hospital systems, and other stakeholders must adopt proactive strategies to address these regulatory changes. Given the increased focus on healthcare transaction transparency, due diligence will need to evolve. It will no longer suffice to simply evaluate the financial viability and operational synergies of a deal. Instead, stakeholders must incorporate a detailed assessment of a transaction’s impact on access, quality, and equity, as perceived by regulators.
This requires tailoring transaction structures to align with New York’s healthcare priorities. For instance, parties might emphasize commitments to underserved communities, bolster access to primary care, or invest in workforce development as part of their transaction narratives. Doing so not only mitigates regulatory risk but also positions the transaction as a partnership with the state in achieving shared healthcare goals.
Implications for Private Equity and Healthcare Systems
For private equity firms, the proposed legislation underscores the importance of long-term planning in healthcare investments. Firms will need to engage legal and regulatory experts early to navigate the complexities of compliance. Moreover, these firms should be prepared to articulate how their transactions contribute to innovation and sustainability in healthcare delivery.
Healthcare systems, on the other hand, may face challenges balancing transaction timelines with regulatory compliance. However, this moment also presents an opportunity for hospital systems to demonstrate leadership in addressing cost and quality challenges. By proactively engaging with state regulators, healthcare systems can set a collaborative tone, shaping CMIR outcomes in their favor.
Opportunities Amid Challenges
While the CMIR process may lengthen transaction timelines and require more robust documentation, it also opens the door for stakeholders to differentiate themselves. Transactions that clearly address New York’s objectives—whether by improving access to care, addressing social determinants of health, or enhancing health equity—will likely stand out in the regulatory process.
Furthermore, the proposal encourages healthcare entities to think beyond traditional metrics of success. Transactions that integrate advanced data analytics, innovative care models, or population health initiatives may not only meet regulatory requirements but also unlock new avenues for growth and patient impact.
Looking Ahead
The proposed legislation reflects a growing trend across the U.S., where states are increasingly scrutinizing healthcare transactions to ensure alignment with public policy goals. Massachusetts and Indiana have introduced similar requirements, and other states may follow suit. As such, the New York proposal serves as both a cautionary tale and a roadmap for stakeholders navigating this evolving landscape.
For private equity firms, hospital systems, and other healthcare stakeholders, now is the time to adapt. This means not only preparing for regulatory compliance but also embracing a more collaborative approach to transactions. By aligning with state priorities, stakeholders can turn regulatory challenges into opportunities to drive meaningful, sustainable change in healthcare delivery.
The road ahead requires careful navigation, but the potential rewards—improved healthcare outcomes, stronger partnerships with regulators, and enhanced community impact—make the journey worthwhile.
Listen to this article
Massachusetts Expands Oversight of Private Equity Investment in Healthcare: Key Takeaways from House Bill 5159 Signed into Law by Governor Healey
On January 8, 2025, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey signed House Bill 5159 (“H.5159”) into law, marking a notable expansion of the regulation of private equity investments within the Massachusetts healthcare sector. The legislation, set to take effect on April 8, 2025, introduces new measures to enhance transparency and accountability in healthcare transactions, focusing specifically on private equity firms, real estate investment trusts (“REITs”), and management services organizations (“MSOs”). This development also reflects a broader trend across the nation of increasing scrutiny of healthcare transactions and investments by private equity firms and other investors, as highlighted in our previous blog series on California’s Assembly Bill 3129.[i]
Key Provisions of H.5159
The enactment into law of H.5159 increases oversight of healthcare transactions in Massachusetts in several ways:
1. Expanded Definition of Material Changes Requiring Notice to the Massachusetts Health Policy Commission and Potential for Further Delays to Closing
Pre-existing Massachusetts law mandates that healthcare providers and provider organizations, including physician practices, healthcare facilities, independent practice associations, accountable care organizations, and any other entities that contract with carriers for the payment of healthcare services, with more than $25 million in Net Patient Service Revenue[ii] in the preceding fiscal year must submit a Material Change Notice (“MCN”) to the Massachusetts Health Policy Commission (“HPC”), Center for Health Information and Analysis (“CHIA”), and Office of the Attorney General at least 60 days prior to a proposed “material change” involving such entity.
Before H.5159 was enacted, the definition of “material change” already encompassed several types of transactions involving healthcare providers and provider organizations with more that $25 million in Net Patient Service Revenue, requiring them to submit an MCN to the Massachusetts HPC, CHIA, and Office of the Attorney General. These include:
A merger, acquisition, or affiliation between a healthcare Provider and an insurance carrier;
A merger, acquisition, or affiliation involving a hospital or hospital system;
Any acquisition, merger, or affiliation that results in an increase of $10 million or more in annual net patient service revenue, or grants the Provider or Provider Organization near-majority market share in a specific service or geographic area;
Clinical affiliations between two or more Providers or Provider Organizations with annual net patient service revenue of $25 million or more, excluding affiliations solely for clinical trials or medical education purposes; and
The formation of new entities such as joint ventures, MSOs, or accountable care organizations that contract with insurers or other administrators on behalf of healthcare Providers.
H.5159 notably broadens the definition of “material change” to include also:
Transactions involving a Significant Equity Investor that result in a change of ownership or control of a Provider or Provider Organization;
“Significant” acquisitions, sales, or transfers of assets, including, but not limited to, real estate sale-leaseback arrangements;
“Significant expansions” in a Provider or Provider Organization’s capacity;
Conversion of nonprofit Providers or Provider Organizations to for-profit entities; and
Mergers or acquisitions of Provider Organizations that will result in the Provider Organization having a dominant market share in a service or region.
The term “Significant Equity Investor” is broadly defined to include: (i) any private equity firm holding a financial interest in a Provider, Provider Organization, or MSO; and (ii) any investor, group of investors, or entity with ownership of 10% or more in such organizations. The definition specifically excludes venture capital firms solely funding startups and other early-stage businesses.
While the law expands the definition of “material change” to encompass the categories listed above, it does not explicitly define what constitutes a “significant acquisition,” “significant expansion,” or “change of ownership or control.” As of now, these terms are left to be clarified by the HPC through further regulation and guidance. Stakeholders should monitor future regulatory updates from the HPC to understand the specific thresholds for these types of transactions.
If the HPC determines within 30 days of receiving a complete MCN that a “material change” may significantly affect Massachusetts’ ability to meet healthcare cost growth benchmarks or impact market competition, the HPC can initiate a Cost and Market Impact Review (“CMIR”). This process requires detailed submissions from transaction parties and significantly extends the transaction timeline to close a deal.
The amended law also enhances the HPC’s information-gathering capabilities, authorizing the HPC to request detailed data on Significant Equity Investors, including financial data and capital structure information. Additionally, the HPC can now monitor and collect information on post-transaction impacts for up to five years following a material change. While nonpublic information submitted to the HPC remains confidential, the filed MCN and the completed CMIR report will be publicly available on the HPC’s website.
Although the HPC cannot directly prohibit a transaction or impose conditions, it can refer its CMIR findings to the Massachusetts Attorney General, Massachusetts Department of Public Health (“DPH”), or other state agencies for further action.
2. Investors May be Called as Witnesses at Annual Public Hearings
H.5159 authorizes the HPC to assess the impact of Significant Equity Investors, healthcare REITs, and MSOs on healthcare costs, prices, and cost trends. HPC is empowered to call a representative sample of these investors to testify at its annual public hearings under oath. The Attorney General may intervene in these hearings, ensuring rigorous oversight and accountability.
3. Annual Financial Reporting Requirements
Certain Provider Organizations are already required to register with the HPC (“Registered Provider Organizations”) and submit annual reports to the CHIA. To be subject to the registration requirement, a provider organization must meet at least one of the following criteria: (a) annual net patient service revenue from private carriers or third-party administrators of at least $25 million in the prior fiscal year; (b) a patient panel of more than 15,000 over the past 36 months; or (c) classification as a risk-bearing provider organization, regardless of revenue or panel size. This includes, but is not limited to, physician organizations, independent practice associations, accountable care organizations, and provider networks.
H.5159 expands reporting obligations for Registered Provider Organizations to include detailed information about the Registered Provider Organization’s Significant Equity Investors, healthcare REITs, and MSOs. It also clarifies that Registered Provider Organization financial statements must cover parent entities’ out-of-state operations and corporate affiliates. Additionally, the amended law authorizes the state to require quarterly submissions from Registered Provider Organizations with private equity involvement. These submissions may include audited financial statements, structure charts, margins, investments, and relationships with investor groups. Organizations must also report on costs, annual receipts, realized capital gains and losses, accumulated surplus, and reserves. The HPC will monitor prior transactions and investments for up to five years and notify organizations of future reporting deadlines as needed.
4. Penalties for Noncompliance with Reporting Requirements
H.5159 imposes stricter penalties for failing to submit required financial reports. Entities missing reporting deadlines may face fines of up to $25,000 per week after a two-week grace period, with no annual penalty cap. This is a substantial increase from prior penalties, which were capped at $50,000 annually.
5. Expanded Authority for the Attorney General
The Massachusetts Attorney General is authorized to review and analyze any information submitted to CHIA by a provider, provider organization, Significant Equity Investor, health care REIT, MSO or payer. The Attorney General may compel such entities to produce documents, answer interrogatories, or provide testimony under oath concerning healthcare costs, cost trends, and the relationship between provider costs and payer premiums.
The Attorney General may disclose such information during HPC annual public hearings, rate hearings before the Division of Insurance, and legal proceedings because the law deems such information to be in the public interest.
6. Expanded Massachusetts False Claims Act Liability
H.5159 amends the Massachusetts False Claims Act (the “MA FCA”), which is broader in scope than the Federal False Claims Act, to expand liability to entities holding an “ownership or investment interest” in a person or entity violating the MA FCA. Specifically, private equity owners and other investors who are aware of a violation and fail to report and remedy it within 60 days of discovery may be held liable. The law codifies this expanded accountability, explicitly including investor groups among those who can be held responsible for untimely reporting violations. Additionally, the amendments clarify the Attorney General’s authority to issue civil investigative demands to healthcare entities and investor groups.
Notable Exclusions from Earlier Proposals
H.5159 reflects several compromises that were made during the legislative process, resulting in a more moderate version compared to earlier proposals. The process began in May 2024 with the introduction of House Bill 4653, followed by Senate Bill 2871 in July 2024.[iii] Senate Bill 2871 included stricter requirements than those in House Bill 4653, but lawmakers struggled to reconcile the differences before the legislative session deadline on July 31, 2024. This stalemate led to renewed efforts in December 2024, which ultimately resulted in the passage of H.5159.
While H.5159 carries forward many of the provisions from the earlier bills, it also removes certain measures that stakeholders had identified as too burdensome, as outlined below. These exclusions include:
Restrictions on Practice Ownership and Clinical Decision Making: provisions explicitly codifying restrictions on healthcare practice ownership and prohibiting MSOs or other healthcare entities from exerting control over clinical decisions were omitted.
Boundaries Between MSOs and Physician Practices: H.5159 also excludes specific boundaries that were previously proposed to regulate the relationship between physician practices and MSOs, including restrictions on MSOs exerting ultimate control over the finances of healthcare practices and limitations on stockholders’ ability to transfer, alienate, or exercise discretion over their ownership interests in the practices.
Maximum Debt-to-EBITDA: A provision that would have allowed the Massachusetts HPC to set a maximum debt-to-EBITDA ratio for provider organizations with private equity investors was removed from the final bill that was signed into law.
Bond Requirements for Private Equity Firms: H.5159 does not include the previously proposed requirement that private equity firms deposit a bond with the DPH when submitting an MCN, including when acquiring a provider organization.
Conclusion
The passage of H.5159 represents a pivotal moment in Massachusetts’ efforts to regulate investment in health care. It also reflects, however, a compromise that did not impose even more stringent requirements that were set to impact providers, provider organizations, and investors.
Investors, including private equity firms, and healthcare providers and provider organizations, will need to adapt to the enhanced oversight mechanisms and implement more thorough due diligence practices to ensure transparency and avoid penalties for non-compliance. Pre-transaction, this includes ensuring thorough documentation and proactive engagement with regulatory authorities. Post-transaction, entities must implement systems to track and report required financial and operational data accurately and on time.
As H.5159 takes effect, we will continue to monitor and report on any further regulatory updates, particularly those concerning the HPC’s development of regulations to implement this law.
FOOTNOTES
[i] Update: Governor Newsom Vetoes California’s AB 3129 Targeting Healthcare Private Equity Deals | Healthcare Law Blog (sheppardhealthlaw.com), published October 2, 2024, Update: AB 3129 Passes in California Senate and Nears Finish Line | Healthcare Law Blog (sheppardhealthlaw.com), published September 6, 2024, California’s AB 3129: A New Hurdle for Private Equity Health Care Transactions on the Horizon? | Healthcare Law Blog (sheppardhealthlaw.com), published April 18, 2024, and Update: California State Assembly Passes AB 3129 Requiring State Approval of Private Equity Healthcare Deals | Healthcare Law Blog (sheppardhealthlaw.com), published May 30, 2024.
[ii] Net Patient Service Revenue refers to revenue received for patient care from third-party payers, net of contractual adjustments, with distinctions depending on the type of Provider or Provider Organization. For hospitals, it must comply with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 12C, Section 8, requiring standardized reporting of gross and net revenues, including inpatient and outpatient charges, private sector charges, payer mix adjustments, and revenue from additional services. For other providers and provider organizations, it includes all revenue from third-party payers, prior-year settlements, and premium revenue (per-member-per-month payments for comprehensive healthcare services). 950 CMIR 7.00.
[iii] See our prior blog for background on Senate Bill 2871: Massachusetts Senate Passes Bill to Increase Oversight of Private Equity Healthcare Transactions | Healthcare Law Blog
Listen to this post
The Regulation on Markets in Crypto-Assets Becomes Fully Applicable in All Member States of the European Union
Application of Markets in Crypto-Assets Phase I and Phase II
Starting on 30 June 2024, with the application of the first of two introduction phases of the Regulation on Markets in Crypto-assets (MiCA)1 across all member states of the European Union (EU), the EU has introduced for the first time a harmonized regulatory framework as well as accompanying passporting rights for service providers of the crypto-asset market, affecting both traditional institutions of the financial sector and new players emerging in the crypto-ecosystem.2
As of 30 December 2024, the second phase of MiCA, and therefore MiCA in its entirety, is directly applicable throughout the EU.
With the first phase of MiCA’s introduction, the provisions of Titles III and IV of MiCA, governing the authorisation and supervision of both: (i) crypto assets that aim to maintain a stable value by referencing several currencies that are legal tender, one or several commodities, one or several crypto-assets, or a basket of such assets (asset-referenced tokens or ART); and (ii) crypto assets that are intended primarily as a means of payment and that aim to stabilize their value by referencing only one fiat currency (e-money tokens or EMT), became applicable.
The second introduction phase has activated the remaining elements of MiCA regulating crypto-assets other than ART and EMT and regarding providers offering crypto-asset services, referred to as crypto-asset service providers (CASPs).
Several items of second-level legislation (delegated acts) have been either prepared by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, as final drafts or have already been issued by the European Commission in December 2024, regarding points such as own funds and qualified holding requirements, stress testing programmes and remuneration policy of issuers of ART and EMT.
Supersession by MiCA of the Local Virtual Asset Service Provider Regime and Transition Period
Prior to the general application of MiCA in all EU member states, providers of services with respect of virtual assets were subject to the supervisory regime under their applicable national law. In Luxembourg, the national legislator introduced the virtual asset service provider (VASP)3 regime, supervised by Luxembourg’s financial sector supervisory authority (CSSF). An entity contemplating to provide virtual asset services in Luxembourg is required to register upfront with the CSSF.
With the entry into force of MiCA, the VASP regime is no longer available for first-time registration. As of 30 December 2024, service providers seeking to carry out crypto-asset activities will be required to seek authorisation from their national competent authority (NCA) as a CASP (governed by MiCA). For certain entities already subject to prudential supervision, such as credit institutions and investment firms, it is sufficient to notify their NCA of their intention to provide crypto-asset services. Unlike the VASP regime, which is a purely national (Luxembourg) regime, the CASP regime grants the benefit of EU-wide passporting of activities under MiCA. Service providers already registered in Luxembourg as VASPs benefit from a transitionary regime, permitting them to be treated as CASPs in most respects until 1 July 2026, at which time they will be required to have become authorised CASPs.
ESMA Issues Statement on MiCA Transitional Measures
The 18-month transitional period provided for Luxembourg VASPs is the maximum window permitted by MiCA. MiCA permits EU member states to adopt a transitional period shorter than 18 months for local service providers. To date, 15 EU member states have taken that step and adopted five-, six-, nine- or 12-month transitional periods.4
Transitional periods that deviate between EU member states might create uncertainty for VASPs registered as such and providing covered services in multiple EU member states. A statement released by ESMA on 17 December 2024, clarifies that each EU member state’s transitional period will only apply to the provision of covered services provided in that relevant EU member state.5
For example, an entity, which is registered as a VASP and seeking a MiCA authorisation as a CASP in a first EU member state with a 12-months transition period, while also serving clients in a second EU member state with a six-month transition period, should take action to ensure compliance at all times with the applicable law of the EU member state with the shorter transition period. In particular, if the authorisation as CASP is granted in the first EU member state only after the transition period in the second EU member state has ended, the entity will not be able to provide crypto-asset services to clients in that second EU member state until it has obtained its authorisation as CASP and can rely on the passporting granted under MiCA.
In its statement, ESMA reminds NCAs across the EU to maintain a thorough picture of the cross-border activities of those service providers applying for a CASP status and to engage in early and continuous dialogue with their counterparts in relevant jurisdictions to mitigate the risk of disruptions in services that could cause harm to such service providers’ clients.
European Supervisory Authorities Joint Guidelines on Standardised Classification of Crypto-Assets
In advance of the entry into force of the second part of, and as contemplated by, MiCA, the three European supervisory authorities (ESAs): (i) the European Banking Authority; (ii) the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority; and (iii) ESMA released on 10 December 20246, a set of joint guidelines to promote the consistent application of MiCA across the EU.
The guidelines intend to facilitate consistency in the regulatory classification of crypto-assets, noting that MiCA does not apply to crypto-assets that are unique and not fungible with other crypto-assets; or which qualify as financial instruments, deposits, insurance and pension products or similar products which are in scope of the relevant sectoral legal framework.
The guidelines include a standardised test for the classification of crypto-assets as well as templates market participants should use when communicating the regulatory classification of a crypto-asset to their relevant NCA.
ESMA Encourages Investor Prudence With Respect of Crypto-Assets
In the context of the full entry into force of MiCA and the sharp rise in value of certain crypto-assets in November 2024, ESMA issued a warning on 13 December 20247, reiterating the inherent risk of investing in crypto-assets and reminding investors that the safeguards provided by MiCA are less extensive than those for traditional investment products.
Comparing MiCA with the frameworks regulating the provision of traditional investment services, ESMA in particular notes, that:
Crypto-assets are not to be covered by an investor compensation scheme and, consequently, investors face the risk of a total loss, if a CASP is unable to return a crypto-asset to them;
MiCA does not require all providers of crypto-asset services to collect clients’ information to assess their ability to understand the crypto-asset products they wish to trade;
Crypto-asset service providers have no obligation to periodically report to clients the crypto-assets they hold on clients’ behalf with their updated or current value; and
The above-noted transitional period may leave investors without some of the investor-protection resources provided by MiCA until the relevant CASP’s authorisation as a CASP, as, under the VASP regime, an NCA’s power may be restricted to the enforcement of antimoney laundering rules.
Conclusion
The full implementation of MiCA heralds a new era of harmonised supervision for crypto-assets across the EU to provide legal certainty through a flexible legal framework for CASPs and protection for holders of crypto-assets (while remaining less extensive than those in place for traditional investment products), as well as to ensure the overall integrity of the crypto-asset market. The delegated acts in preparation and already issued by the European Commission, along with the supplementary guidance provided by ESMA and the ESAs promise to flesh out the MiCA framework.
Footnotes
1 Regulation – 2023/1114 – EN – EUR-Lex.
2 See the blog post dated 24 May 2024, for further details. This blog post is available here: EU/Luxembourg Update on the Regulation on Markets in Crypto-Assets and the Digital Operational Resilience Act.
3 See the client alert dated 13 September 2023, for further details. This client alert is available here: Luxembourg Financial Services Regulator, the Financial Sector Supervisory Commission, and Issues FAQs on “Virtual Asset Service Provider” Regime.
4 A table of transitional periods by EU member state has been published by ESMA and is available here: List of grandfathering periods decided by Member States under MiCA.
5 ESMA’s statement of 17 December 2024, is available here: ESMA Statement on MiCA Transitional Measures.
6 The joint guidelines issued by the ESAs are available here: Joint ESA Guidelines 10 December 2024.
7 ESMA’s warning of 13 December 2024, is available here: ESMA Warning on crypto-assets 13 December 2024.
CFPB Guidance and State Consumer Protection: 2025 Considerations
Go-To Guide:
States may increase consumer protection enforcement as the CFPB potentially shifts focus under the new administration in 2025.
Following CFPB recommendations, states might consider updating laws on fees, financial data privacy, and consumer lawsuits.
Companies will benefit from staying informed about both federal and state consumer protection laws and their potential changes.
To get ahead of potential staffing and priority changes under the new administration, on Jan. 14, 2025, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued guidance to state attorneys general and other regulatory bodies regarding consumer protection enforcement.
In two reports issued on the same day, the CFPB provided guidance as to what federal consumer protection laws other agencies or private citizens could enforce, and urged states to strengthen their consumer protection laws. The CFPB’s guidance follows an April 2024 FTC report, “Working Together to Protect Consumers: A Study and Recommendations on FTC Collaboration with the State Attorneys General,” which describes information-sharing tools and practices relating to consumer complaints to aid investigations. The CFPB guidance contained model language to ban “hidden” fees, adopt financial data privacy safeguards, and ease the process for impacted consumer lawsuits. The CFPB recommended that states expand their regulators’ investigative tools and enforcement remedies and modernize the standards of fair dealing using existing models in state and federal law.
In particular, the CFPB suggested that states:
Ban “abusive” practices in state law to end schemes that obscure product features or use power imbalances to gain advantage and increase costs, like the Consumer Financial Protection Act.
Ensure that attorneys general have adequate investigatory authorities and can pursue remedies that protect consumers and make them whole.
Remove evidentiary hurdles that frustrate private rights of action, such as requiring plaintiffs to prove individual monetary harm.
Ensure that consumer protection law also protects businesses.
Authorize forms of private enforcement that can remain viable in the face of forced arbitration.
Ban common schemes in the modern economy, including junk fees and abuse of personal data.
Since 2018, there has been an increase in federal-state partnerships for consumer financial cases, investigations, and enforcement actions. This may continue with a potential shift from CFPB to state-led actions. For example, in the case of Federal Trade Commission; Office of the Maryland Attorney General, Consumer Protection Division v. Lindsay Chevrolet LLC et al., the Office of the Maryland Attorney General, Consumer Protection Division is seeking to enjoin defendants from engaging in alleged unfair or deceptive trade practices in the course of offering and selling vehicles to consumers in the Maryland, and to obtain relief for those consumers victimized by the alleged unlawful practices.
Similarly, in Federal Trade Commission et al. v. Coulter Motor Company LLC et al., the FTC and Arizona brought an action to obtain permanent injunctions, civil penalties, restitution, and other equitable relief against defendants for allegedly luring consumers into their dealerships with low advertised prices for new and used vehicles, which are higher than advertised due to surprise market adjustments, fees, and other costs.
Partnerships between state attorneys general in pursuing enforcement actions may also increase. In 2017, during the first Trump administration, several states, led by New York and California, agreed to team up on consumer protection and financial services cases that the federal government chose not to pursue. Statements that Democratic attorneys general released after the election indicate that they may follow a similar path.
The CFPB’s message to the consumer financial industry is clear – state investigations may increase if federal enforcement decreases. Companies should be familiar with (1) existing consumer protection laws, (2) legislative action to provide more consumer-friendly laws, and (3) active and ongoing joint investigations between the state and federal consumer agencies. As states react to changing federal priorities under the new administration, reviewing any changes at the state consumer protection level may help to ensure companies are aware of applicable state laws and potentially avoid enforcement actions.
US Fair Access and Anti-Debanking Laws: What to Expect During the New Administration
Federal and state “fair access” or “anti-debanking” laws and regulations have been evolving quickly over the last five years, closely tracking the changing U.S. political climate. These laws and regulations are designed to ensure that financial institutions make their services available without discriminating against individuals or businesses engaged in lawful activity that may be viewed as controversial or politically sensitive. The “fair access” requirements generally prohibit financial institutions from denying or cancelling services to customers based on factors such as political opinions, religious beliefs, and environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards. While the intent of such laws and regulations is to promote impartiality, they introduce significant challenges to the financial sector.
Financial institutions should prepare for revived activity on fair access laws at both the federal and state levels under the new administration.
Background on Federal Fair Access Initiatives
During the first Trump Administration, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) released its “fair access” final rule (OCC Final Rule), requiring “covered banks” (i.e., national banks and federal savings associations (FSAs) with at least $100 billion in assets) to:
a.
Make financial services available to all persons in their geographic market on “proportionally equal terms;”
b.
not deny any person a financial service unless the denial is justified by such person’s quantified and documented failure to meet quantitative, impartial, risk-based standards established in advance by the covered bank; and
c.
not deny, in coordination with others, any person a financial service the covered bank offers.
The OCC noted that the OCC Final Rule: (a) codified prior OCC guidance providing that banks should conduct a risk assessment of individual customers, rather than make broad-based decisions affecting whole categories or classes of customers, when providing access to services, capital, and credit; and (b) implemented language in Title III of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, charging the OCC with “assuring the safety and soundness of, and compliance with laws and regulations, fair access to financial services, and fair treatment of customers by, the institutions and other persons subject to its jurisdiction.” The OCC Final Rule was set to take effect on April 1, 2021, but on Jan. 28, 2021 (shortly after former President Biden took office and imposed a regulatory freeze), the OCC paused the rule’s publication in the Federal Register. Regarding this pause, the OCC noted that its “long-standing supervisory guidance stating that banks should avoid termination of broad categories of customers without assessing individual customer risk [would] remain…in effect.”
During the Biden administration, a bill titled “Fair Access to Banking Act” was introduced in both the U.S. House and Senate.1 The Fair Access to Banking Act aimed to require banks with assets of more than $10 billion provide fair access to financial services “without impediments caused by a prejudice against or dislike for a person or the business of the customer.”2 Failure to do so could result in restrictions on the bank relating to the use of electronic funds transfer systems and lending programs, termination of depository insurance, and civil penalties.3
State Fair Access Law Initiatives
While federal efforts to enact legislation and rulemaking stalled under the Biden administration, states such as Florida and Tennessee enacted their own “fair access” or “anti-debanking” legislation.
A.
Florida
In May 2023, the state enacted its “fair access” law through 2023 Florida House Bill No. 3 (FL HB 3). FL HB 3 created new “unsafe and unsound practice” standards for certain financial institutions in Florida,4 prohibiting them from denying, canceling, suspending, or terminating services to current or prospective customers, or otherwise discriminating against customers, on the basis of:
a.
the customer’s political opinions, speech, or affiliations;
b.
the customer’s religious beliefs, religious exercise, or religious affiliations;
c.
any factor if it is not a quantitative, impartial, and risk-based standard, including any factor relating to the customer’s business sector; or
d.
any rating, scoring, analysis, tabulation, or action that considers a social credit score based on certain factors.
Since July 1, 2023, these affected financial institutions have been required to attest their compliance with the fair access law on an annual basis under penalty of perjury.
In May 2024, Florida expanded its fair access law through 2024 Florida House Bill No. 989 (FL HB 989). FL HB 989: (a) expanded the applicability of the state’s fair access law to bring into scope federal and non-Florida licensed financial institutions conducting business in the state that do not hold status as Florida “qualified public depositories;” (b) created a customer complaint process with the Florida Office of Financial Regulation (OFR) for customers who suspect that a “financial institution” violated the “unsafe and unsound practice” standard established in the fair access law; and (c) created an investigatory process with the OFR for customer complaints.
B.
Tennessee
Tennessee enacted its fair access law in April 2024, through 2024 Tennessee House Bill No. 2100 (TN HB 2100), imposing fair access requirements on: (a) state and national banks, savings and loan associations, savings banks, credit unions, industrial loan and thrift companies, and mortgage lenders that have more than $100 billion in assets; and (b) insurers.
Like Florida, Tennessee’s fair access law requires these institutions to make determinations about the provision of services based on an analysis of risk factors unique to the current or prospective customer, and prohibits them from denying or cancelling services, or otherwise discriminating against a person in making available such services or in the terms or conditions of such services, on the basis of5
a.
the person’s political opinions, speech, or affiliations;
b.
the person’s religious beliefs, religious exercise, or religious affiliations;
c.
any factor if it is not a quantitative, impartial, and risk-based standard, including any factor relating to the person’s business sector; or
d.
the use of a rating, scoring, analysis, tabulation, or action that considers a social credit score based on certain factors.
While TN HB 2100 does not provide for a customer complaint process, it gives customers a right to request a statement from the financial institution detailing the specific reasons for the refusal, restriction, or termination within 90 days of receiving notice.
In 2024, at least 10 other states introduced fair access legislation, including Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Dakota, and West Virginia.
Federal Regulatory Agencies Express Preemption Concerns
In November 2023, the OCC issued a letter expressing concern about state fair access law initiatives and the impact these may have on the national banking system, noting that the OCC is “carefully monitoring the proliferation of competing and potentially inconsistent requirements…[and that it is] concerned about their impact on the ability of national banks and FSAs to provide banking services consistent with safety, soundness, and the fair treatment of customers.” The letter cites to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, highlighting that “federal law preempts state laws that conflict with the exercise by national banks and FSAs of their federally authorized powers” and that the OCC is committed to “preserving the legal framework for preemption established by Congress, including in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.”
On July 17, 2024, following the Supreme Court decision in Cantero v. Bank of America,6 Michael Hsu, the Acting Comptroller of the Currency, stated that the OCC will continue to “fortify and vigorously defend core preemption” of federal law over state banking laws. A debate has also evolved as to whether state fair access laws interfere with a financial institution’s ability to comply with federal anti-money laundering laws. On July 8, 2024, a bipartisan group of congressmen issued a letter to the OCC, Department of the Treasury, and Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to express concerns that state fair access laws “may conflict with federal laws intended to combat money laundering and terrorist financing…[and] pose significant challenges to compliance with critical regulations such as the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), and the Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Act, potentially threatening national security.” On July 18, Treasury responded, noting it shared the congressmen’s concerns, including concerns that state laws similar to FL HB 989 “may materially undermine compliance with the important AML/CFT and sanctions requirements administered by [FinCEN] and Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).”
Looking Forward
As the second Trump administration takes office, Republicans take control of Congress, and leadership at the federal banking regulatory agencies changes, financial institutions should prepare for a shift in regulatory priorities. On Jan. 20, 2025, when Travis Hill became Acting Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), he immediately issued a statement outlining the matters the FDIC expects to focus on in “the coming weeks and months.” He included among these matters “work[ing] to ensure law-abiding customers have, and do not lose, access to bank accounts and banking services.” The Acting Chairman previously indicated in a speech he gave as Vice Chairman on Jan. 10 that access to a bank account is essential for participation in the modern economy and that regulators should reevaluate their approach to implementing the BSA, noting that “[w]hile we all share the goal of ensuring criminals and terrorists are not using the banking system to fund drug trafficking, terrorism, and other serious crimes, the current BSA regime creates an incentive for banks to close accounts rather than risk massive fines for inadequate BSA compliance.” He further noted that “[t]hese issues, along with others in the BSA realm, warrant attention and scrutiny during the [new] Administration.”
The FDIC appears to be positioning itself to evaluate “debanking” and fair access to banking services, and we anticipate that the other prudential federal banking agencies will follow suit.7 The Comptroller of the Currency has not been nominated to date, but the new nominee may reconsider the OCC Final Rule to determine whether to proceed with its implementation. Additionally, with Republican majorities in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, we may see renewed attempts to enact the Fact Access to Banking Act or similar fair access or “debanking” laws in the new Congress.
Financial institutions should be prepared for increased federal regulatory scrutiny and rulemaking efforts regarding fair access.
In addition to federal actions, state-level fair access law initiatives continue shaping the regulatory landscape, further complicating the patchwork of compliance requirements for financial institutions. This dual regulatory framework underscores the importance of financial institutions continuing to monitor developments at both federal and state levels, and for those that have not done so, begin to consider potential changes to current policies, procedures, and controls to prepare for the new regulatory environment.
1 The legislation was introduced in 2021 (H.R. 1729, 117th Cong. (2021); S. 563, 117th Cong. (2021)) and again in 2023 (H.R. 2743, 118th Cong. (2023); S. 293, 118th Cong. (2023)). The most recent Senate bill had 37 Republican cosponsors, while the House bill had 127 Republican cosponsors.
2 H.R. 1729, 117th Cong. § 8 (2021); S. 563, 117th Cong. § 8 (2021); H.R. 2743, 118th Cong. § 8 (2023); S. 293, 118th Cong. § 8 (2023).
3 H.R. 1729, 117th Cong. §§ 4-5 (2021); S. 563, 117th Cong. §§ 4-5 (2021); H.R. 2743, 118th Cong. §§ 4-5 (2023); S. 293, 118th Cong. §§ 4-5 (2023).
4 FL HB 3 imposed these new “unsafe and unsound practice” standards on state-chartered and state-authorized financial institutions such as Florida-chartered banks, trust companies, credit unions, international bank agencies, branches, representative offices, and administrative offices of foreign banks, banks authorized as “qualified public depositories” in the state, consumer finance lenders, and money services businesses.
5 TN HB 2100 excludes loans from the definition of “services.” TN HB 2100 § 1 and Tenn. Code Ann. § 45-1-128(a)(2)(B).
6 Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., 602 U.S. 205 (2024). In Cantero, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the issue of whether the National Bank Act preempted state laws that purported to impose a minimum rate of interest on mortgage escrow accounts. The Court indicated that, to reach preemption decisions, lower courts should make a “practical assessment” of whether the state law “prevents or significantly interferes with” a national bank’s power and instructed lower courts to make this determination by comparing state laws at issue to those the Court had analyzed in previous preemption decisions. The Court noted, but did not address, the OCC’s role in making determinations about whether a state law regulating a national bank is preempted.
7 The U.S. prudential bank regulators generally attempt to align policies and supervisory approaches to ensure, among other things, consistent application of regulatory standards across jurisdictions.
Additional Author: Tiffanie Monplaisir
Illinois Loses First Shot at Interchange Fees on State and Local Taxes
Illinois enacted a law that prohibits a credit card holder’s bank from charging or receiving interchange fees on the portions of transactions that include Illinois state or local taxes and gratuities, in effect starting July 1, 2025. IL Interchange Fee Prohibition Act (“IFPA”) 815 ILCS 151/150-1 et seq. The Illinois Bankers Association and others collectively sought relief in the federal courts to prevent the IFPA from taking effect and asserted that the IFPA is preempted by federal laws, is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, and is discriminatory under the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution because it imposes a regulatory measure that “benefit[s] in-state economic interests by burdening out-of-state competitors.” Compl. ¶ 202 to 224. They won a preliminary injunction that temporarily blocks the law while the challenge proceeds. Illinois Bankers Association’s et al. v. Kwame Raoul, in his official capacity as Illinois Attorney General, No. 24 C 7307 (N. D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2024).
A preliminary injunction in any court requires, at a minimum, the court to believe that the party seeking the injunction has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of the actual case and will suffer irreparable harm if application of the law is not stayed while the case proceeds. This means at least two things. First, you have to be prepared for a mini-proceeding on the case before you get to the trial stage at which you would put on your full case. That is, if you cannot demonstrate that you are likely to ultimately win and you would be harmed by not halting the law early, why would the court want to stay the application of a law at an early stage of your case? Second, if you win a preliminary injunction, you are more likely to ultimately prevail.
The court found that:
the IFPA prohibits charging or receiving interchange fees on the portion of a credit card transaction that includes Illinois state or local taxes or gratuities;
the IFPA defines an interchange fee as “a fee established, charged, or received by a payment card network for the purpose of compensating the issuer for its involvement in an electronic payment transaction[;]”
under the federal National Bank Act powers, banks are authorized to engage in any activity that is “incidental to the business of banking [;]”
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency guidance makes clear that processing credit and debit card transactions is part of the business of banking;
the IFPA directly regulates credit and debit card transactions by dictating the amount that banks can charge for a transaction; and
by barring a credit card issuer from charging interchange fees on state and local taxes and gratuities, the IFPA alters a bank’s right to determine how best to structure their non-interest fee arrangements with merchants.
The banks demonstrated irreparable harm by proving that costs to make changes to their payment processing systems (the current systems do not distinguish whether the transaction is for state and local tax or gratuities) would not be recouped if the law was later struck down.
The takeaway here is that a preliminary injunction and a challenge in federal court are powerful tools that can add leverage if the case is right for using them. Often state tax challenges are prohibited in federal courts under the Tax Injunction Act, which provides that federal courts “shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.” 28 USC § 1341. However, if you can get there, make a federal case out of it!
Who Regulates Residential Mortgage Trigger Leads?
In a bit of a surprise development at the end of 2024, the United States Senate passed the Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act, which amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to include specific restrictions on the use of trigger leads in the residential mortgage lending space. While industry groups applauded the Senate’s passage of the act, the United States House of Representatives has not passed corresponding legislation, so the act is not currently in effect. Regardless, the act draws scrutiny on what many view as an annoying and potentially abusive practice – mortgage lenders’ excessive use of trigger leads.
A trigger lead generally refers to information a consumer reporting agency (CRA) compiles on a consumer based on the consumer’s application of credit in a particular credit transaction. The FCRA allows CRAs to create these consumer reports without the express consent of the consumer, meaning the consumer does not initiate the creation of a trigger lead. Typically, the consumer report is then sold to a third-party lender that uses it to solicit the consumer for comparable loan products.
Proponents argue that trigger leads benefit consumers by promoting competition amongst lenders and potentially resulting in the consumer receiving more favorable loan terms. However, in practice, trigger leads often result in excessive and unwanted solicitations from third-party lenders that can confuse or overwhelm a typical consumer. In some cases, solicitations from third-party lenders imply an association with the lender that received the consumer’s initial application, seemingly attempting to blur the line between the entities and take advantage of potential consumer confusion. Given the potential for this negative consumer impact, several states, and now the federal government, have proposed or enacted legislation that specifically addresses the use of trigger leads.
State Regulation of Trigger Leads
In November 2024, Texas became the most recent state to enact a law regulating a mortgage lender’s use of trigger leads. However, going back to at least 2007, other states have also enacted comparable requirements governing the use of trigger leads, including Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine, Kansas, Kentucky, and Wisconsin.
While each state varies, the laws in these states typically impose two specific consumer protections to counteract abusive trigger lead practices. First, in many of these states, the law requires any lender using trigger leads to clearly include in its initial communication with the consumer the identity of the lender, the lender’s practice of using trigger leads, an explanation of trigger leads, and an express statement that the lender is not affiliated with the lender that took the consumer’s initial application for credit. Second, many state trigger lead laws also cite the FCRA and expressly adopt the FCRA requirements that (1) a lender cannot contact a consumer who has opted out of inclusion in consumer reports compiled pursuant to the FCRA and (2) the lender must make a firm credit offer if soliciting based on consumer reports provided in compliance with the FCRA.
However, while these states impose clear obligations on lenders using trigger leads, as a practical matter the only way for a borrower to stop receiving trigger lead-based solicitations is to affirmatively take the “opt out” steps defined in the FCRA.
Potential Impact of Federal Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act
The act would largely shift this responsibility back to the CRA and lender and significantly restrain the marketability and use of trigger leads. Specifically, the act would prohibit a CRA from providing a trigger lead to a lender unless (1) the consumer provided consent for the CRA to share his or her information or (2) the lender seeking the trigger lead has some preexisting relationship with the consumer, such as the lender holding a current account of the consumer. This shifting of responsibility has generally been hailed as needed protection for borrowers. And while the proposed act would effectively flip the focus of when trigger leads are permissible, it would seemingly not conflict with the current state regulatory framework for trigger leads.
Regardless of whether the act is ultimately enacted as federal law, mortgage lenders and CRAs should prepare for a continued focus on the use of trigger leads, as this appears to be a practice that both industry experts and regulators view as in need of reform.
Listen to this post
SEC Crypto 2.0: SEC Announces New Crypto Task Force
On January 21, 2025, the SEC announced the formation of a new Crypto Task Force. Styled “Crypto 2.0” in the SEC press release, the announcement signals a shift in the agency’s approach to the digital asset sector coincident with the change in presidential administrations.
The task force will be led by Commissioner Hester Peirce and draw on staff from around the agency. Its mission is to “collaborate with Commission staff and the public to set the SEC on a sensible regulatory path that respects the bounds of the law.” The task force anticipates future roundtables and invites the submission of public comments. It will also coordinate with other state and federal agencies, including the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
The SEC press release announcing the task force’s creation is somewhat critical of the agency’s prior approach to regulating digital assets, noting that the agency “relied primarily on enforcement actions to regulate crypto retroactively and reactively, often adopting novel and untested legal interpretations along the way.” The press release noted, “Clarity regarding who must register, and practical solutions for those seeking to register, have been elusive.” The announcement concludes, “The SEC can do better.”
The crypto industry heavily supported the candidacy of President Trump, and the President’s nominee for SEC chairman, Paul Atkins, is likely to support a reset of the SEC’s approach to regulating the sector. After the crypto winter, it appears spring is coming to the SEC.