How Will the Cannabis World Look When Marijuana Is Rescheduled?
A few weeks ago, someone at a holiday party asked “Whitt, why doesn’t Budding Trends take on the weighty legal issues of the day and instead resort to cheap pop culture references and puns?” I thought about responding with a quote from “Run Like an Antelope” but then it hit me: Maybe we should give some thought to a more high-minded discussion about the practical implications of marijuana rescheduling. (Editor’s note: This exchange did not actually happen.) So, I guess set the gear shift for the high gear of your soul, and let’s dive in.
It has been said that our greatest hopes and our worst fears are seldom realized. I think the recent efforts by DEA to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III is a good example of both. Those looking for news that marijuana is soon to be freely available nationwide will be disappointed, as, we suspect, will those who fear that rescheduling will immediately destroy the existing marijuana industry. It’s like Tom Petty reminded us, “most things I worry about, never happen anyway.”
None of This Matters if Marijuana Is Not Rescheduled, and That’s Far from a Settled Question
All of this is, of course, moot if marijuana is not rescheduled. While rescheduling is considered by many to be a fait accompli (oh yeah, Budding Trends dropping French on you) – and I agree it is more likely than not that marijuana will be rescheduled, although not in 2025 – there are a number of potential roadblocks standing in the way. We previously wrote about the process here.
But even if marijuana is not rescheduled in the near future, hopefully the discussion below will be helpful in thinking through the practical implications if marijuana is rescheduled in the future.
280E in the Rearview
It is widely assumed by many that one of the certain impacts of rescheduling is that marijuana operators would no longer be subject to the draconian tax consequences of 280E.
We previously wrote on the subject:
One of the most significant impediments to the growth of marijuana operators, and dispensaries in particular, is 26 U.S.C 280E. That one-sentence provision may be the biggest hurdle to the development of the marijuana industry in the United States. It dictates that:
“No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act) which is prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.”
280E has crippled the marijuana industry, often exacting an effective tax rate north of 60% for operators. “Within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act” is the ballgame. If marijuana is rescheduled to Schedule III, 280E would no longer apply and marijuana operations would be taxed as normal businesses – provided that Congress did not specially enact a marijuana tax.
Obviously, state tax laws may still penalize marijuana businesses akin to 280E, but some states proactively exempted licensed cannabis businesses from those impacts.
One question that has stuck in my mind is whether rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III would remove state-legal operators from the ambit of 280E, or would that benefit only be afforded to businesses who manufactured, distributed, and sold FDA-approved Schedule III products (i.e., not most state-licensed operators at present)?
This is a question of statutory interpretation, and I think it comes down to how the government characterizes marijuana that is not compliant with Schedule III requirements. Is non-compliant marijuana still a Schedule III substance? If so, does it somehow become Schedule I or II? If not, then it would appear that that 280E does not capture non-compliant marijuana because that provision appears to be limited on its face to Schedule I and II substances. I think the better reading is that, while non-compliant marijuana operators may face consequences as discussed immediately below, 280E will no longer include marijuana.
Another related question of great interest to marijuana operators currently sitting on huge overdue tax bills is whether rescheduling marijuana would have a retroactive effect eliminating the existing tax liabilities for marijuana operators. Generally speaking, changes to tax laws are not retroactive unless Congress expressly says so. It strikes me as very unlikely that lawmakers will be interested in allowing marijuana operators who have not paid their full tax bills for years (and in some instances publicly admitted as much) to simply walk away from those obligations.
State Medical Programs
So, if marijuana is rescheduled, what happens to existing marijuana businesses operating under the auspices of state laws? This, as well as the fate of adult-use operators discussed immediately below, may be the most consequential yet unclear aspects of rescheduling.
State-licensed marijuana operators have existed in a sort of legal limbo since their inception. How, if at all, will the rules change for state-licensed operators if marijuana is rescheduled?
The way I see it, there are three paths forward for state-licensed marijuana operators if marijuana is rescheduled:
The federal government, in a break from more than a decade of quasi-official federal policy, could actually follow the Controlled Substances Act and require marijuana operators to meet the requirements for Schedule III substances.
There is no practical change and the federal policy of non-enforcement of most marijuana operations remains in place, along with a similar posture from the states with marijuana regimes.
There is no immediate change in federal enforcement policy, but states tighten marijuana rules over time to allow for a gradual change such that access to marijuana is not immediately shut off as the federal government and marijuana operators take the steps necessary to treat marijuana like other Schedule III substances.
In a nutshell, the path chosen will answer what I believe is the most interesting and critical question in this whole discussion: Does the government intend for marijuana scheduling to be a dead letter or does the government intend to regulate marijuana as a controlled substance?
That answer will govern whether and, if so, how the federal government will regulate state-licensed cannabis operators – including potential enforcement actions.
Of the three paths above, the first strikes me as the least likely and the last strikes me as the most likely. Why? I am skeptical that the federal government would shut down existing access to marijuana (i.e., state-licensed operators) under the guise of making marijuana more available. That certainly does not comport with the statements of the political supporters of rescheduling or the spirit of rescheduling. And make no mistake, it will take years of clinical trials and FDA approval for the first marijuana medication (in a specific formulation with a specific indication) to be approved for use by patients.
I do think, however, that there will be political pressure from certain companies that do develop FDA-approved marijuana medications to curtail the state markets. Why would a company spend the substantial time and money to develop a Schedule III medication for FDA approval for a specific indication when someone can just buy marijuana to be used for any purpose from a dispensary down the street?
State Adult-Use Programs
Like state-licensed medical marijuana operators, state-licensed adult use operators have also been operating in legal purgatory, albeit with probably less legal certainty than medical operators.
To be very clear: Rescheduling marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act will do absolutely nothing to the legality of adult-use marijuana. Schedule III regulates medications prescribed by physicians and does not contemplate the recreational use of any Schedule III product.
But what does this actually mean for adult-use programs and individual operators as a practical matter? Well, as with several of the points above, we’ll see.
It is certainly possible that the federal government will continue its hands-off approach to adult-use marijuana programs. It is also possible that the federal government – and potentially some state governments – will use the ability to access federally legal marijuana by prescription to scrap existing adult-use programs. But if I was a betting man (and I am), I would bet that at least in the short term there would not be much impact, if any, to adult-use regimes.
Interstate Commerce
When it comes to transporting marijuana across state lines with Schedule III approval and appropriate federal and state licenses, interstate commerce should not be a problem.
When it comes to transporting unlicensed marijuana, theoretically it would remain illegal, and it will come down to the federal government’s appetite to enforce interstate transportation of marijuana.
Banking
Here is another instance where it depends on whether the federal government insists that marijuana products comply with the rules of Schedule III.
If the federal government insists on strict compliance with Schedule III, then any non-conforming products would likely fall within the ambit of anti-money laundering statutes. If, on the other hand, the government treats all marijuana as Schedule III, then banks may be able (albeit perhaps uninterested initially) to bank all marijuana businesses.
Private Investment
I expect there will be an immediate influx of private capital to marijuana businesses if marijuana is rescheduled. Momentum will (at least appear to) be on the side of marijuana businesses. A number of funds that have formal or informal policies governing investment in marijuana businesses will immediately investigate the opportunities. And investors will be even more motivated because it appears that 280E would no longer provide a substantial tax headwind for growth of those businesses.
This could all be thwarted if the federal government immediately makes clear that it will vigorously enforce the requirements of Schedule III, meaning that it will be extremely cash-intensive to develop profit-generating products. As noted above, I think that is unlikely, but it would certainly be an impediment to obtaining private capital.
Big Pharma/Pharmacies
The multibillion-dollar question: What role, if any, will big pharmaceutical companies and pharmacies play in the event marijuana is rescheduled?
I suspect big pharma won’t rush into the marijuana space, in part because of all the uncertainties discussed above and in part for reputational reasons. But I will be on the lookout for quiet investments by Big Pharma in companies researching and developing marijuana formulations that meet the requirements of Schedule III.
If things break a certain way, you may be able to get the best weed ever made courtesy of a brand-name pharmaceutical company. But I do believe we are years away from that happening.
Intellectual Property
This area of the law could be particularly interesting because the USPTO will have a layer of input on top of the Department of Justice and state regulators. If a product complies with Schedule III, it will have the ability to be protected by United States intellectual property laws, including trademarks and patents. If it does not comply with Schedule III, the USPTO could independently conclude that such products may not avail themselves of those protections.
Conclusions
[Deep exhale] For years, cannabis activists and legal scholars have debated the possibility and the wisdom of rescheduling marijuana. Now that we may – and I stress may – be on the horizon, it seems there are just as many questions as answers about what the implications of that change would be. So much of those implications depend on things that we do not yet know. For example, will a Trump HHS/DOJ/DEA take a different position than the Biden HHS/DOJ/DEA? Will states change their rules in response to rescheduling? And how will financial institutions and private investors react to those developments.
Third-Party Litigation Funding in England and Wales Post-PACCAR: Where are We Now?
In our earlier alert on third-party funding (TPF) and the UK Supreme Court’s decision in PACCAR, we discussed the initial industry reaction, subsequent litigation, and legislative reform proposals (at the time, through the remit of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (DMCC Bill) – introduced by the former, Conservative UK government under then Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak).
This alert provides an update on where we are now, following the publication of the Civil Justice Council (CJC) interim report and consultation on litigation funding, which confirmed that the current UK government will not be re-introducing the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill (LFA Bill) any time soon—instead, looking at legislative reform in the round after the CJC’s final report is published in summer.
We therefore discuss the early indications around the CJC’s direction of travel and recent industry reaction as we await these all-important clarifications.
Recap
In July 2023 in PACCAR, the UK Supreme Court held that litigation funding agreements (LFAs) that entitle funders to payments based on the amount of damages recovered would be classified as damages-based agreements (DBAs). In turn, they would have to comply with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (DBA regime) or risk being deemed unenforceable. The decision brought the enforceability of many pre-existing LFAs into question and created large scale uncertainty within the TPF market. This was a particular problem for opt-out collective proceedings in the Competition and Appeals Tribunal (CAT), where DBAs are strictly prohibited (s.47C(8), Competition Act 1998).
Originally, there were proposals to restore the pre-PACCAR position through a last minute amendment to the DMCC Bill. By March 2024, this was a bill of its own—the LFA Bill. The LFA Bill was to be an integral part of the last government’s commitment to restoring the pre-PACCAR status quo, passing second reading in the House of Lords on 15 April 2024. However, it did not survive the pre-election wash up ahead of the dissolution of parliament on 30 May 2024, remaining indefinitely postponed under the new administration.
CJC Review of the TPF Market in England and Wales
In spring 2024, prompted by the PACCAR decision, the then Lord Chancellor called upon the CJC to conduct a wider review of the TPF market. At this time, the PACCAR decision was to be reversed via the LFA Bill, which, as above, later fell through on change of governments.
On 31 October 2024, the CJC published its much-anticipated interim report and consultation on litigation funding, as the first phase of the CJC review process. Being interim in nature, it seeks to identify the concerns within the current system of TPF in England and Wales and set up the key issues that the CJC is consulting on. Whilst only interim in nature, it does give an indication of the CJC’s (and, subsequently, the government’s) direction of travel.
Broadly, the interim report covers the development of TPF in England and Wales and the current self-regulatory model, approaches to the regulation of TPF across different jurisdictions, the relationship between costs and funding, and existing funding options.
There are 39 consultation questions that the CJC seeks input on, located at Appendix A.
In sum, these questions cover:
The benefits of TPF (namely, access to justice and equality of arms between parties to litigation).
The extent to which the current model of self-regulation works and whether there should be one homogenous regulatory framework applied to (i) all types of litigation and (ii) English-seated arbitration.
Whether and, if so, to what extent, a funder’s return on any third-party funding agreement should be subject to a cap.
How TPF should best be deployed relative to other sources of funding (including legal expenses insurance and crowd funding).
The role of the court in controlling the conduct of litigation support by TPF or similar funding arrangements.
What provision (including provision for professional legal services regulation), if any, needs to be made for the protection of claimants whose litigation is funded by TPF.
The extent to which the availability of TPF encourages specific forms of litigation.
Responses to the consultation are sought by 11:59 pm on Friday 31 January. The CJC will then issue a final report in summer with outcomes and recommendations.
Direction of Travel
Whilst the CJC report is only interim in nature, it does give us an indication of the CJC’s early thinking and the potential direction of travel. Some of these key themes are discussed below.
Self-Regulation
A large section of the CJC interim report focuses on the self-regulation of TPF in England and Wales through voluntary subscription to the ‘Code of Conduct for Litigation Funders’ published by the Association of Litigation Funders (ALF Code) and how this compares with other jurisdictions. The report notes that the current model of self-regulation was introduced in 2011, at a time when the TPF market was still beginning to develop, and notes that the TPF market has since expanded very significantly, especially in respect of funding collective proceedings and group litigation. On take up of the ALF Code, the report suggests that whilst an estimated 44 funders operate in England and Wales, only 16 are members of the ALF and thereby party to the ALF Code. Of these 16 members, eight are also members of the International Litigation Funders Association. Many commentators suggest that the interim report’s discussion of the current model of self-regulation may be indicative of the introduction of new legislation to regulate the TPF industry in the future.
PACCAR
The interim report doesn’t address the resolution of PACCAR specifically, which has sparked some criticism. Some commentators have referred to the fact that when the CJC’s original Terms of Reference were set in spring 2024, PACCAR was to be resolved via legislation which has since fallen away. The interim report offers no indication of whether PACCAR would be addressed in light of this.
The co-chair of the CJC review, Dr John Sorabji, has since suggested that whilst consideration of a litigation funding bill falls outside of the Terms of Reference, the CJC’s wider review of TPF industry includes consideration of the DBA regime, for which PACCAR will inevitably be considered.
Several challenges to LFAs are currently stayed in the Court of Appeal as the TPF market awaits a legislative solution to PACCAR. Many funders have since adopted some combination of the ‘multiples’ approach linked to sums invested, internal rates of return and compound interest rates, and creatively drafted clauses that seek to pre-empt a legislative resolution to PACCAR. For now, the TPF market will have to eagerly await the final report and any legislative solution that follows.
Funder Involvement in the Settlement of Disputes
The interim report notes that the nature of TPF means, on the one hand, that the ‘risk exists that funders will control the litigation’ and that ‘TPF discourages and undermines just settlement’. On the other hand, the report explains how the ALF Code makes provision for a dispute resolution procedure in these instances. Here, under the ALF Code the funder and funded are required to instruct a Kings Counsel (either jointly instructed, or as nominated by the Chairman of the Bar Council) to provide a binding opinion on the settlement proposal.
The debate around funder involvement in settlement has also been accelerated by recent headlines around the long running collective action in Merricks v Mastercard, in which the class representative, Walter Merricks, is said to have accepted a £200m settlement offer, much below the original claim value. The funder, Innsworth, has since publicly criticised the decision and written to the CAT ahead of the tribunal reviewing the terms of the settlement early this year.
There is currently no clarity as to whether—and if so to what extent—a funder’s interests will be considered a relevant factor in deciding whether a settlement is just and reasonable. Indeed, this may be the first case to decide the point.
Conclusion
The interim report has therefore provided much food for thought around the future direction of travel. Whilst only indicative at this stage, it looks as though we may be moving away from the model of self-regulation that has existed since 2011, that PACCAR is likely to be addressed in the context of a wider discussion of the existing DBA regime, and that Courts will soon be tasked with considering funder submissions around settlement terms.
Responses to the CJC consultation are open until 31 January. Consultees do not need to answer all questions if only some are of interest or relevance. The full list of consultation questions is available here.
Federal Court Rules ESG-Guided Investing of 401(k) Plan Is a Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Following a bench trial, Judge O’Connor (N.D. Tex.) held that “that Defendants breached their fiduciary duty by failing to loyally act solely in the retirement plan’s best financial interests by allowing their corporate interests, as well as BlackRock’s ESG interests, to influence management of the plan.” In other words, investing a 401(k) retirement plan to reflect ESG interests–rather than strictly financial ones–constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty. (Notably, despite this holding, the court nonetheless ruled that the fiduciary duty of prudence had not been violated, because ESG-influenced investing was “act[ing] according to prevailing industry practices.”) In so holding, the Court emphasized that “[w]hile it is permissible to consider ESG risks when done through a strictly financial lens . . . ESG cannot stand on its own. . . . [as] ERISA does not permit a fiduciary to pursue a fiduciary to pursue a non-pecuniary interest no matter how noble it might view the aim.”
This decision–the first to consider ESG-focused investing of a 401(k) plan following a trial on the merits–will undoubtedly be influential, as it supports the position advocated by a number of critics of ESG that such ESG-influenced investment activity is per se a breach of fiduciary duty. Additionally, as this decision was issued by a federal district court in Texas, it is likely that it will be upheld on appeal, as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals–which oversees this particular district court–is the most conservative in the United States.
Still, this ruling does also offer a partial roadmap for ESG-focused investing to survive such challenges–as if ESG-focused investing can be justified based upon financial metrics, than it will pass legal muster.
Based upon the results in this case–although damages are yet to be determined–it is likely that additional lawsuits will be filed on behalf of 401(k) participants against investment managers who made use of ESG factors when determining investments.
American Airlines Inc. violated federal law by filling its 401(k) plan with funds from investment companies that pursue environmental, social, and corporate governance goals, a Texas federal judge ruled Friday in the biggest victory yet for opponents of the strategy. The airline breached its fiduciary duty of loyalty—but not its fiduciary duty of prudence—in allowing its $26 billion retirement plan to be influenced by corporate goals unrelated to workers’ best financial interests, Judge Reed O’Connor of the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas said after a four-day, non-jury trial. The 2023 lawsuit, which says the airline wrongly offered 401(k) funds managed by companies that pursue ESG policy goals through proxy voting and shareholder activism, is the latest battle in the broader debate over socially conscious investing.
www.bloomberglaw.com/…
CFPB Announces Plans to Regulate Nonbank Personal Loan Providers
On January 8, the CFPB announced its intent to pursue rulemaking that would allow the agency to oversee nonbank personal loan lender. The announcement came in response to a petition filed in September 2022 by the Consumer Bankers Association and the Center for Responsible Lending, which called on the CFPB to engage in rulemaking under section 1024(a)(2) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act to subject certain “larger participants” in the nonbank personal loan market to the CFPB’s supervisory authority.
The petitioners argued that, although the CFPB’s supervisory authority already extends to large banks and nonbanks in most segments of consumer lending, the CFPB’s authority over the personal loan market currently does not extend beyond short-term payday lenders. The petitioners further argued that this gap in the CFPB’s supervisory authority creates both an unlevel playing filed and a significant risk that consumer protections issues affecting vulnerable consumers will go undetected.
In a response letter to the petitioners, the CFPB’s general counsel acknowledged the gap in the agency’s authority over the nonbank segment of the personal loan market, which consists of 85 million accounts and over $125 billion in outstanding balances. In addition, the letter expresses agreement with the petitioners’ concerns with respect to the unlevel playing filed that this gap creates. Finally, the letter states that, while the CFPB is already supervising certain nonbank personal loan providers pursuant to other authorities, the Bureau further intends to develop a proposed rule in line with the petitioners’ suggestion.
Putting it into Practice: Although the CFPB has expressed its intent to pursue so-called “large participant” rulemaking, it is unclear whether there will be any follow through. Anticipated shifts in policy priorities under the incoming administration may mean that the Bureau will not ultimately pursue the rulemaking. Despite this uncertainty, the petitioners have expressed that they are eager to continue working with the Bureau to level the playing field in the nonbank personal loan market.
Listen to this post
CFPB Updates No-Action Letter and Compliance Assistance Sandbox Policies to Spur Innovation
On January 3, 2025, the CFPB announced a reboot of its no-action letter and compliance assistance sandbox policy, aimed at promoting consumer-beneficial innovation in financial services. The new policies are designed to foster competition and transparency while addressing unmet consumer needs.
The CFPB originally rescinded the policies in 2022, citing a failure to meet transparency standards and promote consumer-beneficial innovation. The updated framework aims to address these shortcomings with several key changes, including:
Unmet Consumer Needs. Applicants must clearly identify a specific consumer problem their product or service addresses, providing data and detailed explanations to justify the innovation’s necessity and benefits.
Market Competition. To avoid granting regulatory advantages to an individual company, the CFPB will solicit applications from competitors offering similar products or services, ensuring a level playing field within the market. The Bureau does not want any company to have a first-mover advantage; but with its policy, the CFPB is essentially signaling to your competitors what you intend to do.
Eligibility Criteria. The CFPB will not consider applications that have been the subject of an enforcement action involving violations of federal consumer financial law in the past five years, or who are the subject of a pending state or federal enforcement action. This restriction applies even if the enforcement action was in a product vertical wholly unrelated to the one being considered for the no-action letter.
Former CFPB Employees Face Bureau “Non-Compete.” The Bureau has stated it will not consider applications from companies that are represented by former CFPB attorneys as outside counsel, even if those lawyers worked at the Bureau more than ten years ago, to avoid any perceived “ethical conflict.”
Finally, recipients of sandbox approvals or no-action letters are prohibited from using these designations in promotional materials to avoid misleading consumers into believing the CFPB endorses their offerings.
Putting It Into Practice: With less than a week to go before a change in administration, the Bureau has decided to reboot its regulatory sandbox policy. However, given the overbearing requirements and restrictions on applying for a no-action letter under the Bureau’s new innovation policies, it will be interesting to see how many companies decide to apply, or if the policies will soon be rescinded.
Listen to this post
FDIC Enforcement Spotlights Deficiencies in Kansas Bank’s Anti-Money Laundering Program
On December 27, 2024, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) announced a notice of assessment of a civil money penalty against a Kansas-based bank. The action, originally brought in November, imposed a $20.4 million civil money penalty against the bank and alleged violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), 31 U.S.C. § 5311 et seq., for its failure to implement an adequate anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism program.
The FDIC asserts that between December 2018 and August 2020, the Bank’s AML/CFT compliance program failed to address risks associated with its high-volume international banking operations. These operations included processing $27 billion in wire transfers for foreign banks in 2018 alone and facilitating bulk cash shipments from Mexico. Specific deficiencies cited by the FDIC include:
Inadequate Internal Controls. The bank’s reliance on flawed AML monitoring software and manual reviews failed to detect red flags, such as large, suspicious transactions and activity linked to high-risk jurisdictions. Although the banks employed external auditors to analyze its BSA compliance, the complaint claims the testing was too limited and lacked sufficient data.
Customer Due Diligence Failures. The bank failed to establish and maintain an effective customer due diligence program, as the BSA Officer’s ongoing due diligence for the bulk cash business was limited to comparing actual to expected cash deposits without conducting denomination analysis or monitoring outgoing wire activity, resulting in missed data indicative of money laundering and terrorist financing risk.
Deficient Reporting. The bank failed to file hundreds of suspicious activity reports (SARs) required by federal law, and did not implement sufficient customer due diligence or foreign correspondent account monitoring. The FDIC also found that the bank’s BSA Officer was not properly empowered to make SAR filings, SAR filing decisions were instead made collectively by a committee consisting of various C-suite executives of the bank.
Unqualified Oversight. The appointed BSA officer during the relevant period lacked necessary experience and authority to manage the bank’s AML compliance program effectively, pointing to deficiencies in the bank’s BSA/AML training program.
The FDIC described the alleged violations as part of a “pattern of misconduct” and noted that the bank benefited financially from these failures, generating significant fee income.
Putting It Into Practice: The FDIC’s action was swiftly challenged by the bank. On November 19, it filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas challenging the FDIC’s findings, emphasizing that the bank ceased the operations in question in 2020 and took swift corrective actions. In its complaint, the bank also argues that the fine penalizes “years-old conduct” and disregards the bank’s current compliance improvements.
Listen to this post
CFPB Alleges Credit Reporting Agency Conducted Sham Investigations of Errors
On January 7, 2025, the CFPB filed a lawsuit against a nationwide consumer reporting agency for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The lawsuit claims the company’s investigation of consumer disputes was inadequate, specifically criticizing their intake, processing, investigation, and customer notification processes. The lawsuit also alleges the company reinserted inaccurate information on credit reports, which the agency alleges harmed consumers’ access to credit, employment, and housing. In addition to FCRA, the Bureau alleges that the company’s faulty intake procedures and unlawful processes regarding consumer reports violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s (CFPA) prohibition on unfair acts or practices.
Specifically, the Bureau alleges the company:
Conducted sham investigations. The CFPB claims the company uses faulty intake procedures when handling consumer disputes, including not accurately conveying all relevant information about the disputes to the original furnisher. The company also allegedly routinely accepted furnisher responses to the disputes without an appropriate review such as when furnisher responses seemed improbable, illogical, or when the company has information that the furnisher was unreliable. The Bureau also alleged the company failed to provide consumers with investigation results and provided them ambiguous, incorrect, or internally inconsistent information.
Improperly reinserted inaccurate information on consumer reports. The CFPB alleged the company failed to use adequate matching tools, leading to reinsertion of previously deleted inaccurate information on consumer reports. Consumers who disputed the accuracy of an account and thought their consumer report had been corrected instead saw the same inaccurate information reappear on their consumer report without explanation under the name of a new furnisher.
Putting It Into Practice: This lawsuit reflects a broader trend of the CFPB’s increased regulatory scrutiny of FCRA compliance. (previously discussed here, here, and here). The CFPB has demonstrated a focus on ensuring the accuracy and integrity of consumer credit information. Consumer reporting agencies should proactively review their policies and procedures related to dispute investigation, data handling, and furnisher interaction to ensure they are in compliance with all aspects of the FCRA.
Listen to this post
CFPB Sues Mortgage Lender for Predatory Lending Practices in Manufacture Homes Loans
On January 6, 2025, the CFPB filed a lawsuit against a non-bank manufactured home financing company for violations of the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z. The lawsuit alleges that the mortgage lender engaged in predatory lending practices by providing manufactured home loans to borrowers it knew could not afford them.
According to the CFPB, the mortgage lender allegedly ignored “clear and obvious red flags” indicating the borrowers’ inability to afford the loans. This resulted in many families struggling to make payments, afford basic necessities, and facing fees, penalties, and even foreclosure. The Bureau alleges the lender failed to make reasonable, good-faith determinations of borrower’s ability to repay, as required by the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z.
The CFPB’s lawsuit specifically claims that the lender:
Manipulated lending standards. The mortgage lender disregarded clear and obvious evidence that borrowers lacked sufficient income or assets to meet their mortgage obligations and basic living expenses. On some occasions, borrowers who were already struggling financially were approved for loans, worsening their financial situation.
Fabricated unrealistic estimates of living expenses. The company justified its determination that borrowers could afford loans by using artificially low estimates of living expenses. The estimated living expenses were about half of the average of self-reported living expenses for other, similar loan applicants.
Made loans to borrowers projected to be unable to pay. The lender approved loans despite the company’s own internal estimates indicating the borrower’s inability to pay.
Putting It Into Practice: As Chopra’s term wraps out, the Bureau is on a frantic mission to file as many lawsuits as it can for its ongoing enforcement matters. How that will impact the incoming administration remains to be seen. But it seems likely that a new CFPB Director will take a hard look at much of the active litigation and re-evaluate the Bureau’s position.
Listen to this post
CFPB Finalizes Rule Removing Medical Bills from Credit Reports
On January 7, 2025, the CFPB announced the finalization of a rule amending Regulation V, which implements the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., to prohibit the inclusion of medical bills on credit reports used by lenders and prevent lenders from using medical information in lending decisions. According to the Bureau, the final rule (previously discussed here) will remove an estimated $49 billion in medical bills from the credit reports of about 15 million Americans.
The Bureau noted that medical debts are not effective predictors of whether a borrower will repay a debt. Consumers frequently report that they receive inaccurate bills or are asked to pay bills that should have been covered by insurance. The CFPB estimates that this rule will result in the approval of approximately 22,000 additional mortgages each year and increase credit scores for those with medical debt by an average of 20 points.
This rule follows changes by three nationwide credit reporting companies and two major credit scoring companies to reduce the impact of medical debt on credit reports and scores. Specifically, the final rule will:
Prohibit lenders from considering medical information. The rule will amend Regulation V and prohibit creditors from using certain medical information and data when making lending decisions, including information about medical devices that could be used as collateral for a loan.
Ban medical bills on credit reports. The rule prohibits consumer reporting agencies from including medical debt information on credit reports and credit scores sent to lenders. The Bureau seeks to prevent debt collectors from using the credit reporting system to pressure consumers to pay medical bills, regardless of their accuracy.
The rule is effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Putting It Into Practice: The final rule is another example of the CFPB’s increased focus on regulating the credit reporting industry. (previously discussed here). However, immediately after the Bureau finalized the rule, it was hit with two separate lawsuits by trade associations challenging the rule.
Listen to this post
The Outlook for US Private Equity in 2025
As we launch into the next quarter century, there is much speculation about what the future holds for private equity (PE) as an asset class and driver in dealmaking. Momentum started to pick up in 2024 with the Fed announcing a series of interest rate cuts, and there was a sense of increasing certainty with the Presidential election now behind us. Now, everyone is eager to see what the new year will hold.
PitchBook analysts have released their 2025 US Private Equity Outlook, examining the trends that could redefine the market. One of the most interesting is the significant shift they are expecting in the IPO landscape this year. Their analysts are looking at the potential for PE-backed companies to capture 40% of all the IPO capital raised on major US exchanges this year. That would be a nearly 10% jump from the decade average, as well as a change in investor preferences.
Their data shows that since 2000, PE-backed companies averaged about 30.6% of IPO capital raised on major exchanges within the past decade, with a high of 54.2% in 2016 and a low of 3% in 2022. PE-backed companies reached approximately a one-third share of all IPOs in 2024, and Pitchbook is expecting that to be even greater in 2025.
In looking at the gains, they point to the focus on growth and profitability for PE-backed companies, as well as stable cash flows and successful capital allocation. They also tend to operate within sectors that have rational pricing and competition, providing predictable returns that make them appealing candidates for IPO investors. Coupled with the impressive stock performance of PE-backed companies recently, this puts them in a prime position for success this year.
There has also been recent coverage indicating that Wall Street banks are preparing for a rebound as bankers and analysts are anticipating a great deal of IPO announcements in the first half of 2025. With several PE-backed firms already filing IPO paperwork, all the speculation might actually come to fruition as PE firms are more eager to begin offloading some of their assets.
We see some risk if major US public market indexes encounter some kind of significant correction, leading to a more negative market sentiment. If this were to occur, the IPO window could close for a period of time until investor confidence returned, meaning PE-backed companies would again have to alter their IPO plans.
There are many factors at play here and a lot of moving parts. Everyone is closely watching to see if the new Presidential administration will loosen regulations, whether punitive tariffs will be imposed, the impact on inflation and interest rates, and what will happen with taxes. But cautious optimism definitely exists, and there does seem to be an opportunity to build on momentum here. We have all been waiting for a real return to IPOs, and 2025 could be the year that finally happens.
Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey Signs into Law a Sweeping Health Care Market Oversight Bill
On January 8, 2025, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey signed into law House Bill No. 5159, “An Act enhancing the health care market review process” (“H. 5159”), which was passed by the Massachusetts legislature in the last few days of 2024.
The bill will implement greater scrutiny of certain health care entities and affiliated companies—including private equity sponsors, significant equity investors, health care real estate investment trusts (“REITs”), and management services organizations (“MSOs”)—as well as pharmaceutical companies and pharmacy benefit management companies (“PBMs”) in the Commonwealth.
The passage of H. 5159 follows debate between the House and Senate earlier in 2024 over similar bills, which failed to pass during the summer legislative session. Notably, similar bills included debt limitations on certain private investor-backed entities and bans of certain private equity investments, as well as significant restrictions on the MSO business model. However, these restrictions (among various others) were stripped from H. 5159.
Although H. 5159 has widespread implications for health care entities in the Commonwealth, a significant portion of the bill is clearly aimed at increasing regulatory oversight of for-profit-backed health care organizations through increased regulatory oversight of certain health care transactions and expanded reporting obligations. The bill also seeks to contain health care costs, including by increasing oversight of pharmaceutical company and PBM arrangements.
Below in this alert we highlight some of the more significant provisions of H. 5159.
Health Policy Commission – Notices of Material Change
H. 5159 extends the authority of the Health Policy Commission (“HPC”) in the context of notices of material change under M.G.L. c. 6D § 13 (“Notices of Material Change”) to indirect owners and affiliates of health care providers, such as private equity companies, significant equity investors, MSOs, and health care REITs.
The bill also broadens the transactions that are subject to the HPC’s Notice of Material Change requirements to include (i) significant expansions in capacity of a provider or provider organization; (ii) transactions involving a significant equity investor resulting in a change of ownership or control of a provider or provider organization; (iii) real estate sale lease-back arrangements and other significant acquisitions, sales, or transfers of assets; and (iv) conversions of a provider or provider organization from a non-profit to a for-profit.
In the context of the HPC’s review of a Notice of Material Change, the HPC will be authorized to require the submission of documents and information from significant equity investors, such as information regarding the significant equity investor’s capital structure, financial condition, ownership and management structure, and audited financials.
H. 5159 also implements other related changes, such as reducing the market share threshold for mergers or acquisitions to be subject to the Notice of Material Change process (from “near majority” to “dominant” market share), enhancing the HPC’s authority to monitor post-transaction impacts, and expanding the review criteria for a cost and market impact review.
Health Policy Commission – Registration of Provider Organizations
Under H. 5159, the data and information collected under the HPC’s Massachusetts Registration of Provider Organizations Program (“MA-RPO Program”) will now also cover ownership, governance, and operational structure information of significant equity investors, health care REITs, and MSOs. H. 5159 also amends the MA-RPO Program reporting threshold to include revenue generated from payers other than commercial payers, such as governmental payers.
Health Policy Commission – Annual Cost Trends Hearing
As a complement to the increased authority discussed above, the list of stakeholders required to testify at the HPC’s Annual Cost Trends Hearing is expanded to include, among others, significant equity investors, health care REITs, and MSOs as well as PBMs and pharmaceutical companies.
Testimony from significant equity investors, health care REITs, and MSOs must cover topics such as health outcomes, prices, staffing levels, clinical workflow, financial stability and ownership structure of associated providers or provider organizations, dividends paid out to investors, and compensation (e.g., base salaries, incentives, bonuses, stock options, deferred compensation, benefits, and contingent payments to officers, managers, and directors of provider organizations owned or managed by the significant equity investors, health care REITs, or MSOs.
Testimony from PBMs and pharmaceutical companies must cover topics such as factors underlying drug costs and price increases as well as the impact of aggregate manufacturer rebates, discounts, and other price concessions on net pricing (provided that the testimony will not undermine the financial, competitive, or proprietary nature of the data).
H. 5159 further expands the topics covered by HPC’s Annual Cost Trends Hearings to expressly include costs, prices, and cost trends of providers, provider organizations, private and public payers, pharmaceutical companies, and PBMs as well as any impact of significant equity investors, health care REITS, or MSO on those costs, prices, and cost trends.
Health Policy Commission and CHIA – Operations Assessments
H. 5159 expands the categories of entities required to pay assessments to help fund the HPC and Center for Health Information and Analysis (“CHIA”) to include “non-hospital provider organizations,” pharmaceutical companies, and PBMs. A “non-hospital provider organization” is defined as any provider organization registered under the MA-RPO Program that is a non-hospital-based physician practice with annual gross patient service revenue of at least $500 million, a clinical laboratory, an imaging facility, or a network of affiliated urgent care centers. The methodology for calculating the amount assessed against each entity is based on entity type and the total amount appropriated by the Massachusetts legislature for the operation of HPC and CHIA.
CHIA – Reporting Requirements
Under H. 5159, CHIA will collect additional information from acute and non-acute care hospitals regarding their parent organizations and significant equity investors, health care REITs, and MSOs. Such information includes the audited financial statements of parent organizations’ out-of-state operations, significant equity investors, health care REITs, and MSOs, as well as financial data on margins, investments, and any relationships with significant equity investors, health care REITs, and MSOs.
H. 5159 also expands the scope of CHIA’s data collection under the MA-RPO Program. Notably, information subject to annual reporting will include, in relevant part, (i) comprehensive financial statements that include data on parent entities (including their out-of-state operations), corporate affiliates (including significant equity investors, health care REITs, and MSOs, as applicable), annual costs, annual receipts, realized capital gains and losses, accumulated surplus, and accumulated reserves; and (ii) information regarding other assets and liabilities that may affect the financial condition of the provider organization or the provider organization’s facilities (e.g., real estate sale-leaseback arrangements with health care REITs).
H. 5159 further provides that CHIA may require in writing, at any time, such additional information as CHIA deems reasonable and necessary to determine a registered provider organization’s organizational structure, business practices, clinical services, market share, or financial condition, including information related to its total adjusted debt and total adjusted earnings.
CHIA will also have the authority to require registered provider organizations with private equity investment to report required information on a quarterly basis and require disclosure of relevant information from any significant equity investor associated with a registered provider organization. CHIA may also assess increased penalties for non-compliance with these reporting requirements.
Acute and non-acute care hospitals and registered provider organizations should note that, pursuant to M.G.L. c. 12C § 17, the Massachusetts Attorney General (“AG”) may review and analyze any information submitted to CHIA under M.G.L. c. 12C §§ 8, 9, and 10. Thus, the AG may review and analyze all information regarding significant equity investors, health care REITs, and MSOs submitted to CHIA under H. 5159’s expanded reporting requirements.
Department of Public Health (“DPH”) – Determinations of Need
With exceptions, existing Massachusetts law forbids entities from making substantial capital expenditures for the construction of a health care facility or substantially changing the service of the facility unless DPH has approved a determination of need application (“DON”). H. 5159 expands and clarifies DPH considerations in reviewing a DON. These include (i) the state health resource plan; (ii) the Commonwealth’s cost containment goals; (iii) the impacts on the applicant’s patients, including considerations of health equity, the workforce of surrounding health care providers and on other residents of the commonwealth; and (iv) any comments and relevant data from CHIA and the HPC, and any other state agency. H. 5159 codifies a current DPH regulation allowing the period of time DPH has to review a DON to toll if an independent cost-analysis is required and clarifies the effective date of a determination of need issued to holders subject to cost and market impact reviews and/or performance improvement plans. Finally, the legislation adds that a party of record may review a DON for which it is appropriately registered and provide written comment or specific recommendations for consideration by DPH.
Department of Public Health – Licensure of Acute-Care Hospitals
H. 5159 adds provisions to the licensure process of acute-care hospitals, mandating that no original license shall be granted or renewed to establish or maintain such facilities if the main campus of the acute-care hospital is leased from a health care REIT (with an exemption for those acute-care hospitals leasing a main campus from a health care REIT as of April 1, 2024). An exempt acute-care hospital shall remain exempt “after a transfer to any transferee and subsequent transferees,” and those transferees shall be issued a license upon meeting all other requirements. “Main campus” is defined in H. 5159 as “the licensed premises within which the majority of inpatient beds are located.” Additional new licensure requirements for acute-care hospitals mandate the disclosure of documents to DPH relating to leases, licenses, or other agreements for the use, occupancy, or utilization of the premises occupied by the acute-care hospital. Acute-care hospitals also must remain in compliance with applicable reporting requirements.
Department of Public Health – Licensure of Office-Based Surgical Centers
H. 5159 mandates that DPH, in consultation with the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine, establish rules, regulations, and practice standards for the licensing of office-based surgical centers by October 1, 2025. Such licensure will be effective for an initial period of two years and subject to renewal. Pursuant to H. 5159, DPH may impose a fine of up to $10,000 on (1) a person or entity advertising, announcing, establishing, or maintaining an office-based surgical center without a license and (2) a licensed office-based surgical center that violates DPH’s forthcoming rules and regulations. Each day during which a violation continues will constitute a separate offense, and DPH may conduct surveys and investigations to enforce compliance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, H. 5159 permits DPH to grant a one-time provisional license to applicant office-based surgical centers if such applicants hold a (1) current accreditation from the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care, American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities, or the Joint Commission; or (2) current certification for participation in Medicare or Medicaid, and DPH determines that such applicants meet all other licensure requirements.
Attorney General’s Office – False Claims Statute
H. 5159 amends the Massachusetts False Claims Statute to extend potential liability to those with an “ownership or investment interest” in an entity that violates the statute, if such owner or investor knows of the violation and fails to disclose it to the Commonwealth within 60 days of identifying the violation. As a result, the AG has broadened authority to pursue actions against private equity companies and other owners or investors for not addressing a violation of the False Claims Act of which they are aware, regardless of whether the private equity company or other owner or investor caused the violation. Notably, the definition of “ownership or investment interest” captures significant equity investors, as defined elsewhere in the bill, as well as private equity companies with any investment or ownership interest in an entity that violates the statute.
Primary Care Payment and Delivery Task Force
H. 5159 also establishes a 23-member primary care payment and delivery task force (“Task Force”) charged with (i) studying primary care access, delivery, and payment; (ii) developing and issuing recommendations to stabilize and strengthen the primary care system and increase recruitment and retention of primary care workers; and (iii) increasing investment in, and patient access to, primary care in the Commonwealth.
Among other recommendations, the Task Force must create a primary care spending target for private and public payers that takes into account the cost to deliver evidence-based, equitable, and culturally competent primary care services and propose payment models to increase private and public reimbursement for primary care services.
The bill requires the Task Force to issue its first recommendations by September 15, 2025, and requires recommendations to be issued in a sequential manner thereafter, through May 15, 2026.
Takeaways
The true impact of H. 5159 will depend in large part on the regulatory bodies tasked with enforcement and implementation of its provisions. Importantly, we expect that HPC, which has been petitioning the legislature for greater oversight authority over the past several years to review private equity health care investments in Massachusetts, will play a central role in determining the level of scrutiny for-profit investors in hospital systems and provider organizations will face moving forward.
Ann W. Parks contributed to this article
The North Carolina Board of CPA Examiners: A Licensed Professional User’s Guide
The North Carolina Board of CPA Examiners (“Board”) plays a pivotal role in ensuring the integrity and professionalism of the accounting field within the state.
As the governing body for Certified Public Accountants (“CPAs”), the Board upholds rigorous standards of practice, oversees the licensing process, and enforces compliance with ethical rules and regulations. For both aspiring CPAs and experienced professionals, understanding the Board’s responsibilities, processes, and expectations is essential for navigating the path to licensure and maintaining professional standing. It can be a daunting task navigating the expectations. This article highlights some of the requirements and functions for licensees.
Licensing Process
The licensing process for Certified Public Accountants (CPAs) in North Carolina is a structured pathway that involves meeting educational, examination, and experience requirements. The North Carolina Board of CPA Examiners oversees the critical examination component of this process, managing the application, administration, and scoring of the Uniform CPA Exam. This exam is a crucial step in obtaining CPA licensure in all U.S. jurisdictions, and while the education and experience requirements may differ across states, the Uniform CPA Exam remains the same nationwide.
To sit for the Uniform CPA Exam in North Carolina, candidates must meet several eligibility criteria:
Be a U.S. citizen or resident alien, or a citizen of a foreign jurisdiction with similar examination privileges.
Be at least 18 years old.
Be of good moral character.
Meet the specific education requirements outlined by the Board.
Applicants may not be eligible to take the exam if the Board determines the applicant has violated the laws and rules of Professional Ethics and Conduct. An applicant can challenge this determination. Additionally, exam applicants are required to undergo a background check as part of the application process. If an applicant is concerned about a criminal conviction in their past and whether they will be eligible for licensure, they may ask the Board for a predetermination of eligibility as early as prior to entry into an educational program. Experienced counsel should be considered to assist in navigating these processes.
In addition to successfully passing the Uniform CPA Exam, an applicant must provide evidence of appropriate work experience and proof of successful completion of the North Carolina Association of CPAs course, NC Accountancy Law: Ethics, Principles, & Professional Responsibilities, an accountancy law course. The work experience and course must be completed prior to applying for licensure with the Board.
Maintaining the License
Once licensed, it’s important to carefully maintain all aspects of the Board’s requirements to retain the license. All CPAs licensed in North Carolina must:
renew their license annually before July 1 and pay a $60 renewal fee
complete Continuing Professional Education (CPE) in accordance with 21 NCAC 08G .0401, including at least 50 minutes of regulatory or behavioral professional ethics and conduct by December 31 each year and report those at the time of renewal
retain CPE completion certificates and provide them to the Board upon notification of an audit
notify the Board in writing of any change in mailing address, physical address, practice/business address, phone number, employment, email address, or website address within 30 days of a change
Failure to comply with any of the above could result in the licensee being disciplined.
Navigating Practice Complaints
A complaint against a CPA to the Board is taken seriously. An investigation can be quite daunting and overwhelming to the professional faced with one, and experienced counsel should be considered by the CPA if an investigation is opened.
The Board’s Professional Standards Committee (“Committee”) is a three Board member committee tasked with enforcing the Board’s law and rules of Professional Ethics and Conduct. Violations of the law or rules may result in discipline to the CPA in the form of revocation (partial or in full) of the license, censure, and/or imposition of a civil penalty.
The Board has jurisdiction to investigate and take action pursuant to their authority in N.C. Gen. Stat. §93-12(9) which states:
The Board shall have the power to adopt rules of professional ethics and conduct to be observed by certified public accountants in this State and persons exercising the practice privilege authorized by this Chapter. The Board shall have the power to revoke, either permanently or for a specified period, any certificate issued under the provisions of this Chapter to a certified public accountant or any practice privilege authorized by the provisions of this Chapter or to censure the holder of any such certificate or person exercising the practice privilege authorized by this Chapter. The Board also shall have the power to assess a civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) for any one or combination of the following causes:
Conviction of a felony under the laws of the United States or of any state of the United States.
Conviction of any crime, an essential element of which is dishonesty, deceit or fraud.
Fraud or deceit in obtaining a certificate as a certified public accountant.
Dishonesty, fraud or gross negligence in the public practice of accountancy.
Violation of any rule of professional ethics and professional conduct adopted by the Board.
Any disciplinary action taken shall be in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 150B of the General Statutes. The clear proceeds of any civil penalty assessed under this section shall be remitted to the Civil Penalty and Forfeiture Fund in accordance with G.S. 115C-457.2.
When the Board receives a complaint, staff and legal counsel review the allegations and evidence submitted. Once a determination has been made that an investigation should be commenced, an inquiry letter is sent to the CPA, allowing for a response to the allegations.
If you receive an inquiry letter, always respond. All CPAs are required to participate in inquiries from the Board. In a written response, be mindful of your tone and resist being argumentative or using unprofessional language. Provide the documentation requested, if any, in order to inform the Board and assist in their full and informed decision making. Experienced counsel at the inquiry stage can be quite helpful in determining the appropriate path of response. The Board is not obligated to provide counsel; however, every CPA has the right to be represented.
After their review of your response, the staff and legal counsel may send your reply to the Complainant for further information and response. The inquiry may end at this point if the determination is made that no violation has occurred.
If staff and legal counsel believe a violation has occurred, the Committee will be asked to review the complaint, any supporting documentation, and response(s). Their duty is to recommend to the full Board a resolution to the complaint after weighing whether there is competent evidence to proceed. They may recommend closing the matter, requesting additional information, or recommending that the matter continue forward down the disciplinary path. You or your counsel will be informed of their decision.
The Committee also has the ability to offer the CPA a resolution to settle the matter. The CPA (or their counsel) will receive the offer in the form of a consent order. This is an informal process, and a CPA should evaluate all the facts and violations alleged, as well as the sanction offered. Again, experienced counsel can assist with determining whether the offer of resolution proposed is reasonable or whether further due process is warranted. A public hearing, while expensive and time consuming for the CPA, may nonetheless be necessary.