Holland & Knight - China Practice Newsletter: May - June 2023

China Practice Newsletter

Holland & Knight is a U.S.-based global law firm committed to provide high-quality legal services to our clients. We provide legal assistance to Chinese investors and companies doing business or making investments in the United States and Latin America. We also advise and assist multinational corporations and financial institutions, trade associations, private investors and other clients in their China-related activities. With approximately 2,000 professionals in 35 offices, our lawyers and professionals are experienced in all of the interdisciplinary areas necessary to guide clients through the opportunities and challenges that arise throughout the business or investment life cycles.

We assist Chinese clients and multinational clients in their China-related activities in areas such as international business, mergers and acquisitions, technology, oil and energy, healthcare, real estate, environmental law, private equity, venture capital, financial services, taxation, intellectual property, private wealth services, data privacy and cybersecurity, labor and employment, ESOPs, regulatory and government affairs, and dispute resolutions.

We invite you to read our China Practice Newsletter, in which our authors discuss pertinent Sino-American topics. We also welcome you to discuss your thoughts on this issue with our authors listed within the document.

霍兰德奈特律师事务所是一家位于美国的全球性法律事务所，我们致力于向客户提供高质量的法律 服务。我们向在美国及拉丁美洲进行商业活动或投资的中国投资人及公司提供他们所需的各类法律 协助。我们也向跨国公司、金融机构、贸易机构、投资人及其他客户提供他们于其与中国相关活动 中所需的咨询和协助。我们在 35 个办公室的 2000 多名对各领域有经验的律师及专业人员能够协助客 户处理他们在经营或投资过程中所遇到的各种机会及挑战。

我们向中国客户及从事与中国有关活动的跨国客户提供法律协助的领域包括国际商业、企业并购、 科技法律、石油及能源、医疗法律、房地产、环保法律、私募基金、创投基金、金融法律服务、税务、知识产 权、私人财富管理法律服务、信息隐私及网络安全、劳动及雇佣法律、员工持股计划、法令遵循及 政府法规、及争议解决。

我们邀请您阅读刊载我们各作者就与中美有关的各议题所作论述的 China Practice 期刊。我 们也欢迎您向本期刊的各作者提供您对各相关议题的看法。

The Growing Use of RWI in U.S. M&A Transactions

By B. Jeffery Bell and Claire Sager

Representations and Warranties Insurance (RWI) is a type of insurance policy purchased in connection with merger and acquisition (M&A) transactions that has rapidly gained widespread adoption in the U.S. market in recent years. RWI compensates the buyer for financial losses resulting from breaches of the representations and warranties made about the target company in the transaction's purchase agreement or breaches of the seller's obligation to indemnity for preclosing taxes. Basically, once closing has occurred, RWI protects the buyer, as the insured under the policy, from unanticipated losses that are caused by breaches of the seller's representations.

In a given transaction, the indemnity provisions in a purchase agreement can be the most contentious part of the negotiation process. As an alternative to a traditional indemnity for which the seller remains liable, obtaining an RWI policy can help eliminate contention and make the deal process go more smoothly. For this reason, the use of RWI in the U.S. market has increased dramatically in the last several years. Having gained popularity as a common feature of private equity transactions and sell-side driven auction processes, it is now frequently used in strategic transactions also.

WHAT IS RWI?

There are roughly 20 insurers who underwrite RWI policies in the U.S. Under an RWI policy, the insurance carrier will pay the insured for losses resulting from a breach of the representations in the purchase agreement that are in excess of the policy's retention. A retention, similar to a traditional deductible, is the total amount of losses that parties other than the insurer must absorb before the policy will provide any coverage to the insured. Usually, the retention is 1 percent of the target company's enterprise value, but can drop down to 0.5 percent after 12 months. Typically, the limit on the insurer's liability under a policy is between 10 percent and 30 percent of the target's enterprise value, in line with a customary cap on the seller's obligat ion to indemnity for general representation breaches in a traditional indemnity structure.

While RWI policies can be structured as "sell-side" policies where the seller is the insured, "buy -side" policies, which offer coverage for breaches resulting from seller fraud, are overwhelmingly more common. A sell-side policy provides coverage to the seller of a business for indemnification obligations if they breach a representation, warranty or tax indemnity in the purchase agreement. When the seller is the insured, they still remain liable to the buyer under the purchase agreement, but RWI compensates them for covered losses. A key difference in a sell-side policy versus a buy -side policy is that coverage in a sell-side policy is limited to the indemnity cap listed in the purchase agreement and does not cover losses resulting from seller fraud.

A buy-side policy provides coverage to the buyer of a business for losses resulting from the breach of any representations, warranties or tax indemnity. When the buyer is the insured, RWI can substitute or minimize the need for a holdback or escrow, or it can supplement the protection provided by a holdback or escrow.

RWI policies have a handful of standard exclusions. In either a buy -side or sell-side policy, losses from a breach about which the insured has actual knowledge will always be excluded, although the insurer has the burden of proving that the insured had such actual knowledge. Other common exclusions include purchase price adjustments, breaches of covenants (other than the preclosing tax indemnity), unfunded/underfunded pension plan liability, the use of net operating loss carryforwards and losses from "interim breaches" which both arise, and are discovered, between signing and closing.

RWI policies have a six-year tail, meaning the insurer is liable to cover claims for six years after the policy's inception, for fundamental representations and the tax indemnity. For general representations, there is a three-year tail.

HOW THE RWI PROCESS WORKS

The initial step in obtaining an RWI policy is to secure quotes for coverage from one or more insurers. A buyer seeking to buy RWI will typically use an insurance broker for this. Based on preliminary information about the deal (including the target's financial statements, a draft of the purchase agreement and any information memorandum about the target), insurers will provide an initial non-binding indication of interest letter (NBIL) setting out the main terms on which they propose to offer coverage, including the premium, retention, exclusions and areas of concern. Additionally, an underwriter may deem specific language in a representation deleted or altered for purposes of the policy instead of excluding the entire representation.

After comparing NBILs, the buyer will select an insurer and proceed to underwriting, which typically takes one to two weeks but can occur as quickly as necessary to accommodate the timing of the underlying transaction. The first step in the formal process is to pay the underwriters an upfront, nonrefundable underwriting fee of $30,000 to $50,000, depending on the transaction size, complexity and possibly other factors. Then, the underwriters and their counsel are given access to the deal's data room, transaction documents and diligence reports, that they will review.

Next, the Underwriting Call will be scheduled. This call takes around two hours and requires the attendance of the deal team members, underwriters and their counsel, and any third-party diligence providers. On this call, the underwriters and their counsel have the opportunity to ask questions about what diligence the buyer completed. Promptly after the call, the underwriter will provide the buyer with a draft policy and any follow-up questions. Negotiation of the policy (which is a standard form) and resolving any underwriting follow ups are the final steps before coverage can be bound.

After closing and the policy is in place, if a breach of a representation occurs, the insured can file a claim against the policy. Parties can feel comfortable with RWI knowing that the insurer will actually pay claims. The frequent use of RWI in M&A transactions reflects its usefulness in making deal negotiations more efficient and the fact that the market has developed a track record of paying valid claims. As a result, the share of transactions using RWI is likely to continue increasing.

HOW HOLLAND & KNIGHT CAN HELP

Holland & Knight is among the leading U.S. firms handling RWI policies. Not only does Holland & Knight represent more than a dozen insurers in underwriting RWI policies, but the firm also represent buyers in dozens of deals a year in purchasing RWI policies for their transactions. Our RWI Team is composed of a core group of corporate attorneys with vast experience in M&A and private equity deals who are supported by more than 100 other related practice-specific attorneys at the firm. If you need assistance with RWI, please contact the authors or another member of our Representations and Warranties Insurance Team

美国并购交易中越来越多地使用陈述与保证保险

原文作者: B. Jeffery Bell 及 Claire Sager

陈述与保证保险 ( RWI ) 是一种与并购 (M&A) 交易相关的保险单，近年来在美国市场迅速得到广泛采用。RWI 赔 偿买方因违反交易购买协议中关于目标公司的陈述和保证或卖方违反交割前税款缴交的补偿义务所造成的经济损 失。基本上，一旦交割发生, RWI 就会保护作为保险单下的被保险人的买方免受因违反卖方陈述而造成的非预期 损失。

在特定的交易中，购买协议中的赔偿条款可能是谈判过程中最具争议的部分。作为卖方仍需承担责任的传统赔偿 方式的替代方案，获得 RWI 保单有助于消除争议并使交易过程更加顺利。因此，在过去几年中，RWI 在美国市 场的使用急剧增加。它作为私募股权交易和卖方主导的拍卖过程的共同特征而受到欢迎，现在也经常用于战略交 易。

什么是陈述与保证保险 (RWI)?

美国大约有 20 家承保 RWI 保单的保险公司 根据 RWI 保单，保险公司将向被保险人支付因违反购买协议中的陈 述而导致的超出保单自留额的损失。自留金类似于传统的免赔额，是指依保单向被保险人提供任何承保范围之前 ，除保险公司以外的各方必须承担的损失总额。通常，保留率为目标公司企业价值的 1% ，但 12 个月后可降至 0.5%。通常，保险人根据保单承担的责任限额在目标企业价值的 10% 到 30% 之间，这与传统赔偿结构中卖 方对一般陈述违约的赔偿义务的惯常上限一致。

虽然 RWI 保单可以被架构为卖方是被保险人的“卖方”保单，但为卖方欺诈导致的违规行为提供保险的“买方 ”保单更为普遍。如果企业的卖方违反购买协议中的陈述、保证或税收补偿，则卖方保单为企业的卖方提供补偿 义务的保障。当卖方是被保险人时，他们仍然根据购买协议对买方负责，但 RWI 会赔偿他们的承保损失。卖方 保单与买方保单的一个主要区别在于，卖方保单的承保范围仅限于购买协议中列出的赔偿上限，不包括因卖方欺 诈造成的损失。

买方保单为企业的买方提供因违反任何陈述、保证或税收补偿而造成的损失。当买方是被保险人时, RWI 可以作 为购买价金保留款或监管账户的替代品或将该需要最小化，或者它可以补充购买价金保留款或监管账户所提供的 保护。

RWI 保单有一些标准的排除条款。在买方或卖方保单中，被保险人实际知晓的违约行为造成的损失将始终被排除 在外，尽管保险人有责任证明被保险人实际知晓。其他常见的排除包括购买价格调整、违反承诺（交易前税收补 偿除外）、没有资金/资金不足的养老金计划负债、签署和交割之间产生及发现的因“中间违约”所产生的使用

净经营亏损结转和损失。

RWI 保单有六年的尾部，这意味着保险人需在保单生效后的六年内为重大陈述和税收补偿索赔负责。对于一般 陈述，有一个三年的尾部。

RWI 过程如何运作

RWI 保单的第一步是从一家或多家保险公司获取保险报价。寻求购买 RWI 的买家通常会为此聘请保险经纪人。 根据有关交易的初步信息（包括目标公司的财务报表、收购协议草案和有关目标公司的任何信息备忘录），保险

公司将提供一份初步的非约束性意向书 (NBIL)，列出主要条款他们建议提供保险，包括保费、保留、排除和关 注领域。此外，承保人可能会认为出于保单目的删除或更改陈述中的特定语言，而不是排除整个陈述。

在比较 NBIL 之后，买方将选择一家保险公司并进行承保，这通常需要一到两周的时间，但可以在必要时尽快进 行，以适应基础交易的时间安排。正式流程的第一步是向承保人支付 30,000 至 50,000 美元的不可退还的预付承 保费，具体取决于交易规模、复杂度和可能的其他因素。然后，承保人及其律师可以访问交易的数据室、交易文 件和尽职调查报告，他们将对其进行审查。

接下来，将安排承保电话会议。此电话会议大约需要两个小时，需要交易团队成员、承保人及其律师以及任何第 三方尽职调查提供者出席。在这次电话会议上，承保人及其律师有机会询问有关买方完成了哪些尽职调查的问题 。电话结束后，承保人将立即向买方提供保单草案和任何后续问题。保单谈判（这是一种标准形式）和解决任何 承保跟进是承保范围受到约束之前的最后步骤。

在交割且保单生效后，如果发生违反陈述的情况，被保险人可以针对保单提出索赔。各方可以放心地使用 RWI ，因为他们知道保险公司会实际支付理赔。RWI 在并购交易中的频繁使用反映了它在提高交易谈判效率方面的 作用，以及市场已经形成了支付有效索赔的记录这一事实。因此，使用 RWI 的交易份额可能会继续增加。

Holland & Knight 如何提供帮助

Holland & Knight 是处理 RWI 保单的领先美国事务所之一。Holland & Knight 不仅代表十几家保险公司承保 RWI 保单，而且该公司每年还代表买家参与数十笔交易，为他们的交易购买 RWI 保单。我们的 RWI 团队由一群在并 购和私募股权交易方面拥有丰富经验的公司律师组成，他们得到公司 100 多名其他相关专业律师的支持。如果 您需要 RWI 方面的帮助，请联系作者或我们的陈述和保证保险团队的其他成员。

Not Selected in the H-1B Lottery? Now What?

By Nora Katz and Hadeel M. Abouhasira

HIGHLIGHTS:

• U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) recently concluded its annual March lottery to award H-1B slots to enough foreign workers to meet its 85,000 visa annual cap.

• Given the high number of lottery registrations and the fixed number of available slots, it is inevitable that many employers will receive few, if any, lottery selections. However, USCIS may conduct a subsequent lottery selection if additional visa slots remain after the initial filing period.

• This Holland & Knight alert sets forth some common alternative immigration options for employers that have critical employees whose registrations were not selected in the lottery.

Each year in March, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) conducts a lottery to award H-1B slots to enough foreign workers to meet its 85,000 visa annual cap. This number includes 20,000 slots reserved for candidates who earned a Master's degree or higher from a U.S. educational institution.

USCIS recently concluded this year's initial H-1B lottery. Given the high number of lottery registrations and the fixed number of available slots, it is inevitable that many employers will receive f ew, if any, lottery selections. Although USCIS may conduct a subsequent lottery selection if additional visa slots remain after the initial filing period, many employers and employees may already be questioning their options moving forward.

This Holland & Knight alert sets forth some common alternative immigration options if you have critical employees whose registrations were not selected in the lottery.

TRY AGAIN NEXT YEAR

If an employee was not selected in this year's H-1B lottery but he or she remains work authorized for another year or more, there will be an opportunity to enter that employee into next year's lottery.

H-1B CAP EXEMPT EMPLOYERS

Certain employers are considered exempt from the H-1B cap. Those employers include institutions of higher education or related/affiliated nonprofit entities and nonprofit or governmental research organizations. If an employee maintains a qualifying H-1B position with a cap-exempt employer, he or she may be eligible to work for the organization on a concurrent basis so long as he or she remains employed by the cap-exempt employer for the duration of the H-1B period of authorization. Employees may also qualify for H-1B cap-exempt status if they are placed at a cap-exempt employer's location as a worksite.

F-1 STUDENTS

Employees in the United States in F-1 student status may be eligible for 12 months of optional practical training (OPT). In some cases, student visa holders are eligible for up to 36 months of work authorization if their degrees were in a qualifying STEM field. Some degree programs allow F-1 students to work on a full- or

part-time basis pursuant to curricular practical training (CPT) while completing their degrees. Employees currently on F-1 student visas are encouraged to speak with their designated school official (DSO) to identify work authorization options pursuant to OPT, STEM optional practical training (STEM OPT) or curricular practical training (CPT).

F-1 students may also consider going back to school to earn a more advanced degree in the United States.

O-1 VISA

O-1 visas are reserved for individuals who have extraordinary ability in the sciences, education, business, arts or athletics, or who have shown extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television industry. While this visa category has robust requirements and a high bar for approval, it may provide work authorization in the United States for an initial period of three years with extensions permitted in one-year increments. There is no maximum number of extensions for O-1 visa holders.

E-3 VISAS FOR AUSTRALIAN NATIONALS

An employee with Australian citizenship may be eligible to apply for an E -3 visa if the position qualifies as a specialty occupation and the employee is qualified for the position. These visas are valid for two-year periods with extensions permitted in additional two-year increments. There is no maximum number of extensions for E-3 visa holders.

TN VISAS FOR MEXICAN AND CANADIAN NATIONALS

An employee with Mexican or Canadian citizenship may be eligible t o apply for a TN visa if the position is designated under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) – Chapter 16, Appendix 2 List of Professional Occupations. These visas are generally valid for three-year periods with extensions permitted in additional three-year increments. There is no maximum number of extensions for TN visa holders.

L-1 INTRACOMPANY TRANSFER

The L-1 intracompany transfer visa is for managers, executives or individuals with specialized knowledge who have worked for a related entity abroad for more than one full year and who are transferring to the U.S. to work in a similar capacity. If a company has international operations or the ability to send employees abroad to work remotely in a country where they are work authorized, then the L-1 visa may be an option.

J-1 VISAS

J-1 visas are granted through U.S. Department of State-approved programs for teaching, instructing or lecturing, studying, observing, conducting research, consulting, demonstrating special skills, receiving training, or receiving graduate medical education or training. This may provide an alternative to the H-1B visa for certain occupations, such as professors, research assistants, research scholars and others.

DEPENDENT SPOUSES

In some cases, if the employee is married to someone on a different visa type (e.g., L-1, H-1B, E, etc.) or to a U.S. citizen, he or she may be eligible for work authorization as a dependent spouse.

GREEN CARD

There are many types of green cards available to foreign workers. Some green card types can provide an accelerated path to U.S. work authorization while others can take years. Eligibility for the various types of green cards must be made on a case-by-case basis, but in some circumstances, the employee may be eligible for an accelerated path to work authorization and, ultimately, permanent residence.

There are many potential options available to those employees who were not selected in this year's H-1B cap lottery. Determining the best alternative strategy will depend on an individual's nationality, qualifications, immigration status and more. For more information or counsel regarding these options and others, as well as how they apply to your company's workforce, please contact a member of Holland & Knight's Immigration Team

未在 H-1B 抽签中被选中 ? 怎么办?

原文作者: Nora Katz 及 Hadeel M. Abouhasira

重点摘要：

• 美国公民及移民服务局 (USCIS) 最近结束了其每年 3 月的抽签，将 H-1B 名额授予足额的外国就业人 士，以满足其 85,000 签证的年度上限。

• 鉴于大量的参加抽签注册和固定数量的可用名额，许多雇主不可避免地会收到很少的抽中通知（如果有 的话）。不过，如果在初始申请期后仍有额外的签证名额，USCIS 可能会进行后续的抽签。

• 本 Holland & Knight 提示文章为拥有未在抽签中被选中的关键雇员的雇主提出了一些常见的替代移民选 择。

每年 3 月，美国公民及移民服务局 (USCIS) 都会进行抽签，将 H-1B 名额授予足额的外国就业人士，以满足其 每年 85,000 个签证的上限。这个数字包括为从美国教育机构获得硕士学位或更高学位的人选保留的 20,000 个名额。

USCIS 最近结束了今年的首次 H-1B 抽签。鉴于大量的抽签注册和固定数量的可用名额，许多雇主不可避免地 会收到很少的抽中通知（如果有的话）。不过，如果在初始申请期后仍有额外的签证名额，USCIS 可能会进行 后续的抽签，但许多雇主和雇员可能已经在怀疑他们未来有哪些选择方案。

如果您的关键员工未在抽签中被选中，则本 Holland & Knight 提示文章列出了一些常见的替代移民选择方案。

明年再试

如果一名员工没有在今年的 H-1B 抽签中被选中，但他仍然有一年或更长时间的工作许可，那么该员工将有机会 参加明年的抽签。

H -1B

上限豁免雇主

某些雇主被认为不受 H-1B 上限的限制。这些雇主包括高等教育机构或相关/附属的非营利实体和非营利或政府 研究组织。如果雇员在上限豁免雇主处保持合格的 H-1B 职位，他可能有资格同时为该组织工作，只要他在 H-1B 的授权期限仍然被上限豁免雇主雇用。如果员工被安置在上限豁免雇主的工作地点，他们也可能有资格获 得 H-1B 上限豁免身份。

F-1 学生

持有 F-1 学生身份的美国员工可能有资格参加 12 个月的选择性实践培训 (OPT)。在某些情况下，如果学生签 证持有人的学位属于合格的科学、技术、工程、数学领域（STEM），则他们有资格获得长达 36 个月的工作许 可。一些学位课程允许 F-1 学生在完成学位的同时根据课程实践培训 (CPT) 全职或兼职工作。鼓励目前持有

F-1 学生签证的员工与其指定的学校官员 (DSO) 交谈，以确定根据 OPT、STEM 选择性实践培训 (STEM OPT) 或课程实践培训 (CPT) 的工作许可选项。

F-1 学生也可以考虑回到学校在美国获得更高的学位。

O-1 签证

O-1 签证是为在科学、教育、商业、艺术或体育方面具有非凡能力，或在电影或电视行业取得非凡成就的个人 保留的。虽然此签证类别具有严格的要求和较高的批准门槛，但它可以在美国提供初始期限为三年的工作许可， 并允许以一年为增量进行延期。 O-1 签证持有人的延期次数没有上限。

澳大利亚国民的 E-3 签证

具有澳大利亚公民身份的雇员可能有资格申请 E-3 签证，如果该职位符合专业职业资格并且该雇员有资格担任 该职位。这些签证的有效期为两年，允许以额外的两年为增量进行延期。 E-3 签证持有人的延期次数没有上限

墨西哥和加拿大国民的 TN 签证

如果职位是美国、墨西哥及加拿大协议（USMCA) – 第 16 章附录 2 专业职业列表指定的职位，那么具有墨西 哥或加拿大公民身份的雇员可能有资格申请 TN 签证。这些签证通常有效期为三年，允许以额外的三年为增量 进行延期。 TN 签证持有人的延期次数没有上限。

L-1 公司内部调动

L-1 公司内部调动签证适用于在国外相关实体工作超过一年并调动到美国以类似身份工作的具有专业知识的经理 、行政人员或个人。如果一家公司有国际业务，或者有能力派遣员工出国在他们获得工作许可的国家/ 地区远程 工作，那么 L-1 签证可能是一种选择。

J-1 签证

J-1 签证是通过美国国务院批准的教学、指导或演讲、学习、观察、进行研究、咨询、展示特殊技能、接受培训 或接受研究生医学教育或培训的项目授予的。这可能为某些职业提供 H- 1B 签证的替代方案，例如教授、研究 助理、研究学者等。

受抚养配偶

在某些情况下，如果员工与持有不同签证类型（例如 L-1、H-1B 、E 等）的人结婚或与美国公民结婚，他或她 可能有资格作为受抚养人配偶获得工作许可。

绿卡

外国员工可以获得多种类型的绿卡。某些类型的绿卡可以加快获得美国工作许可的途径，而其他类型的绿卡可能 需要数年时间。必须根据具体情况确定各类绿卡的资格，但在某些情况下，员工可能有资格获得工作许可的加速 途径，并最终获得永久居留权。

那些没有在今年的 H-1B 名额抽签中被选中的员工有许多潜在的选择。确定最佳替代策略将取决于个人的国籍、 资格、移民身份等。有关这些选项和其他选项的更多信息或建议，以及它们如何适用于贵公司的员工队伍，请联 系 Holland & Knight 移民团队的成员。

New York's "Small Business" Commercial Financing Disclosure Law

By Leonard A. Bernstein, Bob Jaworski and Richard Smith

HIGHLIGHTS:

• The New York Department of Financial Services (Department) recently adopted a final regulation (Regulation) to implement the New York Commercial Financing Disclosure Law (Act), for which compliance becomes mandatory after Aug. 1, 2023. The new law applies to nonbank commercial lenders that make small business loans of up to $2.5 million.

• According to the Act, certain providers of "specific offers of commercial financing" must provide Truth in Lending-like written disclosures to any recipient of such an offer at the time it is extended.

• Due to the Regulation's complexity, providers subject to its requirements are advised to begin compliance preparations as soon as possible.

If you are a nonbank finance company that makes commercial loans of $2.5 million or less in New York or represent such a company, this Holland & Knight alert is for you.

WHY ENACT A DISCLOSURE LAW FOR "SMALL" BUSINESS LOANS? HOW DID WE GET HERE?

There has been a growing concern expres sed over the last several years, by state and federal legislators alike, that small businesses needed some governmental protections when seeking commercial credit. One recent example is the following statement in November 2021 by Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez (D-N.Y.), then-Chairwoman of the House Small Business Committee, upon her introduction, along with Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), of the bicameral federal Small Business Lending Disclosure Act:

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic immoral lenders sought to prey on small businesses with unfair and unsustainable loans …. Once we were in the midst of the worst public health crisis in over a century these predatory lenders would take aim at business and entrepreneurs trying to stay afloat. This legislation is a critical step in extending many of the protections in consumer lending law to small firms, bringing needed transparency to small business credit markets and ensuring entrepreneurs understand their obligations and rights when they sign up for a loan. 1

Both before and after introduction of the Velázquez -Menendez bill, which has not been passed, numerous states have either passed laws or introduced legislation aimed at addressing concerns similar to those expressed by Velázquez

HOW DID NEW YORK LEGISLATORS RESPOND TO THE PERCEIVED "UNFAIRNESS?"

In 2020, the state of New York enacted the New York Commercial Finance Disclosure Law (Act),2 requiring certain providers of "specific offers of commercial financing" to provide Truth in Lending-like written disclosures to any recipient of such an offer at the time it is extended. The Act also required the New York Department of Financial Services (Department) to adopt an implementing regulation before the Act would become operative.

After a lengthy rulemaking process, the Department adopted the final regulation (Regulation)3 on Feb. 1, 2023, compliance with which becomes mandatory on Aug. 1, 2023. Because of the complexity and granularity of the Regulation, providers subject to the Regulation would be well-advised to begin compliance preparations as soon as possible.

WHO IS SUBJECT TO THE REGULATION?

The Regulation applies to nonbank "providers" of commercial financing and defines a "provider" to mean any person who extends a "specific offer of commercial financing" (Offer) to a recipient, including a person who solicits and presents such Offers on behalf of a third party. 4 An Offer is defined to mean "a written communication to a recipient, based upon information from, or about, the recipient, of a (i) periodic payment amount, irregular payment amount, or financing amount, and (ii) any rate, price, or cost of financing (including, without limitation, any total repayment amount), in connection with a commercial financing," which, if accepted by a recipient, is binding upon the provider.5

ARE ALL "PROVIDERS" COVERED? WHO IS EXEMPT?

Not all providers are covered. The Act and Regulation exempt providers that fall into any of the following categories:

• "financial institutions," including federal and state-chartered banks, industrial loan companies, savings banks, savings and loan associations, and credit unions authorized to transact business in New York

• subsidiaries of financial institutions, defined as any entities "of which a majority of the voting power of the voting equity securities or equity interest is owned, directly or indirectly, by a financial institution"6 (bank nonsubsidiary affiliates do not appear to be expressly exempted from the Act)

• technology service providers to exempt entities for use as part of the entity's commercial financing program (provided they have no arrangement or agreement to purchase an interest in any commercial financing provided by the entity in connection with the program)

• lenders regulated under the federal Farm Credit Act

• persons who make no more than five commercial financing transactions in New York in a 12-month period7

WHAT KINDS OF "COMMERCIAL FINANCING" ARE COVERED BY THE REGULATION?

"Commercial financing" is broadly defined in the Act to refer to financing the proceeds of which the recipient does not intend to use primarily for personal, family or household purposes, including specifically any of the following types of commercial financing:

• open-end financing

• closed-end financing

• sales-based financing

• factoring transactions

• other forms of financing8

"Open-end financing" and "closed-end financing" are defined in the Act in a manner operationally similar to the definitions given those terms in the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and its implementing regulation, Regulation Z. However, the other types of commercial financing covered by the Act have no definitional analogs in TILA and are not the type of financings for which TILA -like disclosures were designed. For example, the Act applies to "factoring transactions," which it defines to mean accounts receivable purchase transactions.9 The Act also applies to "sales -based financing," which it defines to mean any: transaction that is repaid by the recipient to the provider, over time, as a percentage of sales or revenue, in which the payment amount may increase or decrease according to the volume of sales made or revenue received by the recipient. Sales -based financing also includes a true-up mechanism where the financing is repaid as a fixed payment but provides for a reconciliation process that adjusts the payment to an amount that is a percentage of sales or revenue.10

The Regulation also expands the covered types of commercial financing to include "asset -based lending transactions," in which "advances are made from time to time contingent on the recipient forwarding payments….received from one or more third parties for goods that the recipient has supplied or services the recipient has rendered to that third party or parties."11 Finally, the Regulation covers "lease financing," which means "providing a lease for goods if the lease creates a security interest in the goods leased," but not a "true lease" as defined in Article 2A of the New York Uniform Commercial Code (NY -UCC).12

WHAT TYPES OF COMMERCIAL FINANCING TRANSACTIONS ARE EXCLUDED?

The Act exempts the following types of commercial financing transactions:

• real-estate-secured commercial financing transactions

• true leases (as defined in the NY-UCC)

• commercial financing transactions in which the aggregate amount the recipient can receive (not the amount of any particular advance) exceeds $2.5 million13

• commercial financing transactions (including open-end credit plans, such as floor-plan financings) with a motor vehicle dealer, a motor vehicle rental company or an affiliate of either, in amounts of $50,000 or more.14

FOR PURPOSES OF COMPLYING WITH THE REGULATION, HOW DO PROVIDERS OF ASSET-BASED LENDING AND FACTORING TRANSACTIONS DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE AMOUNT OF AN OFFER IS EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN $2.5 MILLION?

To demonstrate that the amount of an Offer is not equal to or less than $2.5 million, in addition to offering the recipient an agreement that describes the general terms and conditions of the commercial financing transaction with an approved credit limit exceeding $2.5 million, the parties to the transaction must agree in writing that an amount exceeding $2.5 million is reasonably expected t o be advanced to the recipient and outstanding at some point during the agreement. Such a written agreement needs to be entered into before execution of the financing agreement, any amendment to an agreement entered into before the effective date of the Act, or any amendment increasing the approved credit limit for a consummated financing agreement to an amount exceeding $2.5 million. Providers should prepare a short form of such an agreement now that can

be used with recipients to demonstrate that the transaction is an exemption from the Regulation. If the provider and recipient do not enter into such a written agreement, then the Offer will be considered less than or equal to $2.5 million and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Regulation 15

ARE THERE ANY TERRITORIAL LIMITATIONS?

Yes. The Regulation only covers commercial financing transactions in which: 1) the recipient's business is "principally directed or managed from the state of New York"; or 2) in the case of a recipient that is a natural person, the recipient is a legal resident of the state of New York. 16 It does not matter, however, from where the provider's business is "principally directed or managed," so long as the recipient has the required New York connection. And similar to California's commercial financing disclosure law, the Regulation allows providers to rely on the recipient's written representation in this regard, or the business address listed on the recipient's financing application or other financing document (if it is an entity), or the address shown on the recipient's driver's license or other form of government-issued identification document (if the recipient is a natural person).

WHEN MUST THE NEW DISCLOSURES BE GIVEN?

Providers are required to give recipients or their agents (including a broker) a document labeled "OFFER SUMMARY" in bold font and, in certain cases, a separate document, which must appear directly following the Offer Summary, labeled "Itemization of Amount Financed."

17 The Act defines a "specific offer" to mean the "specific terms….quoted to a recipient, based on information obtained from, or about the recipient, which, if accepted by a recipient, shall be binding on the provider…."

According to the Act, these disclosures must be given "at the time of extending a specific offer….."

18 Practically speaking, the intent seems to be that the delivery of a detailed commercial loan offer (which is binding on the provider if accepted by the recipient) triggers the disclosure requirement. The Regulation confirms that a specific offer arises only from a communication based on recipient information "that informs the provider's quote to the recipient, such as the recipient's financial or credit information, but not the recipient's name, address or general interest in financing."19

Note that if a provider allows a recipient to select from multiple differing offer options, the time of extending a specific offer occurs only when the recipient selects an option. In such cases, the disclosures the provider must give are only for the spec ific offer of commercial financing the recipient elects to pursue.20

WHAT ACTIVITY MAY NOT OCCUR BEFORE A RECIPIENT'S WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF THE REQUIRED DISCLOSURES HAS BEEN OBTAINED?

The Act prohibits providers from "proceed[ing] further with the commercial financing transaction application" until it has received the recipient's written acknowledgment of receipt of the required disclosures. 21 The Regulation restates this prohibition by indic ating that "prior to consummating a commercial financing, a provider shall obtain the recipient's consent."22 The Regulation also permits receipt of the recipient's signature electronically. Consequently, it seems that following delivery of the disclosures triggered by a provider's extension of a "specific offer," further activity in connection with the financing must cease until the written acknowledgement is obtained.

WHAT FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO THE "OFFER SUMMARY?"

Section 5 of the Regulation imposes general formatting requirements for the Offer Summary that apply to all commercial financings . These rules are very detailed. They include minutiae such as to how many decimal

points of the Annual Percentage Rate (APR) should be disclosed, how to disclose the term of the transaction, what "Times New Roman" font-size should be used for different parts of the Offer Summary, how to express numerical values and more. Among these formatting rules are the following:

1. The words "Offer Summary" must appear, in bold print, at the top and center of page (or other display medium), followed by a one- to five-word description of the type of product offered (e.g., "Merchant Cash Advance"), whic h can include the provider's branding terminology. 23

2. The following statement, followed by a space for the recipient to sign the form (labeled "Recipient Signature") and a space in which the recipient can insert the date (labeled "Date"), must appear at the bottom of the disclosure, below any other information required by the Act and Regulation: "Applicable law requires this information to be provided to you to help you make an informed decision. By signing below, you are confirming that you received this information."24

3. The disclosures must be in a "separate document" but may be transmitted as part of a package of other documents. If provided electronically, the documents must be in a format "that can be saved indefinitely for future reference."25

4. The Regulation requires providers to include, along with several of the specific items of information that must be included in an Offer Summary, a "short explanation" concerning the item; any such "short explanation" may not exceed 60 words in length 26

WHAT ARE THE CONTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE OFFER SUMMARY?

The Offer Summary must include specified items of information concerning the details of the Offer, as specifically prescribed, for each different type of covered commercial financing. While the Offer Summary may be presented to the recipient or the recipient's agent or broker, it must be signed by the recipient.27 Some of the most significant components of the Offer Summary are the "annual percentage rate," the "amount financed" and the "recipient's funds."

Annual Percentage Rate. The APR must be "determined in accordance with either the United States Rule method or the actuarial method, as both are set forth in Appendix J [of Regulation Z]"28 It must include all "finance charges," which are defined to include all charges that would be considered to be finance charges under Regulation Z (if Regulation Z were applicable), plus, unless it would result in the charge being counted twice, certain other specified charges depending upon whether the transaction is 1) an accounts receivable purchase transaction that is not a factoring transaction; 2) a factoring transaction; or 3) a lease financing transaction.29 When calculating the APR in connection with commercial open-end financing, the provider must assume the recipient draws down the credit limit at origination, makes no subsequent draws and makes minimum on-time payments pursuant to the contract.30 Most important, the APR "disclosed at the time of extending the specific offer of commercial financing" must be "accurate" – i.e., within the APR tolerances set forth in the Regulation or not more than 2.5 percent below the actual APR. 31

Amount Financed. The Regulation includes separate and slightly different definitions for the term "amount financed" depending upon whether the transaction is a sales -based financing, a closed-end financing, an open-end financing, a factoring transaction, an asset-based lending transaction or a lease financing transaction.32 Providers will need to consult the applicable definition for the type of financing transaction contemplated.

Recipient's Funds. The Regulation defines recipient funds essentially as "the net amount to be given directly to the recipient." The term "recipient funds," however, does not include funds paid to third parties (including brokers) or any part of the amount financed used to pay off or pay down other amounts owed by the recipient, if known by the provider at the time the disclosure is provided. 33

DOES THE REGULATION INCLUDE A MODEL FORM OF OFFER SUMMARY THAT PROVIDES A SAFE HARBOR FROM LIABILITY?

Unfortunately, no. Instead, it provides detailed individualized lists of specific formatting, informational and other requirements for sales -based financing (including asset-based lending that meets the definition of salesbased financing),34 closed-end financing (that does not meet the definition of sales -based financing or lease financing),35 commercial open-end financing,36 factoring transactions,37 lease financing transactions,38 general asset-based lending transactions39 and "all other commercial financing transactions."40

For example, a closed-end commercial financing disclosure must consist of 10 (or 11) rows and three columns, with each row relating to individual elements of the offered financing and each column containing specific items of information pertaining to that element. Rows 1 to 10 relate to the following financing elements:

Row 1: funding provided and "amount financed"

Row 2: APR

Row 3: finance charge

Row 4: total payments amount

Row 5: payments and payment schedule

Row 6: term

Rows 7 and 8 (combined): prepayment notice re additional finance charge

Row 9: collateral requirements

Row 10: avoidable fees and charges

The 11th row is required only in the event periodic payments are NOT monthly. It must be inserted between rows 4 and 5 identified above and include information relating to "Average Monthly Cost."

Obviously, even for an uncomplicated product, preparing the form of disclosure takes time and may be challenging. The row and column requirements may be different for each of the types of commercial financing covered by the Regulation. Depending upon the ty pe or types of commercial financing transactions in which a provider typically engages, it will be essential for the provider and its counsel to carefully review the applicable section or sections of the Regulation before drafting the Offer Summary and the required disclosure.

FOR SALES-BASED FINANCING, ARE THERE COMPLICATIONS IN CALCULATING THE APR?

The Act says that the estimated APR for sales -based financing transactions can be calculated according to the "historic method" or the "opt-in method."41 For these transactions, disclosing the APR requires calculating the "average monthly income estimate." That estimate can be derived from an historical average of monthly

sales.42 Alternatively, at the election of the provider, that estimate can be derived using "an internal estimated sales projection" calculated "using the best information reasonably available to the provider."43 These calculations and disclosures are very complicated, and sales -based transaction disclosures need substantial analysis and preparation.

WHAT IS THE ITEMIZATION OF AMOUNT FINANCED?

As indicated above, providers may also need to provide, in addition to the Offer Summary, a separate document titled "Itemization of Amount Financed." This document need be provided, however, only in connection with a financing transaction in which the "amount financed" exceeds the "recipient's funds."44 The "amount financed" typically means the loan amount or credit limit.45 The "recipient funds" typically means the net amount given to the recipient after payments to third parties or payments on a prior loan. 46

The format of the Itemization of Amount Financed must be substantially similar to the example provided in section 17(b) of the Regulation. That example is a table, headed "ITEMIZATION OF AMOUNT FINANCED" in bold, followed by a box consisting of at least five or six rows (depending upon whether or not any part of the amount financed is credited to the recipient's account with the financer). Each row contains a specific numerical value on the right side and a label for that value on the left side, as follows: 1) the amount of the recipient's funds (labeled, "Amount Given Directly to You"); 2) the amount credited to the recipient's account with the financer, labeled "Amount Paid on your Account with Us," followed by the account number, if applicable; 3) any amounts paid to other persons by the financer on the recipient's behalf, each listed on a separate line and identifying the person; 4) the sum of the amounts disclosed in rows 1 to 3, labeled "Amount Provided to You or on Your Behalf," followed by a reference to how the amount was calculated (e.g. "Sum of Items 1-7."); 5) the prepaid finance charge, labeled "Prepaid Finance Charge" or "Prepaid Finance Charges," as applicable, followed by a description of the purpose of the charge or charges (e.g. "Brokerage Fee"); and 6) the amount financed, labeled "Amount Financed," followed by a reference to how the amount was calculated (e.g. "Item 5 minus Item 4.").47 Providers should consult the Regulation for additional important details concerning this disclosure.

The Itemization must be a "separate document" from the Offer Summary, but must appear "immediately following" the Offer Summary. There is no signature requirement for the Itemization.

HOW, IF AT ALL, DOES THE REGULATION IMPACT COMMERCIAL FINANCING BROKERS AND/OR FINANCERS AND PROVIDERS WHEN DEALING WITH BROKERS?

The Regulation places certain responsibilities upon brokers, providers and financers in connection with brokered transactions, including the following:

• When a financer presents a specific commercial financing offer to a broker, it must provide the broker with a copy of a compliant Offer Summary and (if applicable) Itemization of Amount Financed (Disclosures).

• Upon receipt of same and before providing the recipient with the specific commercial financing offer, the broker must either 1) transmit the unaltered Disclosures to the recipient and provide the financer with evidence of such transmission, or 2) obtain confirmation from the financer that the Disclosures have been provided directly to the recipient.

• Financers must develop procedures reasonably designed to ensure that each recipient receives the Disclosures before or at the time the broker provides the recipient with the specific commercial financing offer.

• Providers must inform the recipient in writing of how, and by whom, the broker will be compensated for the broker's role in the transaction.48

WHAT PENALTIES CAN BE IMPOSED FOR VIOLATIONS?

The Act authorizes the Department to impose a civil penalty of $2,000 or less, payable to the state, for each violation of the Act or Regulation, or $10,000 or less if the violation is willful, and additional relief for knowing violations, including, but not limited to, restitution or a permanent or preliminary injunction on behalf of any recipient affected by the violation.49 It does not appear that the Act creates a private right of action for recipients or others for any such violations, although a court could be asked to decide whether a failure to comply constitutes an unfair or deceptive act or practice under other state law.

The Regulation provides several defenses to an enforcement action, similar to provisions found in TILA. 50 First, it allows for certain "tolerances" within which a disclosed APR will be considered "accurate" for purposes of the Regulation. Second, it provides that there is no liability in a situation in which a provider, within 60 days of discovering a "bona fide error," notifies the recipient of the error and makes any required adjustments. Third, it shields providers or financers from liability for "inadvertent" disclosures of finance charges, APR, periodic payments or irregular payments, average monthly cost, maximum non-interest finance charge or prepayment fees that exceed the amount that the provider is required to disclose.

Questions arise about what will be enforced as a "violation." Will a delay in making the disclosures after the time of extending a specific offer be scrutinized? Will a design flaw in construction of columns and rows merit enforcement? Does an error in any disclosure requirement create a problem, or only an error in the key APR and finance charge elements? Will a covered commercial loan borrower try to use a violation to escape its repayment obligations? If there is a secondary market for covered commercial loans, will investors ask providers to "buy back" loans for which a violation has been asserted?

CONCLUSION

There is obviously muc h more to the Act and the Regulation than is presented above. Providers, financers and brokers need to carefully review the Act and Regulation to be in a position to assess their full impact and develop a plan to achieve compliance before the mandatory compliance date. Starting such a review now seems especially important in light of the fact that New York is not alone in its effort to provide a measure of protection to individuals and small businesses seeking commercial financing. California, which set its coverage threshold at $500,000, already has regulations in place that became operative on Jan. 1, 2023. 51 Utah and Virginia have enacted commercial financing disclosure laws (with thresholds of $1 million and $500,000, respectively),52 but neither appears yet to have proposed regulations to flesh out the details of their required disclosures. And several more states, including most recently Illinois, have introduced bills to regulate small business commercial financing in various respects. It seems likely, therefore, that small business commercial financing industry participants will need to be prepared to address similar state initiatives during the coming months and years.

NOTES

1 Press release (Nov. 18, 2021).

2 N.Y. Fin. Services. Law § 800 et seq. On Dec. 23, 2020, then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed into law NY CLS Fin Serv §§ 801-812 with the intended purpose of "requiring certain providers that extend specific terms of commercial financing to a recipient to disclose certain information about the offer to the recipient."

3 23 NYCRR Part 600.1.

4 23 NYCRR § 600.1(ad) (referencing the definition in N.Y. Fin. Services. Law § 801(h)). Note that a Provider can also be a "financer," i.e., "the person who provides or will provide the commercial financing to the recipient," if the financer "communicates a specific offer of commercial financing, either directly to a recipient or to a recipient's agent or broker, with the expectation that the information will be shared with a recipient." Id. and 23 NYCRR § 600.1(q).

5 23 NYCRR § 600.1(ai).

6 See 23 NYCRR § 600.1(r)(def'n of "financial institution").

7 N.Y. Fin. Services. Law § 802(a)-(c), (f).

8 N.Y. Fin. Services. Law § 801(b). For purposes of determining whether a financing is a "commercial financing," providers are permitted to rely on any statement of intended purposes by the recipient (including even oral statements made by the recipient that are documented in the recipient's application file by the provider).

9 N.Y. Fin. Services. Law § 801(a).

10 N.Y. Fin. Services. Law § 801(j).

11 23 NYCRR § 600.0(e).

12 23 NYCRR § 600.0(w).

13 Rules to determine the "aggregate amount the recipient will receive" in connection with different types of commercial financing are set forth in § 19 of the Regulation (23 NYCRR § 600.19).

14 N.Y. Fin. Services. Law § 802(d), (e), (g), (h).

15 23 NYCRR § 600.19.

16 23 NYCRR § 600.24.

17 N.Y. Fin. Services. Law § 803, 804, 805, 806 and 807; 3 NYCRR § 600.0(a). The Regulation provides details as to when this time will be considered to occur in specific circumstances, including in certain instances in which the specific offer is to change the terms of an existing commercial financing agreement or is in connection with individual draws on an open-end commercial financing. Id.

18 N.Y. Fin. Services. Law § 801(k).

19 23 NYCRR § 600.0(n),(ai).

20 23 NYCRR § 600.1(f).

21 N.Y. Fin. Services Law § 809.

22 23 NYCRR § 600.18(a).

23 23 NYCRR § 600.5(a).

24 23 NYCRR § 600.5(b). Note that a Provider need only obtain the recipient's signature on the final disclosure that corresponds to the consummated transaction. Also, electronically transmitted disclosures and digital signatures affixed by any means that is compliant with the New York Electronic Signatures and Records Act, N.Y. State Technology Law §§ 103-109, including an "Accept" button or checking a digital box acknowledging agreement, are acceptable, so long as the Provider gives the recipient a date stamp and receipt, as required by Section 5(j).

25 23 NYCRR § 600.5(e), (j).

26 23 NYCRR § 600.5(h).

27 23 NYCRR § 600.18. If multiple Offer Summaries are provided to the recipient during negotiations, only the final disclosure corresponding to the consummated transaction must be signed by the recipient. Id.

28 23 NYCRR § 600.3(b). Note also that, besides having to disclose the APR in an Offer Summary, a Provider, whenever stating a rate of finance charge or a financing amount to a recipient "during an application process for commercial financing and after the quotation of a specific commercial financing offer," must also state the rate as an "annual percentage rate," using that term or the abbreviation "APR." Id.

29 23 NYCRR § 600.2(a).

30 23 NYCRR § 600.3(d).

31 23 NYCRR § 600.4(a).

32 23 NYCRR § 600.1(a).

33 23 NYCRR § 600.1(af).

34 23 NYCRR §§ 600.6-600.9.

35 23 NYCRR § 600.10.

36 23 NYCRR § 600.11.

37 23 NYCRR §§ 600.12, .13.

38 23 NYCRR § 600.14.

39 23 NYCRR § 600.15.

40 23 NYCRR § 600.16.

41 N.Y. Fin. Services Law § 803.

42 23 NYCRR § 600.8.

43 23 NYCRR §§ 600.9(c), (d).

44 23 NYCRR § 600.17(a).

45 23 NYCRR § 600.1(a).

46 23 NYCRR §§ 600.1(a-f).

47 Id.

48 23 NYCRR § 600. Neither the Act nor the Regulation specifies the form of disclosure that must be made in this regard, nor do they require that it be included in the Offer Summary.

49 N.Y. Fin. Services. Law § 812.

50 23 NYCRR § 600.4.

51 Cal. Fin Code § 22800 et seq.; 10 CCR § 900 et seq.

52 Utah Code § 7-27-101 et seq., -102(11); Va. Code § 6.2-2228 et seq., -2229(3).

纽约 “小型企业 ”商业融资披露法

原文作者: Leonard A. Bernstein, Bob Jaworski 及 Richard Smith

重点摘要：

• 纽约金融服务部（金融服务部）最近通过了一项最终条例（条例）来实施纽约商业融资披露法（法案） ，而该法案在 2023 年 8 月 1 日之后将具强制效力。该新法律适用于向小型企业提供最高不超过 250 万美元贷款的非银行商业放款人。

• 根据该法案，某些“特定商业融资要约”的提供人必须在做出该等要约时向任何接受此类要约的人提供 类似于真实贷款法案所规定的书面披露。

• 由于条例的复杂性，建议受其规定约束的提供人尽快开始合规准备工作。

如果您是一家在纽约提供 250 万美元或更少金额的商业贷款的非银行金融公司或代表此类公司，此 Holland & Knight 提示文章适合您参考。

在过去的几年里，州和联邦立法者越来越担心小型企业在寻求商业信贷时需要一些政府保护。最近的一个例子是 时任众议院小型企业委员会主席的众议员 Nydia M. Velázquez ( 民主党- 纽约) 与参议员 Robert Menendez ( 民主党-新泽西) 在提出两院制联邦小型企业贷款披露法时于 2021 年 11 月同时发表以下声明, ：

在 COVID-19 大流行之前，不道德的放款人试图通过不公平和不可持续的贷款来掠夺小型企业……。一 旦我们陷入一个多世纪以来最严重的公共卫生危机之中，这些掠夺性放款人就会瞄准试图维持生计的企 业和企业家。这项立法是将消费者贷款法中的许多保护措施扩展到小型企业的关键一步，为小型企业信 贷市场带来所需的透明度，并确保企业家在申请贷款时了解他们的义务和权利。1

在提出尚未被通过的 Velázquez-Menendez 法案之前和之后，许多州都通过了法律或制定了旨在解决与 Velázquez 众议员表达的类似问题的立法。

纽约立法者如何回应感知到的“不公平状况”？

2020 年，纽约州颁布了《纽约商业金融披露法》（法案）, 2 求某些“特定商业融资要约”的提供人必须在做出 该等要约时向任何接受此类要约的人提供类似于真实贷款法案所规定的书面披露。该法案还要求纽约金融服务部 （金融服务部）在该法案生效之前通过一项实施条例。

经过漫长的规则制定过程，纽约金融服务部于 2023 年 2 月 1 日通过了最终条例（条例）3 并于 2023 年 8 月 1 日强制要求遵守该条例。由于该条例的复杂性和细化性，受该条例约束的提供人最好尽快开始合规准备工作。

为什么要为“小型企业”贷款制定披露法？我们是怎么走到这步的？

谁受条例的约束？

该条例适用于商业融资的非银行“提供人”，并将“提供人”定义为向接受人提供“特定商业融资要约”（要约 ）的任何人，包括代表第三方提供该等要约的人。4 约被定义为“根据接受人的信息或关于接受人的信息向接受 人发出其中包含 (i) 定期付款金额、不定期付款金额或融资金额，以及 (ii) 任何利率，与商业融资有关的价格或 融资成本（包括但不限于任何还款总额）”、而如果接受人接受，则对提供人具有约束力的书面通信。5

是否涵盖所有“提供人”？谁是豁免的？

并非所有提供人都包括在内。该法案和法规豁免属于以下任何类别的提供人：

• “金融机构”，包括联邦和州特许银行、工业贷款公司、储蓄银行、储蓄和贷款协会以及获准在纽约开 展业务的信用合作社

• 金融机构的子公司，定义为“金融机构直接或间接拥有其大部分表决权的有表决权证券或股权”的任何 实体 6 行的非子公司附属机构似乎没有被明确豁免于法案外）

• 向豁免实体提供做为实体商业融资计划使用的技术服务提供人（前提是他们没有安排或协议购买实体提 供的与该计划相关的任何商业融资的利益）

• 受联邦农业信贷法监管的放款人

• 12 个月内在纽约进行不超过 5 次商业融资交易的人 7

该条例涵盖哪些类型的“商业融资”？

“商业融资”在该法案中被广泛定义为是指接受人不打算主要将其用于个人、家人或家庭目的的融资，具体包括 以下任何类型的商业融资：

• 开放式融资

• 封闭式融资

• 基于销售的融资

• 保理交易

• 其他形式的融资 8

“开放式融资”和“封闭式融资”在该法案中的定义在操作上类似于联邦真实借贷法案 ( 真实贷款法案) 及其实 施条例 Z 规则中对这些名词的定义。但是，该法案涵盖的其他类型的商业融资在 真实贷款法案中没有定义类比 ，也不是类似真实贷款法案所设计要求披露的融资类型。例如，该法案适用于“保理交易”，它定义为应收账款 购买交易。9

法案还适用于“基于销售的融资”，其定义为：

随着时间的推移，接受人按销售额或收入的百分比向提供人偿还的交易，其中付款金额可能会根据接受 人的销售额或收到的收入而增加或减少。基于销售的融资还包括调整机制，其中融资作为固定付款偿还 ，但提供调节过程，将付款调整为销售额或收入的一定百分比的金额。10

该条例还扩大了所涵盖的商业融资类型，以包括“基于资产的贷款交易”，其中“预付款不时取决于接受人的转 发付款...... 从一个或多个第三方收到接受人的货物已向该第三方或多方提供或提供接受人提供的服务。”11 ， 该条例涵盖了“租赁融资”，意思是“如果租赁对租赁的货物产生担保权益，则为货物提供租赁”，而不是纽约 统一商法典( 纽约统一商法典) 第 2A 条所定义的“真实租赁”。12

哪些类型的商业融资交易被排除在外？

该法豁免以下类型的商业融资交易：

• 房地产担保商业融资交易

• 真实租赁（如纽约统一商法典中所定义）

• 接受人可以收到的总金额（不是任何特定预付款的金额）超过 250 万美元的商业融资交易 13

• 与机动车经销商、机动车租赁公司或其附属公司的商业融资交易（包括开放式信贷计划，例如平面图融 资），金额为 50,000 美元或以上。14

为遵守法规，资产借贷和保理交易提供人如何确定要约金额是否等于或低于 250

为证明要约金额不等于或少于 250 万美元，除了向接受人提供描述商业融资交易的一般条款和条件且批准的信 用额度超过 250 万美元的协议外，交易双方还必须以书面形式同意，在协议期间的某个时间点，合理预期将超 过 250 万美元的金额预付给接受人并未付清。此类书面协议需要在融资协议执行之前签订、在法案生效日期之 前对协议进行任何修订、或将已完成的融资协议的批准信用额度提高到超过 250 万美元的任何修订。提供人现 在应准备一份此类协议的简短形式，以便与接受人一起使用，以证明该交易是该法规的豁免。如果提供人和接受 人未签订此类书面协议，则要约将被视为小于或等于 250 万美元，因此，受条例要求的约束。15

有地域限制吗？

接受人的业务“主要由纽约州指导或管理”；或 2) 如果接受人是 自然人，则接受人是纽约州的法定居民。16

是的。该条例仅涵盖以下商业融资交易：1)

然而提供人的业务“主要由何处指导或管理”并不重要，只要接受人 具有所需的纽约连接即可。并且类似于加州的商业融资披露法，该条例允许提供人在这方面依赖接受人的书面陈 述，或接受人的融资申请或其他融资文件（如果是实体）上列出的商业地址，或显示的地址在接受人的驾驶执照 或其他形式的政府签发的身份证明文件上（如果接受人是自然人）。

何时必须进行新的披露？

提供人必须向接受人或其代理人（包括经纪人）提供一份标有“要约摘要”的粗体字文件，在某些情况下，还必 须提供一份单独的文件，该文件必须直接出现在要约摘要之后，标有“融资金额明细”。 “

根据该法案，这些披露必须“在提供特定要约时...... 提供”。17 案将“特定要约”定义为“特定条款...... 根 据从，或关于接受人，如果接受人接受，则对提供人具有约束力……”18 上，其意图似乎是提供详细的商业贷款 要约（如果接受人接受，则对提供人具有约束力）触发披露要求。该条例确认，特定要约仅来自基于接受人信息

的通信，“将提供人的要约告知接受人，例如接受人的财务或信用信息，而不是接受人的姓名、地址或融资的一 般兴趣。 ”19

请注意，如果提供人允许接受人从多个不同的要约选项中进行选择，则扩展特定要约的时间仅在接受人选择一个 选项时发生。在这种情况下，提供人必须披露的只是接受人选择寻求的特定商业融资提议。20

在获得接受人对收到所需披露的书面确认之前不得进行哪些活动？

该法案禁止提供人“进一步处理商业融资交易申请”，直到它收到接受人对收到所需披露的书面确认。21 例重申 了这一禁令，指出“在完成商业融资之前，提供人应获得接受人的同意。”22 例还允许以电子方式接收收件人的 签名。因此，似乎在提供人延长“特定要约”触发披露后，与融资有关的进一步活动必须停止，直到获得书面确 认。

哪些格式要求适用于“要约摘要”？

条例第 5 条对适用于所有商业融资的要约摘要提出了一般格式要求。这些规则非常详细。它们包括一些细节， 例如应披露年百分比率 ( 年利率) 的小数点后多少位、如何披露交易条款、要约摘要的不同部分应使用何种“

Times New Roman”字体大小，如何表达数值等等。这些格式化规则如下：

1. “要约摘要”一词必须以粗体字出现在页面（或其他显示媒体）的顶部和中心，然后是对所提供产品类 型的一到五个字的描述（例如，“商户现金预支” ")，其中可以包含提供人的品牌用语。23

2. 以下声明，后跟一个供收件人签署表格的空间（标有“收件人签名”）和一个供收件人插入日期的空间 （标有“日期”），必须出现在披露的底部，如下该法案和法规要求的任何其他信息：“适用法律要求 向您提供此信息以帮助您做出明智的决定。通过在下方签名，您确认您收到了此信息。 ”24

3. 披露必须在“单独的文件”中，但可以作为其他文件包的一部分进行传输。如果以电子方式提供，文件 必须采用“可以无限期保存以供将来参考”的格式。25

4. 该条例要求提供人连同必须包含在要约摘要中的几个特定信息项目一起包括有关该项目的“简短说明” ；任何此类“简短说明”的长度不得超过 60 个字。26

要约摘要的内容要求是什么？

要约摘要必须包括有关要约细节的特定信息项目，如具体规定的那样，适用于每种不同类型的涵盖商业融资。虽 然要约摘要可能会提交给收件人或收件人的代理人或经纪人，但必须由收件人签名。27 摘要中一些最重要的组成 部分是“年利率”、“融资金额”和“接受人资金”。

年利率。 年利率 必须“根据美国规则方法或精算方法确定，因为两者都规定于[ 规则 Z] 中的附录 J”28 须包括 所有“财务费用”，其定义为包括所有根据 Z 规则（如果规则 Z 适用）将被视为财务费用的费用，加上，除非

会导致费用被计算两次，否则某些其他指定费用取决于交易是否 1) 应收账款购买交易这不是保理交易； 2）保 理交易；或 3) 租赁融资交易。29 商业开放式融资相关的年利率时，提供人必须假设接受人在初始时提取信用额 度，不进行后续提取，并根据合同按时支付最低限度的款项。30 是，“在提供人业融资的具体要约时披露”的年 利率必须是“准确的”

即在条例规定的年利率容差范围内，或者比实际年利率低不超过 2.5 % 。 31

融资金额。该条例根据交易是基于销售的融资、封闭式融资、开放式融资、保理交易、基于资产的贷款交易或租 赁融资交易。32

要查阅适用的定义以了解预期的融资交易类型。

接受人的资金。该条例基本上将接受资金定义为“直接提供给接受人的净额”。但是“接受人资金”一词不包括 支付给第三方（包括经纪人）的资金或用于偿还或偿还接受人所欠其他款项的融资金额的任何部分（如果提供人 于提供披露时已经知道）。33

该法规是否包括提供免责安全港的要约摘要模型表格？

很不幸的是，没有。相反地，它提供了销售融资（包括符合销售融资定义的资产贷款）的特定格式、信息和其他 要求的详细个性化列表，34 资（不符合销售融资或租赁融资定义）、35 式融资、36 交易, 37 融资交易、38 资产抵押 贷款交易 39 有其他商业融资交易”。40

例如，封闭式商业融资披露必须由 10（或 11）行和三列组成，每行与所提供融资的各个要素相关，每列包含 与该要素相关的特定信息项。第 1 至 10 行涉及以下融资要素：

第 1 行：提供的资金和“融资金额”

第 2 行：年利率

第 3 行：财务费用

第 4 行：付款总额

第 5 行：付款和付款时间表

第 6 行：条款

第 7 和 8 行（合并）：关于额外财务费用的预付款通知

第 9 行：抵押品要求

第 10 行：可避免的费用和收费

只有在定期付款不是每月付款的情况下才需要第 11 行。它必须插入上面标识的第 4 行和第 5 行之间，并包括 与“平均每月成本”相关的信息。

显然，即使对于不复杂的产品，准备披露表格也需要时间并且可能具有挑战性。该条例涵盖的每种商业融资类型 的行和列要求可能不同。根据提供人通常参与的商业融资交易的类型，提供人及其律师在起草要约摘要和要求的 披露之前，必须仔细审查法规的适用部分或部分。

对于基于销售的融资，计算年利率是否复杂？

该法案称，基于销售的融资交易的预估年利率可以根据“历史法”或“选择加入法”计算。41 这些交易，披露年 利率需要计算“平均月收入估算值”。该估计可以从每月销售额的历史平均值得出。42 在提供人的选择下，该估 计可以使用“使用提供人合理可用的最佳信息”计算的“内部估计销售预测”得出。43 计算和披露非常复杂，基 于销售的交易披露需要大量分析和准备。

融资金额的分项是什么？

如上所述，除了要约摘要之外，提供人可能还需要提供一份名为“融资金额明细”的单独文件。但是，只有在“ 融资金额”超过“接受人资金”的融资交易中才需要提供此文件。44 资金额”通常是指贷款金额或信用额度。45 受人资金”通常是指在支付给第三方或支付先前贷款后给予接受人的净额。46 融资金额分项的格式必须与条例第 17(b) 条中提供的示例基本相似。该示例是一个表格，标题为粗体的“融资 金额的分项”，后跟一个由至少五行或六行组成的框（取决于融资金额的任何部分是否记入收款人在融资人的帐 户中） . 每行在右侧包含一个特定的数值，在左侧包含该数值的标签，如下所示： 1) 收款人的资金数额（标记 为“直接给您的金额”）； 2) 存入收款人账户的金额，标记为“您在我们的账户上支付的金额”，后跟帐号（ 如果适用）； 3) 出资人代表收款人支付给其他人的任何款项，每笔款项单独列在一行中并识别该人； 4) 第 1 至 3 行中披露的金额总和，标记为“提供给您或代表您的金额”，后跟金额计算方式的参考（例如“项目 1-7 的总和”）； 5) 预付财务费用，标记为“预付财务费用”或“预付财务费用”（如适用），后跟费用目的说明 （例如“经纪费”）； 6) 融资金额，标记为“融资金额”，后跟金额计算方式的参考（例如“第 5 项减去第 4 项。”）。47 人应查阅该条例以了解有关此披露的其他重要细节。

明细必须是要约摘要的“单独文件”，但必须“紧随”要约摘要出现。明细无签名要求。

该条例对经纪人、提供人和融资人规定了与经纪交易有关的某些责任，包括以下内容：

• 当融资人向经纪人提出特定的商业融资要约时，它必须向经纪人提供一份合规的要约摘要和（如果适用 ）融资金额明细（披露）的副本。

• 收到相同信息后，在向接受人提供特定商业融资要约之前，经纪人必须 1) 将未更改的披露信息传送给 接受人，并向融资人提供此类传输的证据，或 2) 获得融资人的确认，披露信息已直接提供给收件人。

• 融资人必须制定合理设计的程序，以确保每个接受人在经纪人向接受人提供特定商业融资要约之前或之 时收到披露。

• 提供人必须以书面形式通知接受人，经纪人将如何以及由谁来补偿经纪人在交易中的角色。48 违规行为会受到哪些处罚？

该法案授权该部门对每次违反该法案或法规的行为处以 2,000 美元或以下的民事罚款，该罚款应向州政府支付 ；如果是故意违规，则处以 10,000 美元或以下的民事罚款，以及对知情违规行为的额外救济，包括但不限于仅 限于代表受违规影响的任何接受人的赔偿或永久或初步禁令。49 案似乎并未为任何此类违规行为的接受人或其他 人创造私人诉讼权，尽管可以要求法院裁定不遵守是否构成其他州法律规定的不公平或欺骗行为或做法。

该条例为执法行动提供了多种抗辩理由，类似于真实贷款法案 中的规定。50 它允许某些“容忍”，在这些容忍 范围内，出于法规的目的，披露的年利率将被视为“准确”。其次，它规定如果提供人在发现“善意错误”后 60 天内将错误通知接受人并进行任何必要的调整，则不承担任何责任。第三，它使提供人或融资者免于因“无

如果有的话，该法规在与经纪人打交道时如何影响商业融资经纪人和/或融资人和 提供人？

意”披露财务费用、年利率、定期付款或不定期付款、平均每月成本、最高非利息财务费用或超过提供人需要披 露的金额的预付款而承担责任.

关于什么将作为“违规”执行的问题出现了。是否会审查在延长特定要约时间后延迟披露？列和行构造中的设计 缺陷值得强制执行吗？任何披露要求中的错误是否会产生问题，或者只是关键 年利率 和财务费用要素中的错误 ？有担保的商业贷款借款人会试图利用违规行为来逃避还款义务吗？如果有担保商业贷款存在二级市场，投资者 会要求提供人“回购”被认定违规的贷款吗？

结论

该法案和条例显然比上面介绍的要多得多。提供人、融资者和经纪人需要仔细审查该法案和法规，以便能够评估 其全部影响并制定计划以在强制合规日期之前实现合规。鉴于纽约州并不是唯一一个为寻求商业融资的个人和小 型企业提供保护措施的州，现在开始这样的审查似乎尤为重要。加州将其保险门槛设定为 500,000 美元，该法

规已于 2023 年 1 月 1 日生效。51 州和弗吉尼亚州已颁布商业融资披露法（a 门槛分别为 100 万美元和

500,000 美元），52 者都没有似乎尚未提出法规来充实其要求披露的细节。还有几个州，包括最近的伊利诺伊州 ，已经出台法案在各个方面规范小型企业的商业融资。因此，小型企业商业融资行业参与者似乎需要做好准备， 在未来几个月和几年内应对类似的州的措施。 附注

1 新闻稿（2021 年 11 月 18 日）。

2 纽约金融服务法第 800 条及以下。 2020 年 12 月 23 日，当时的州长 Andrew Cuomo 签署了纽约金融服务法第 801812 条，其预期目的是“要求某些向接受人提供特定商业融资条款的提供人向接受人披露有关要约的某些信息。”

3 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.1 条。

4 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.1 条(ad)（参考纽约金融服务法 第 801(h)条中的定义）。请注意，提供人也可以是“融 资方”，即“向接受人提供或将向接受人提供人业融资的人”，如果融资方“直接向接受人或收件人的代理人或经纪人，期 望信息将与收件人共享。”编号。和 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.1(q)条。

5 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.1(ai)条。

6 请参见 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章 600.1(r)条（ “金融机构”的定义）。

7 纽约金融服务法第 802(a)-(c)、(f)条。

8 纽约金融服务法第 801(b)条。为确定融资是否为“商业融资”，提供人可以依赖接受人的任何预期目的声明（甚至包括提 供人记录在接受人申请文件中的接受人口头声明）。

9 纽约金融服务法第 801(a)条。

10 纽约金融服务法第 801(j)条。

11 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.0(e)条。

12 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.0(w)条。

13 条例第 19 条 (纽约州法规汇编第 23 章 § 600.19)中规定了确定与不同类型的商业融资有关的“接受人将收到的总金额 ”的规则。

14 纽约金融服务法第 802(d)、(e)、(g)、(h)条。

15 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.19 条。

16 约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.24 条。

17 纽约金融服务法第 803 、804、805、806 和 807 条； 纽约州法规汇编第 3 章第 600.0(a)条。该条例详细说明了在特定 情况下何时会被视为该时间，包括在某些情况下，特定要约是为了更改现有商业融资协议的条款或与个人提款有关商业融资 。同上。

18 纽约金融服务法第 801(k)条。

19 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.0(n),(ai)条。

20 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.1(f)条。

21 纽约金融服务法法第 809 条。

22 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.18(a )条。

23 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.5(a)条。

24 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.5(b)条。请注意，提供人只需在与完成的交易相对应的最终披露中获得接受人的签名。此 外，以符合纽约电子签名和记录法、纽约州技术法第§ 103-109 条 的任何方式附加的电子传输披露和数字签名，包括“接 受”按钮或选中数字框确认协议，都是可以接受，只要提供人按照第 5(j) 节的要求向接受人提供日期戳和收据。

25 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.5(e)、 (j)条。

26 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.5(h)条。

27 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.18 条。如果在谈判期间向收件人提供了多个要约摘要，则只有与完成的交易相对应的最 终披露必须由收件人签署。同上。

28 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.3(b)条。另请注意，除了必须在要约摘要中披露年利率外，提供人在“商业融资申请过程 中和特定商业融资要约要约后”向接受人说明融资费用率或融资金额时,”还必须使用该条款或缩写“年利率”将利率表述 为“年度百分比率”。同上。

29 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.2(a)条。

30 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.3(d)条。

31 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.4(a)条。

32 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.1(a)条。

33 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.1( af )条。

34 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.6-600.9 条。

35 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.10 条。

36 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.11 条。

37 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.12 、600.13 条。

38 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.14 条。

39 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.15 条。

40 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.16 条。

41 纽约金融服务法第 803 条。

42 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.8 条。

43 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.9(c)、 (d)条。

44 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.17(a)条。

45 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.1(a)条。

46 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.1(af)条。

47 同上。

48 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600 条。该法案和条例均未规定必须在这方面进行的披露形式，也未要求将其包含在要约摘 要中。

49 纽约金融服务法第 812 条。

50 纽约州法规汇编第 23 章第 600.4 条。

51 加州金融法第 22800 条及其后； 加州法规汇编第 10 章第 900 条及其后。

52 犹他州法典第 7-27-101 条及其后, -102(11)； 维吉尼亚州法典第 6.2-2228 条及其后。

International Trade Compliance Year in Review: 10 Enforcement Lessons from 2022

By Robert A. Friedman, Antonia I. Tzinova, Andrew K. McAllister, Mackenzie A. Zales and Sarah Kaitlin Hubner

HIGHLIGHTS:

• In the past year, the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and the U.S. Department of State's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) have prioritized the implementation of regulations and issuance of guidance in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and ongoing economic competition with China.

• The agencies have also been busy with enforcement actions, often underscoring policy priorities of the Biden Administration and offering the business community a roadmap for best practices.

• This Holland & Knight alert identifies 10 important lessons learned from OFAC, BIS and DDTC enforcement actions and policies announced in 2022.

In the past year, the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and the U.S. Department of State's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) (collectively, the Trade Agencies) have prioritized the implementation of regulations and issuance of guidance in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and ongoing economic competition with China.

At the same time, the Trade Agencies have been busy with enforcement actions, often underscoring policy priorities of the Biden Administration and offering the business community a roadmap for best practices. In 2022, the Trade Agencies took several notable actions against U.S. and foreign companies for violating U.S. export control and sanctions laws and regulations. These enforcement actions highlight the challenges companies face in managing risk associated with global operations, meeting U.S. legal requirements and implementing effective trade compliance programs.

With 2022 in the rearview mirror and as industry looks forward in 2023, businesses should take the opportunity to review existing trade compliance programs and determine whether new or different internal controls are warranted in light of the changing enforcement landscape. This Holland & Knight alert highlights 10 i mportant lessons learned from OFAC, BIS and DDTC enforcement actions and policies publicized in 2022, which can help inform areas of risk for industry.

LESSON 1 – IF YOU OUTSOURCE DUE DILIGENCE, BE SURE TO READ THE FINE PRINT: COMPANIES USING THIRD-PARTY SANCTIONS SCREENING TOOLS MUST STILL BE ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS IN COMPLIANCE

Over the course of 2022, major geopolitical developments like Russia's invasion of Ukraine have created heightened sanctions compliance risks for many businesses. In 2022 alone, OFAC designated thousands of individuals and entities to its Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) and Blocked Persons List, greatly

expanding the compliance burden for companies conducting sanctions and prohibited parties screening, especially those doing so manually. As risk profiles evolve and U.S. sanctions programs become more extensive and complex, many companies may choose to utilize third-party vendors to complete their sanctions screening.

In enforcement actions in the past year, OFAC has recognized the value in engaging third parties for sanctions screening services but highlighted the need for companies to actively understand the scope and capacity of third-party sanctions screening tools and to ensure that those capabilities are commensurate to the company's specific risk profile. The use of third-party sanctions screening tools will look different depending on a company's size, geographic reach and customer base. For example, OFAC may expect banks and other financial institutions to complete real-time, daily screening of each processed transaction of their existing customer base to make sure screening procedures capture new additions to the SDN List. OFAC has made clear the need for comprehensive sanctions compliance programs that are not simply limited to the utilization of third-party services. Instead, OFAC expects – particularly for those companies with high-risk profiles – other internal controls, routine assessment of risk, periodic training and auditing, and a culture of compliance.

LESSON 2 – MIND YOUR POST-CLOSING OBLIGATIONS: SANCTIONS COMPLIANCE MUST FLOW DOWN TO NEWLY ACQUIRED SUBSIDIARIES

Companies that frequently engage in mergers and acquisitions (M&A) activities should pay close attention to the actions of their new subsidiaries. In April 2022, OFAC announced that New York-based business analytics and information company S&P Global Inc. agreed to pay $78,750 to settle its potential civil liability for apparent violations of the Ukraine-Related Sanctions Regulations. The violations occurred in 2016 and 2017 when a newly acquired U.S. subsidiary of S&P Global, Petroleum Industry Research Associates Inc. (PIRA), reissued and re-dated multiple invoices to continue to extend credit to JSC Rosneft (Rosneft), a state-owned Russian oil company, in violation of the debt and equity restrictions set forth under Executive Order 13662. After the acquisition, S&P Global (formerly PIRA) employees reissued and re-dated four invoices to extend the original payment dates. S&P Global ultimately accepted past-due payments totaling $82,500 from Rosneft, even after Rosneft informed PIRA that the rejected payments were "returned by the bank because of sanctions policy" and suggested that PIRA contact its U.S. financial institution.

Notably, the enforcement action involved a violation of OFAC's sectoral sanctions – only the second-ever enforcement action involving the Sectoral Sanctions Identifications List (SSI List) – and serves as a helpful warning in light of the expansion of the SSI List with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Likewise, OFAC's enforcement action highlights the importance of U.S. companies conducting appropriate due diligence and actively extending trade (sanctions and otherwise) compliance programs, including training and monitoring to newly acquired international and domestic businesses. New employees should be trained in OFAC compliance procedures following an acquisition.

LESSON 3 – KNOW THYSELF: COMPANIES SHOULD TAILOR THEIR SANCTIONS COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS TO THEIR RESPECTIVE RISK PROFILES

Trade compliance programs should be risk-based and commensurate with the size and scope of any particular company's operations. Two recent OFAC enforcement actions against two companies of significantly different size and scope are demonstrative of this principle. At bottom, OFAC had different expectations for the companies, even though each was subject to an enforcement action.

On April 21, 2022, OFAC announced that Chisu International Corporation (Chisu), a Florida-based corporation affiliated with a Suriname-based distributor of explosives, agreed to pay $45,908 to settle its potential civil liability for apparent violations of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations. In 2016 and 2017, Chisu purchased Cuban-origin explosives and explosive accessories from a third-party vendor for a mining project in Suriname, knowing the goods were of Cuban origin. Though Chisu failed to voluntarily self -disclose the violation and the transaction value was nearly $700,000, the monetary penalty was not even a quarter of the maximum amount. OFAC recognized that while Chisu failed to exercise a minimal degree of caution or care in procuring Cubanorigin goods and had no compliance program in place, the company is very small and run largely by a single individual. In this case, Chisu's small size and localized operations were viewed as a mitigating factor.

On the other hand, on April 25, 2022, OFAC announced that Toll Holdings Limited (Toll Holdings), an international freight forwarding and logistics company headquartered in Melbourne, Australia, agreed to pay $6,131,855 to settle its potential civil liability for 2,958 apparent violations of multiple OFAC sanctions programs. The widespread violations occurred when Toll Holdings originated or received payments through the U.S. financial system involving sanctioned jurisdictions and persons. These payments were in c onnection with sea, air and rail shipments conducted by Toll Holdings, its affiliates and suppliers to, from or through North Korea, Iran and Syria, or the property or interests in property of an entity on the SDN List. Unlike Chisu, Toll Holdings is a large company with thousands of employees and a substantial global footprint. Toll Holdings had a sanctions compliance program in place, but it failed to meet the burden created by the company's growing and complicated international business operations. Addit ionally, after learning of potential sanctions violations in May 2015, Toll Holdings did not take immediate steps to address its continuing risks of transactions with sanctioned entities. Despite voluntarily disclosing the violations to OFAC, Toll Holdings faced a significant penalty reflective of the imbalance between the company's high-risk profile and its comparatively weak compliance program.

LESSON 4 – SCHEMATICS AND SKETCHES AND CAD FILES, OH, MY! THE EXPORT ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS AND RELATED LICENSING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO TECHNICAL DRAWINGS AND BLUEPRINTS

On June 7, 2022, BIS issued a temporary denial order (TDO) against three U.S. companies – Quicksilver Manufacturing Inc. (Quicksilver), Rapid Cut LLC (Rapid Cut) and US Prototype Inc. (US Prototype) – for violations of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The TDO, which suspends Quicksilver, Rapid Cut and US Prototypes' export privileges for 180 days, comes in response to the three companies' illegal export of technical drawings and 3-D graphic and computer-aided design (CAD) files. The files were controlled for export and either subject to the EAR with a presumption of denial licensing policy for China or listed on the U.S. Munitions List (USML). Quicksilver, Rapid Cut and US Prototype were involved in the provision of drawings and design files for satellite parts and rocket platform testing equipment to a Chinese entity for manufacturing. BIS renewed the TDO against Quicksilver, Rapid Cut and US Prototype on Dec. 5, 2022, finding that the export compliance failures are broader in scope than originally revealed at the time of the June 2022 TDO.

In this case, BIS makes clear its propensity to protect U.S. space and defense technologies in all stages of the development process – including the prototype phase – especially when Chinese end-users are involved. Businesses should remember that U.S. export control laws extend not only to the export of physical goods but also to the export and re-export (including deemed export) of software, technology and certain services. Through this enforcement action, BIS has demonstrated that technical drawings and blueprints are perfect examples of what must be carefully guarded.

LESSON 5 – RUSSIA-RELATED RESTRICTIONS GO GLOBAL: BIS IS TARGETING NON-U.S. BUSINESSES UNDER U.S. EXPORT CONTROL JURISDICTION

BIS has prohibited the export to Russia of virtually all controlled goods subject to U.S. export jurisdiction, including civil aircraft and associated parts. Between March and December 2022, BIS began identifying aircraft operated by Russian airlines that have flown internationally in violation of the EAR and issued TDOs against 10 Russian and Belarusian airlines, placing them on the Denied Persons List. Such listing makes it harder for the entities to surreptitiously obtain civil aircraft parts to support the aircraft. The airlines in question operated passenger or cargo flights on aircraft subject to the EAR into and out of Russia. The issuance of a TDO is one of the most significant civil sanctions under the EAR and highlights BIS's heightened focus on enforcement against Russian and Belarusian airlines viewed as fueling Russian President Vladimir Putin's war effort. The agency continues to prioritize cutting off Russia's access to the goods, technologies and capital needed to wage its war.

BIS has identified Airbus aircraft as having operated in violation of the EAR pursuant to its de minimis rules (e.g., asserting jurisdiction over these foreign-manufactured aircraft because they contain more than 25 percent U.S.-controlled content by value, namely U.S.-origin engines or avionics). Generally, any foreignproduced item that incorporates more than 25 percent by value of controlled U.S. -origin content is subject to the EAR.1

LESSON 6 – COMPANIES EXPORTING DEFENSE ARTICLES TO UKRAINE SHOULD PREPARE FOR ENHANCED U.S. GOVERNMENT END-USE MONITORING MEASURES

Since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the U.S. government and its allies have accelerated security assistance to Ukraine at a historic pace to ensure Ukraine is able to defend its borders, both through the provision of conventional weapons and other defense articles. During the second half of 2022, the Biden Administration took steps to enhance oversight of defense articles transferred to Ukraine and limit the potential illicit diversion to Russia's forces, Russia's proxies and non-state actors.

On Oct. 27, 2022, the U.S. Department of State released the U.S. Plan to Counter Illicit Diversion of Certain Advanced Conventional Weapons in Eastern Europe. Through implementation of the plan, the State Department intends to safeguard and account for arms and munitions in Ukraine and neighboring countries when they are transferred, stored and deployed; enhance regional border management and security; and build the capacity of security forces, law enforcement and border control agencies in the region.

The State Department's approach includes regional border security information-sharing and collaboration related to sanctions and export control implementation; targeting and risk analysis; and observed tactics, techniques and procedures along key border areas. While this plan is focused predominantly on federal security assistance, the State Department has made clear that a near-term action in 2023 involves scrutinizing requests to transfer defense articles to Ukraine on a case-by-case basis to screen for parties that may pose an unacceptable risk of diversion. Accordingly, private companies exporting defense articles and other items subject to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to Ukraine should be mindful of guidance from DDTC and other Trade Agencies and comprehensively review and update their end-use and end-user monitoring procedures.

LESSON 7 – COMPLIANCE MUST KEEP PACE WITH TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION: COMPANIES SHOULD LEVERAGE GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION TO IDENTIFY TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING SANCTIONED JURISDICTIONS

On Sept. 30, 2022, OFAC announced a $116,048.60 settlement with Tango Card Inc., a Seattle-based supplier and distributor of stored-valued cards used by businesses to support their customer loyalty and employee rewards programs. OFAC found that, though Tango Card used geolocation tools to identify transactions involving countries at high risk for suspected fraud and had OFAC screening and know-your-customer (KYC) mechanisms around its direct customers, it did not use those controls to identify whether recipients of rewards, as opposed to senders of rewards, might involve sanctioned jurisdictions. As a result of deficient geolocation identification processes, Tango Card transmitted at least 27,720 stored value products to individuals with Internet Protocol (IP) and email addresses associated with Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea and the Crimea region of Ukraine.

In this case, OFAC makes clear that geoblocking and other appropriate geolocation tools are only part of an effective, risk-based sanctions compliance program. Contractual obligations mandating customers to comply with sanctions regulations and other sanctions compliance controls can help companies, especially those that utilize novel payment technologies such as instant payment systems to mitigate evolving risk.

LESSON 8 – ENFORCEMENT CAN BE PREVENTATIVE IN NATURE

Though BIS often takes enforcement action against companies after alleged violations, TDOs can also be issued before a violation technically occurs. Specifically, BIS may issue an order temporarily denying a respondent's export privileges upon showing that the order is necessary in the public interest to prevent an "imminent violation" of the EAR. On Aug. 26, 2022, BIS requested the issuance of a TDO denying, for a period of 180 days, the export privileges under the EAR of Hans De Geetere of Belgium and his company KnokkeHeist Support Corporation Management, also known as Hasa-Invest (Knokke-Heist).

According to BIS, the Office of Export Enforcement's (OEE) request was based among other things, upon facts indicating that De Geetere engaged in conduct prohibited by the EAR by acquiring or attempting to acquire under false pretenses accelerometers, which are items subject to the EAR, from the United States on behalf of prohibited end-users or for prohibited end-uses in China, by falsely asserting to U.S. companies that the end-user was a Belgian government agency.

The use of accelerometers by the aerospace and defense industries, as well as false statements made by De Geetere and Knokke-Heist to U.S. companies to obtain the items, raised significant concerns of future violations absent the issuance of a TDO. The action comes as BIS and the Biden Administration have prioritized competition with China and instituted a number of policies aimed at preventing Chinese end-users from obtaining access to certain U.S.-origin technologies.

LESSON 9 – CRYPTO COPS: THE GLOBAL VIRTUAL CURRENCY SECTOR IS A PRIORITY FOR OFAC

On Oct. 11, 2022, OFAC and the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) announced parallel enforcement actions against virtual currency exchange Bittrex Inc. 2 Bittrex, a Bellevue, Washington-based company that offers cryptocurrency exchange services, agreed to pay OFAC more than $24.28 million to settle its potential civil liability for 116,421 apparent violations of multiple sanctions programs. Bittrex also agreed to pay $29 million to FinCEN for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act. Bittrex's settlement marks OFAC's largest virtual currency enforcement action to date.

Despite offering services to a global network of customers, Bittrex operated without a sanctions compliance program between March 2014 and February 2016. Though Bittrex retained a third-party sanctions screening vendor in February 2016, the vendor only screened transactions through OFAC's SDN List, failing to consider any additional connections to jurisdictions subject to more comprehensive sanctions programs. OFAC determined that as a result of the deficiencies in Bittrex's sanctions compliance procedures, the company processed more than $263 million in virtual currency -related transactions involving persons apparently located in the Crimea region of Ukraine as well as Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria between March 2014 and December 2017.

OFAC's action against Bittrex sends a clear message to companies in the cryptocurrency sector that OFAC expects U.S. and non-U.S. companies that engage in U.S. nexus transactions to have robust sanctions screening procedures in place. Companies that utilize third-party software for sanctions screening should periodically review their systems to ensure that they are flagging customers or transactions in sanctioned jurisdictions, not merely screening against prohibited parties lists like the SDN List.

OFAC's focus on virtual currency-related enforcement did not end with Bittrex. On Nov. 28, 2022, OFAC announced a more than $362,000 settlement with Payward Inc. d/b/a Kraken (K raken), a U.S.-based cryptocurrency exchange and bank.3 The settlement resolved 826 transactions with persons with internet protocol (IP) addresses in Iran.

As cryptocurrencies and other digital assets grow in popularity, businesses should expect continued scrutiny from OFAC and the wider Treasury Department. While virtual currencies present enormous opportunity for businesses, the U.S. government increasingly views such digital assets as high risk for sanctions evasion and expects sanctions compliance programs commensurate to this risk.

LESSON 10 – IMPLEMENT AN ITERATIVE APPROACH TO TRADE COMPLIANCE: INTERNAL CONTROLS FOR BUSINESSES SHOULD EVOLVE TO MITIGATE NEW RISKS

The actions discussed above make clear that the Trade Agencies ' enforcement priorities are constantly shifting to meet the demands of new sanctions and export controls. Likewise, the Biden Administration continues to respond to evolving national security concerns, particularly regarding Russia's war in Ukraine, technological and economic competition with China and global human rights abuses. As such, OFAC, BIS and DDTC expect businesses to update their trade compliance programs to meet this new burden. U.S. and non-U.S. companies alike, regardless of their size and geographic footprint, should routinely evaluate the effectiveness of their compliance procedures and consider expanding internal controls. This could include the utilization of enhanced screening and due diligence procedures (to include tracing organizational structures to the ultimate beneficial owners), robust contractual provisions focused on trade compliance, deployment of technological solutions like geo-IP blocking and improved implementation of existing programs through training and auditing.

CONCLUSION

If you have any questions about how the contents of this trade alert or enforcement by the Trade Agencies may affect your business or are seeking guidance in developing a cohesive trade compliance program, reach out to the authors of this alert or another member of Holland & Knight's International Trade Group

NOTES

1 The de minimis threshold is lowered to 10 percent when the item incorporating U.S.-origin content is exported to countries subject to comprehensive U.S. embargo, namely Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Syria.

2 More information regarding OFAC's enforcement action against Bittrex can be read in Holland & Knight's previous alert, "Crypto Company Comes Under OFAC Scrutiny," Oct. 24, 2022.

3 More information regarding OFAC's enforcement action against Kraken can be read in Holland & Knight's previous alert, "Restraining the Kraken: Another Crypto Company Under OFAC Scrutiny," Dec. 5, 2022.

国际贸易合规年度回顾： 2022 年的 10 个执法借鉴经验

原文作者：Robert A. Friedman, Antonia I. Tzinova, Andrew K. McAllister, Mackenzie A. Zales 及 Sarah Kaitlin Hubner

重点摘要：

• 在过去的一年里，美国财政部外国资产控制办公室 (OFAC)、美国商务部工业与安全局 ( BIS) 和美国国 务院国防贸易控制局 (DDTC )已优先实施法规和发布指南，以应对俄罗斯入侵乌克兰和与中国的持续经 济竞争。

• 这些机关也一直忙于执法行动，经常强调拜登政府的政策优先事项，并为商界提供最佳实践路线图。

• 本 Holland & Knight 提示文章指出从 2022 年宣布的 OFAC、BIS 和 DDTC 执法行动和政策中吸取的 10 个重要的借鉴经验。

在过去的一年里，美国财政部外国资产控制办公室 (OFAC)、美国商务部工业与安全局 (BIS) 和美国国务院国 防贸易控制局 (DDTC)（统称为贸易机关）已优先实施法规和发布指南，以应对俄罗斯入侵乌克兰和与中国的持 续经济竞争。

与此同时，贸易机关一直忙于执法行动，经常强调拜登政府的政策重点，并为商界提供最佳实践路线图。 2022 年，贸易机关对违反美国出口管制和制裁法律法规的美国和外国公司采取了几项值得注意的行动。这些执法行动 凸显了公司在管理与全球运营相关的风险、满足美国法律要求和实施有效的贸易合规计划方面面临的挑战。

回顾 2022 年及行业展望 2023 年时，企业应借此机会审查现有的贸易合规计划，并根据不断变化的执法环境确 定是否需要新的或不同的内部控制措施。本 Holland & Knight

提示文章重点介绍了从

2022 年公布的 OFAC、

BIS 和 DDTC 执法行动和政策中吸取的 10 个重要的借鉴经验，这些经验有助于了解行业风险领域。

借鉴经验 1

– 如果您将尽职调查外包，请务必阅读细则：使用第三方制裁筛选工 具的公司仍必须是合规的积极参与者

在 2022 年期间，俄罗斯入侵乌克兰等重大地缘政治事态发展给许多企业带来了更高的制裁合规风险。仅在 2022 年，OFAC 就将数千名个人和实体列入其特别指定国民 ( SDN ) 和被封锁人员名单，极大地增加了进行 制裁和被禁方筛查的公司的合规负担，尤其是那些手动进行的公司。随着风险状况的演变和美国制裁计划变得更 加广泛和复杂，许多公司可能会选择利用第三方供应商来完成制裁筛查。

OFAC 已经认识到让第三方参与制裁筛查服务的价值，但强调公司需要积极了解第三 方制裁筛查工具的范围和能力，并确保这些能力与公司的具体风险状况。根据公司的规模、地理范围和客户群， 第三方制裁筛查工具的使用情况会有所不同。例如，OFAC 可能希望银行和其他金融机构对其现有客户群的每笔 已处理交易完成实时、每日的筛选，以确保筛选程序捕获 SDN 列表中的新增内容。 OFAC 已明确表示需要全 面的制裁合规计划，而不仅仅限于使用第三方服务。相反，OFAC 期望 特别是对于那些具有高风险概况的 公司 其他内部控制、例行风险评估、定期培训和审计以及合规文化。

在过去一年的执法行动中，

经常进行并购 (M&A) 活动的公司应密切关注其新子公司的行动。 2022 年 4 月，OFAC 宣布总部位于纽约的 商业分析和信息公司 S&P Global Inc. 同意支付 78,750 美元，以了结其因明显违反乌克兰相关制裁条例而可 能承担的民事责任。违规行为发生在 2016 年和 2017 年，当时标普全球新收购的美国子公司石油工业研究联合 公司 (PIRA) 重新开具多张发票并重新注明日期，以继续向国有企业 JSC Rosneft (Rosneft)提供信贷俄罗斯石 油公司，违反第 13662 号行政命令规定的债务和股权限制。收购后，S&P Global（前身为 PIRA ）的员工重新 开具了四张发票并重新注明了日期，以延长原付款日期。 S&P Global 最终接受了 Rosneft 总计 82,500 美元 的逾期付款，即使在 Rosneft 通知 PIRA 被拒绝的付款“因制裁政策而被银行退回”并建议 PIRA 联系其美 国金融机构之后也是如此。

值得注意的是，执法行动涉及违反 OFAC 的部门制裁 这是有史以来第二次涉及部门制裁识别清单（SSI 清 单）的执法行动 并且鉴于 SSI 清单随着俄罗斯的入侵而扩大，这是一个有益的警告。乌克兰。同样， OFAC 的执法行动凸显了美国公司进行适当尽职调查和积极扩展贸易（制裁和其他）合规计划的重要性，包括 对新收购的国际和国内企业进行培训和监督。新员工应在收购后接受 OFAC 合规程序方面的培训。

贸易合规计划应以风险为基础，并与任何特定公司的运营规模和范围相称。 OFAC 最近针对规模和范围截然不 同的两家公司的两项执法行动证明了这一原则。归根结底，OFAC 对这些公司有不同的期望，尽管每个公司都 受到执法行动的约束。

2022 年 4 月 21 日，OFAC 宣布 家与苏里南炸药供应商有关位于佛罗里达的公司 Chisu International Corporation ( Chisu )同意支付 45,908 美元，以了结其因明显违反《古巴资产控制条例》而可能承担的民事责 任。2016 年和 2017 年， Chisu 从第三方供应商处为苏里南的一个采矿项目购买了古巴原产的炸药和炸药配件 ，明知这些货物是古巴原产的。尽管池苏没有主动披露违规行为，交易金额近 70 万美元，但罚款金额连最高金 额的四分之一都不到。 OFAC 认识到，虽然 Chisu 在采购古巴原产商品时没有采取最低限度的谨慎或谨慎态度 ，也没有制定合规计划，但该公司规模非常小，主要由一个人经营。在这种情况下， Chisu 的小规模和本地化 运营被视为一个缓解因素。

另一方面，2022 年 4 月 25 日，OFAC 宣布总部位于澳大利亚墨尔本的国际货运代理和物流公司 Toll Holdings Limited（Toll Holdings ）同意支付 6,131,855 美元，以了结其 2,958 项明显违反多项 OFAC 制裁计 划。当 Toll Holdings 通过涉及受制裁的司法管辖区和个人的美国金融系统发起或接收付款时，就会发生广泛的 违规行为。这些付款与 Toll Holdings 及其附属公司和供应商往来或途经朝鲜、伊朗和叙利亚的海运、空运和铁 路运输有关，或者与 SDN 名单上实体的财产或财产权益有关。与 Chisu 不同，Toll Holdings 是一家拥有数千 名员工且足迹遍及全球的大公司。 Toll Holdings 制定了制裁合规计划，但未能解决公司不断增长和复杂的国际 业务运营带来的负担。此外，在 2015 年 5 月获悉可能违反制裁规定后，Toll Holdings 没有立即采取措施解决 其与受制裁实体交易的持续风险。尽管自愿向 OFAC 披露了违规行为，但 Toll Holdings 仍面临重大处罚，这 反映了该公司的高风险状况与其相对薄弱的合规计划之间的不平衡。

2022 年 6 月 7 日，BIS 对 Quicksilver Manufacturing Inc. (Quicksilver)、Rapid Cut LLC (Rapid Cut) 和 US Prototype Inc. (US Prototype) 这三家美国公司发布了临时拒绝令 ( TDO )，理由是它们违反了出口规定管理条

借鉴经验 2 – 注意您的交割后义务：制裁合规性必须下达至新收购的子公司

借鉴经验 3 – 了解你自己：公司应根据各自的风险状况调整制裁合规计划

借鉴经验 4 – 原理图和草图以及 CAD 文件，哦，我的天哪！出口管理条例和相 关许可要求适用于技术图纸和蓝图

例 (EAR) 。 TDO 暂停 Quicksilver、Rapid Cut 和 US Prototypes 的出口特权 180 天，以回应这三家公司非 法出口技术图纸和 3D 图形以及计算机辅助设计 (CAD) 文件。这些文件在出口方面受到控制，要么受 EAR 的约束，假定中国拒绝许可政策，要么列在美国军需品清单 ( USML ) 上。 Quicksilver、Rapid Cut 和 US Prototype 参与向一家中国制造实体提供卫星部件和火箭平台测试设备的图纸和设计文件。 BIS 于 2022 年 12 月 5 日更新了针对 Quicksilver、Rapid Cut 和 US Prototype 的 TDO ，发现出口合规失败的范围比 2022 年 6 月 TDO 时最初披露的范围更广。

在这种情况下，BIS 明确表示其倾向于在开发过程的所有阶段（包括原型阶段）保护美国太空和国防技术，尤 其是当涉及中国最终用户时。企业应记住，美国出口管制法不仅适用于实物商品的出口，还适用于软件、技术和 某些服务的出口和再出口（包括视同出口）。通过这次执法行动，BIS 证明技术图纸和蓝图是必须小心保护的 完美例子。

借鉴经验 5 – 与俄罗斯相关的限制走向全球：BIS 瞄准受美国出口管制管辖的非

美国企业

BIS 已禁止向俄罗斯出口几乎所有受美国出口管辖的管制商品，包括民用飞机和相关部件。在 2022 年 3 月至 2022 年 12 月期间，BIS 开始识别俄罗斯航空公司运营的违反 出口规定管理条例的国际飞行的飞机，并对 10 家俄罗斯和白俄罗斯航空公司发布了 TDO，将它们列入拒绝人员名单。这样的清单使这些实体更难秘密获取民 用飞机部件来支持飞机。有问题的航空公司在受出口规定管理条例约束的飞机上运营进出俄罗斯的客运或货运航 班。 TDO 的发布是出口规定管理条例下最重要的民事制裁之一，并突显出 BIS 高度重视对俄罗斯和白俄罗斯 航空公司的执法，这些航空公司被视为助长了俄罗斯总统弗拉基米尔普京的战争努力。该机构继续优先切断俄罗 斯获得发动战争所需的商品、技术和资金的渠道。

BIS 确定空中客车飞机违反了出口规定管理条例（例如，对这些外国制造的飞机主张管辖权，因为它们按价值包 含超过 25% 的美国控制内容，即美国原产发动机或航空电子设备）。一般来说，任何外国生产的物品，其包含 超过 25% 的受控美国原产成分的价值都受到出口规定管理条例的约束。1

借鉴经验 6 – 向乌克兰出口国防物品的公司应为加强美国政府的最终用途监控措 施做好准备

自俄罗斯于 2022 年 2 月入侵乌克兰以来，美国政府及其盟友以历史性的速度加快了对乌克兰的安全援助，以 确保乌克兰能够通过提供常规武器和其他防御物品来保卫其边界。 2022 年下半年，拜登政府采取措施加强对 转移到乌克兰的国防物品的监督，并限制可能非法转移到俄罗斯军队、俄罗斯代理人和非国家行为者。

2022 年 10 月 27 日，美国国务院发布了《美国打击东欧某些先进常规武器非法转移计划》 。通过实施该计划 ，国务院打算在武器和弹药在乌克兰和邻国转移、储存和部署时对其进行保护和清算；加强区域边界管理和安全 ；建设该地区安全部队、执法和边境管制机构的能力。

国务院的方法包括区域边境安全信息共享以及与制裁和出口管制实施相关的协作、目标和风险分析、并观察了关 键边境地区的战术、技术和程序。虽然该计划主要侧重于联邦安全援助，但国务院明确表示，2023 年的近期行 动包括逐案审查将国防物品转移到乌克兰的请求，以筛选可能构成威胁的各方。不可接受的转移风险。因此，向 乌克兰出口国防物品和其他受国际武器贸易条例 (ITAR) 约束的物品的私营公司应注意 DDTC 和其他贸易机构 的指导，并全面审查和更新其最终用途和最终用户监控程序。

2022 年 9 月 30 日，OFAC 宣布与 Tango Card Inc. 达成 116,048.60 美元的和解，Tango Card Inc. 是一 家位于西雅图的储值卡供应商和分销商，企业使用这些卡来支持其客户忠诚度和员工奖励计划。 OFAC 发现， 尽管 Tango Card 使用地理定位工具来识别涉及涉嫌欺诈高风险国家的交易，并且针对其直接客户设有 OFAC 筛选和了解你的客户 (KYC) 机制，但它没有使用这些控制来识别收件人是否奖励的发送者，而不是奖励的发送 者，可能涉及受制裁的司法管辖区。由于地理位置识别过程不完善，Tango Card 将至少 27,720 件储值产品传

输给了与古巴、伊朗、叙利亚、朝鲜和乌克兰克里米亚地区相关的互联网协议 (IP) 和电子邮件地址的个人。

在这种情况下，OFAC 明确表示地理封锁和其他适当的地理定位工具只是有效的、基于风险的制裁合规计划的一 部分。强制客户遵守制裁法规和其他制裁合规控制的合同义务可以帮助公司，尤其是那些利用即时支付系统等新 型支付技术来减轻不断变化的风险的公司。

借鉴经验 8 – 执法本质上可以是预防性的

尽管 BIS 经常在涉嫌违规后对公司采取执法行动，但技术上也可以在违规发生之前发布 TDO 。具体而言，BIS 可能会发布命令，暂时拒绝被申请人的出口特权，前提是表明该命令对于公共利益是必要的，以防止对 EAR 的 “迫在眉睫的违反”。 2022 年 8 月 26 日，BIS 要求签发 TDO ，在 180 天内拒绝比利时 Hans De Geetere 及其公司 Knokke-Heist Support Corporation Management（也称为 Hasa 投资 ）根据 EAR 的出口特权。

根据 BIS 的说法，出口执法办公室 ( OEE ) 的请求所基于的事实表明， De Geetere 通过获取或试图以虚假借 口获取加速度计，从事出口规定管理条例禁止的行为，这些都是受出口规定管理条例约束的项目, 从美国代表被

禁止的最终用户或在中国被禁止的最终用途，向美国公司谎称最终用户是比利时政府机构。

航空航天和国防工业使用加速度计，以及 De Geetere 和 Knokke-Heist 向美国公司作出虚假陈述以获取这些物 品，引发了人们对未来没有发布 TDO 的违规行为的严重担忧。 BIS 和拜登政府已将与中国的竞争列为优先事 项，并制定了一系列旨在阻止中国最终用户获得某些源自美国的技术的政策。

借鉴经验

加密警察：全球虚拟货币部门是 OFAC 的优先事项

2022 年 10 月 11 日，OFAC 和美国财政部金融犯罪执法网络 (FinCEN)宣布对虚拟货币交易所 Bittrex Inc.2 采取并行执法行动。Bittrex 是一家总部位于华盛顿贝尔维尤的提供加密货币兑换服务的公司，同意向 OFAC 支 付超过 2428 万美元，以了结其对 116,421 项明显违反多项制裁计划的潜在民事责任。 Bittrex 还同意因违反 《银行保密法》而向 FinCEN 支付 2900 万美元。 Bittrex 的和解标志着 OFAC 迄今为止最大的虚拟货币执法 行动。

尽管向全球客户网络提供服务，但 Bittrex 在 2014 年 3 月至 2016 年 2 月期间没有实施制裁合规计划。尽 管 Bittrex 在 2016 年 2 月聘请了第三方制裁筛选供应商，但该供应商仅通过 OFAC 的 SDN 列表筛选交易 ，未能考虑与受更全面制裁计划管辖的司法管辖区的任何其他联系。 OFAC 确定，由于 Bittrex 的制裁合规程 序存在缺陷，该公司在 3 月期间处理了超过 2.63 亿美元的虚拟货币相关交易，涉及显然位于乌克兰克里米亚 地区以及古巴、伊朗、苏丹和叙利亚的人员 2014 年和 2017 年 12 月。

借鉴经验 7 – 合规必须跟上技术创新的步伐：公司应利用地理信息来识别涉及受 制裁司法管辖区的交易

9 –

OFAC 针对 Bittrex 的行动向加密货币行业的公司发出了一个明确的信息，即 OFAC 期望从事美国关联交易的 美国和非美国公司制定强有力的制裁筛选程序。使用第三方软件进行制裁筛选的公司应定期审查他们的系统，以 确保他们在受制裁的司法管辖区内标记客户或交易，而不仅仅是筛选像 SDN 名单这样的被禁止方名单。

OFAC 对虚拟货币相关执法的关注并未因 Bittrex 而结束。 2022 年 11 月 28 日，OFAC 宣布与总部位于美 国的加密货币交易所和银行 Payward Inc. 又称 Kraken (Kraken) 达成超过 362,000 美元的和解协议。3 该和解 解决了与在伊朗拥有互联网协议 (IP) 地址的人进行的 826 笔交易。

随着加密货币和其他数字资产越来越受欢迎，企业应该期待 OFAC 和更广泛的财政部的持续审查。虽然虚拟货 币为企业带来了巨大的机遇，但美国政府越来越多地将此类数字资产视为逃避制裁的高风险，并期望制裁合规计 划与这种风险相称。

借鉴经验 10 – 实施贸易合规的迭代方法：企业的内部控制应该发展以减轻新风 险

上面讨论的行动清楚地表明，贸易机构的执法重点不断变化，以满足新制裁和出口管制的要求。同样，拜登政府 继续对不断变化的国家安全担忧做出回应，特别是俄罗斯在乌克兰的战争、与中国的技术和经济竞争以及全球侵 犯人权行为。因此，OFAC、BIS 和 DDTC 希望企业更新其贸易合规计划以应对这一新负担。美国和非美国公 司，无论其规模和地域分布如何，都应定期评估其合规程序的有效性并考虑扩大内部控制。这可能包括利用增强 的筛选和尽职调查程序（包括追踪组织结构到最终受益人）、以贸易合规为重点的强有力的合同条款、部署地理 IP 封锁等技术解决方案以及通过培训改进现有计划的实施和审计。

如果您对本贸易提示文章的内容或贸易机构的执法可能如何影响您的业务有任何疑问，或者正在寻求制定有凝聚 力的贸易合规计划的指导，请联系本提示文章的作者或 Holland & Knight 国际贸易服务团队的其他成员。

附注

1 当含有美国原产成分的物品出口到受美国全面禁运的国家，即古巴、伊朗、朝鲜和叙利亚时，最低限度门槛降 至 10% 。

2 有关 OFAC 针对 Bittrex 的执法行动的更多信息，请参阅 Holland & Knight 之前的提示文章“ Crypto Company Comes Under OFAC Scrutiny ” ，2022 年 10 月 24 日。

3 有关 OFAC 针对 Kraken 的执法行动的更多信息，请参阅 Holland & Knight 之前的提示文章“限制 Kraken ：另一家受到 OFAC 审查的加密货币公司”，2022 年 12 月 5 日。

About This Newsletter 有关本期刊

Information contained in this newsletter is for the general education and knowledge of our readers. It is not designed to be, and should not be used as, the sole source of information when analyzing and resolving a legal problem. Moreover, the laws of each jurisdiction are different and are constantly changing. If you have specific questions regarding a particular fact situation, we urge you to consult competent legal counsel. Holland & Knight lawyers are available to make presentations on a wide variety of China-related issues.

本期刊所刊载的信息仅供我们的读者为一般教育及学习目的使用。本期刊并不是为作为解决某一法律问题的唯一 信息来源的目的所设计，也不应被如此使用。此外，每一法律管辖区域的法律各有不同且随时在改变。如您有关 于某一特别事实情况的具体法律问题，我们建议您向合适的律师咨询。美国霍兰德奈特律师事务所的律师能够对 许多与中国相关的问题提出他们的看法及建议。

About the Authors 关于本期作者

Hadeel M. Abouhasira is a trusted advisor to multinational clients in all aspects of U.S. immigration law. She assists employers in the manufacturing, logistics, healthcare and information technology industries with a wide range of immigration matters required to build and manage competitive workforces. Her experience includes assisting international clients with U.S. operations in managing a wide range of matters at the intersection of employment and immigration law, including B-1 business visitor visas, E-2 treaty investor visas, EB-1 multinational manager petitions, H-1B specialty occupation petitions, J -1 waivers for physicians subject to the foreign residence requirement, L-1A/L-1B intracompany transfer visas, R-1 religious worker visas, TN (USMCA), consular processing, labor certification (PERM), I-9 compliance and E-Verify counseling and training.

B. Jeffery Bell handles a wide variety of mergers and acquisitions (M&A), corporate finance and securities matters. His practice focuses on representing public and private acquirers and target companies in domestic and cross-border leveraged and strategic acquisitions, financings and other investments. He represents underwriters of representations and warranties (R&W) insurance policies in connection with M&A transactions. He also has significant experience advising clients in connection with contested transactions, sec urities law and exchange rule compliance, and corporate governance matters.

Leonard A. Bernstein focuses on financial regulatory and banking matters. He provides consumer credit compliance advice on federal, Pennsylvania and New Jersey laws and regulations to banks, mortgage bankers and finance companies. He advises clients on credit card, auto finance, deposit, residential mortgage and other retail finance products. With in-depth knowledge of the federal Truth in Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act and similar laws, he regularly helps clients review documents and disclosures, and otherwise maximize compliance.

Robert A. Friedman helps clients address a range of complex legal, regulatory and policy issues that involve international trade and investment, government regulation of cross -border transactions and compliance with U.S. laws based on foreign policy and national security. He advises businesses, entrepreneurs, investors and trade associations on matters related to economic sanctions, export controls, foreign direct investment, supply chain security, customs laws, data privacy and cybersecurity, market access, anti-corruption and national security regulations.

Bob Jaworski focuses on consumer credit compliance and other regulatory issues of concern to banks, thrifts, credit unions, mortgage bankers, secondary mortgage lenders, finance companies and industry -related trade associations. He has extensive experience counseling institutions that provide financial products and services to consumers regarding the myriad federal and state laws and regulations with which they must comply. He assists clients in their development of new consumer financial products and services, reviews documents for compliance with federal and state laws, assists with bank applications and other regulatory issues of concern to banking institutions, helps financial institutions resolve compliance and licensing issues raised by state and federal regulators, performs compliance audits of loan files and operations, assists litigators in consumer finance-related individual and class action litigation, and provides counsel on day -to-day compliance issues as they arise.

Nora Katz assists hospitals, health systems and healthcare providers – along with automakers, manufacturers and other international employers with U.S. operations – with critical immigration matters. She helps employers build and retain competitive workforces by preparing nonimmigrant and immigrant visa applications and other required filings, including J -1 waivers for physicians subject to the foreign residence requirement, H-1B visas for specialty occupation professionals and L-1 visas for intracompany transfers.

Andrew K. McAllister focuses on export controls, sanctions, customs, antidumping (AD) and countervailing duties (CVD), anti-corruption and industrial security. He advises clients on U.S. export controls laws, such as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the Ex port Administration Regulations (EAR). He has extensive experience with U.S. trade embargoes and economic sanctions administered by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and the U.S. Department of State, particularly with respect to Cuba, Iran, Russia, Ukraine and Syria.

Claire Sager focuses her practice on corporate and securities transactions.

Richard Smith focuses on corporate transactions, mergers and acquisitions (M&A), fairness opinions, private equity and capital markets. He represents clients in M&A and strategic transactions involving banking, mortgage, sponsor finance, healthcare, technology, telecommunications, broker-dealer, mining, insurance, investment advisory, asset management, real estate, energy, infrastructure, entertainment, shipping, financial services, transportation management, market maker, servicing and c ommodities businesses. His M&A experience also includes counseling financial institutions with regard to fairness opinions and advisory engagements.

Antonia I. Tzinova practices in the areas of international trade, foreign direct investment and industrial security. She advises on defense and high-technology exports; U.S. trade embargoes and economic sanctions; and customs matters. She regularly represents clients before the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and advises on measures to mitigate Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI) in cross border mergers and acquisitions of U.S. government and defense contractors. She counsels foreign investors on s tructuring investments in the defense, high-tech and critical infrastructure sectors of the U.S. economy.

Mackenzie A. Zales focuses her practice on international regulatory and compliance matters as well as a broad range of corporate issues, including foreign direct investment, industrial security, export control, sanctions and customs matters. In the foreign direct investment space, she represents clients in preCommittee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) filing analysis, conducting due diligence to determine potential national security issues; preparing for CFIUS reviews and investigations, including assessing whether specific transaction structures create CFIUS jurisdiction; negotiating deal terms with the government and preparing filings; and advising companies regarding Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI) mitigation/negation compliance issues.

Sarah Kaitlin Hubner is a paralegal in the Corporate – Trade Regulation practice in Washington, D.C.

Contact Our China Practice Attorneys | 与我们的 China Practice 律师联系

Primary Contacts 主要联系人：

Hongjun Zhang, Ph.D. 张红军博士 Washington, D.C. +1.202.457.5906 hongjun.zhang@hklaw.com

Juan M. Alcala | Austin +1.512.954.6515 juan.alcala@hklaw.com

Leonard A. Bernstein | Philadelphia +1.215.252.9521 leonard.bernstein@hklaw.com

Christopher W. Boyett | Miami +1.305.789.7790 christopher.boyett.@hklaw.com

Vito A. Costanzo | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2409 vito.costanzo@hklaw.com

Josias N. Dewey | Miami +1.305.789.7746 joe.dewey@hklaw.com

R. David Donoghue | Chicago +1.312.578.6553 david.donoghue@hklaw.com

Jonathan M. Epstein | Washington, D.C. +1.202.828.1870 jonathan.epstein@hklaw.com

Leonard H. Gilbert | Tampa +1.813.227.6481 leonard.gilbert@hklaw.com

Enrique Gomez-Pinzon | Bogotá +57.601.745.5800 enrique.gomezpinzon@hklaw.com

Paul J. Jaskot | Philadelphia +1.215.252.9539 paul.jaskot@hklaw.com

Adolfo Jimenez | Miami +1.305.789.7720 adolfo.jimenez@hklaw.com

Roth Kehoe | Atlanta +1.404.817.8519 roth.kehoe@hklaw.com

Mike Chiang 蒋尚仁律 师 New York | +1.212.513.3415 San Francisco | +1.415.743.6968 mike.chiang@hklaw.com

Luis Rubio Barnetche | Mexico City +52.55.3602.8006

luis.rubio@hklaw.com

Francisco J. Sanchez | Tampa +1.813.227.6559 francisco.sanchez@hklaw.com

Robert J. Labate | San Francisco +1.415.743.6991 robert.labate@hklaw.com

Alejandro Landa Thierry | Mexico City +52.55.3602.8002 alejandro.landa@hklaw.com

Jeffrey W. Mittleman | Boston +1.617.854.1411 jeffrey.mittleman@hklaw.com

Anita M. Mosner | Washington, D.C. +1.202.419.2604 anita.mosner@hklaw.com

Ronald A. Oleynik | Washington, D.C. +1.202.457.7183 ron.oleynik@hklaw.com

Douglas A. Praw | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2588 doug.praw@hklaw.com

John F. Pritchard | New York +1.212.513.3233 john.pritchard@hklaw.com

Robert Ricketts | London +44.20.7071.9910 robert.ricketts@hklaw.com

Office Locations 办公室地点

Evan S. Seideman | Stamford +1.203.905.4518

evan.seideman@hklaw.com

Jeffrey R. Seul | Boston +1.617.305.2121

jeff.seul@hklaw.com

Vivian Thoreen | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2482

vivian.thoreen@hklaw.com

Shawn M. Turner | Denver +1.303.974.6645

shawn.turner@hklaw.com

Matthew P. Vafidis | San Francisco +1.415.743.6950

matthew.vafidis@hklaw.com

Stacey H. Wang | Los Angeles +1.213.896.2480

stacey.wang@hklaw.com

Charles A. Weiss | New York +1.212.513.3551

charles.weiss@hklaw.com

Jose V. Zapata | Bogotá +57.601.745.5940

jose.zapata@hklaw.com