David W. Heck

Subscribe to David W. Heck's Posts

As a result of Brexit, UK-regulated firms will already have grappled with loss of passporting and equivalence measures, and the need to navigate national regimes and relocate staff. As of today, EU firms operating in the UK have a temporary permissions regime with the UK having set out its approach to equivalence, but this remains a one-way street and the EU has made it clear that it will decide its own approach in its own time. 2021 will begin to reveal the full extent of market fragmentation and the resulting impact on liquidity. As of 2021, EU law no longer applies in the UK (save for where elements of it have been expressly incorporated into national law). We can therefore expect divergence in approaches between the EU and the UK in terms of legislation and regulation, especially as the EU’s Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) and Market in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) will be updated over the next few years. Funds can therefore expect the regulatory burden to increase.

Private credit lenders began 2020 facing the dual challenges of an increased risk of defaults and a lack of strong financial covenants, and the pandemic sparked a significant increase in defaults to 8.1% in Q2. However, borrower defaults in Q3 and Q4 were lower than anticipated following the COVID-fueled spike…

In 2021, the global impact of environmental, social and corporate governance (“ESG”) investing will continue to grow, with key implications for the asset management industry. The new European regime on sustainability-related disclosures in the financial sector will roll out in March 2021, affecting both European and non-European asset managers…

Under the Biden Administration, we expect the Department of Justice to reinvigorate the policies aimed at increasing coordination between the criminal and civil divisions.  In a 2015 Memorandum – the “Yates Memo” – former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates pushed for “early and regular communication” between civil and…

Cryptocurrencies and digital assets will continue to be an area of intense regulatory focus, but a new administration may bring new regulations. SEC Chairman Gensler has extensive experience with cryptocurrencies and blockchain, including a teaching stint at MIT. However, Gensler has alternated between censure and praise, referring to cryptocurrencies and…

In 2020, we saw an increased regulatory focus on cybersecurity. Though former SEC Chairman Clayton largely took the view that existing statutes and regulations were sufficient, the Division of Examinations increased exam activities in the space while agencies like FinCEN increased enforcement against violators. We can expect to see a continued focus on cybersecurity going forward as a persistent long-term trend, but it is unclear whether it will remain among the top priorities of the SEC this year. As discussed in Risk #1, we believe that the Chairman, Gary Gensler, will take a more active approach generally and, as part of that, we expect a heightened focus on cybersecurity. Sponsors are a theoretically high value target for attack because even relatively small sponsors often control billions of dollars (whether directly or indirectly) and have highly confidential information concerning their investors and partners. It is important that sponsors’ commitment to, and investment in, cybersecurity systems, policies, and procedures is commensurate with their risks and profile in fact.

A significant ownership stake in a portfolio company has always raised the specter of claims against funds, sponsors, and sponsor-appointed board designees, if for no other reason than they are perceived by the plaintiffs’ bar to be deep pockets.  This risk has only increased in recent years, as it has…

Valuation practices will continue to be the subject of disputes. Particularly in times of economic disruption and market volatility, buyers and sellers are more likely to have substantial differences of opinions on valuation, which often lead to the use of earn-outs and resulting post-closing disputes. Use of a cost basis…

The past year saw a burst in popularity of SPACs. More than half of companies that went public in 2020 did so using a SPAC on their way to raising over $80 billion in proceeds, and so far in 2021 SPAC offerings far outpace traditional IPOs. SPACs allow companies to go public with greater speed and with fewer hurdles than a traditional IPO. These innovations combined with unprecedented deal volume may signal an increased risk for disputes, especially where the SPAC process and structure can present unique pitfalls.

For example, SPACs must issue registration statements and proxies in advance of acquiring a target company, which require compliance with Sections 11 and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.  But unlike in traditional IPOs, SPAC target companies may disclose projections of future performance before shareholders vote on whether to move forward with a merger, and failure to meet those projections could lead to litigation by shareholders or the SEC. The SEC has issued guidance on the types of disclosures that SPACs specifically should keep in mind, including disclosures pertaining to sponsors’, officers’ and directors’ financial incentives, prior SPAC experience, and conflicts of interest with other entities to which they owe fiduciary duties.  SPACs also often raise money through PIPE (private offering in public equity) transactions, which allow for private investment on special terms, but those require separate disclosures and result in an additional set of shareholders who could later bring claims. By their nature, SPACs also present a number of other regulatory risks, including risks relating to MNPI, valuation, and conflicts of interest.