uniform commercial code – Duane Morris Banking and Finance Law

July 9, 2024 by Roger S. Chari

Has Your State Passed the Crypto UCC Amendments?

There’s less than a year to go until the proposed implementation of the Uniform Commercial Code amendments relating to cryptocurrencies and other digital assets. The drafters of the amendments contemplated a gradual phase-in of the rules over a period of at least a year, but no earlier than July 1, 2025, to give secured parties time to assess their secured status and take any necessary actions. Many states that have approved the amendments opted for a July 1, 2025 start date, but some of them selected a later date. In addition, slightly more than half of the states have not yet approved the amendments. It’s likely that these states will also choose a later start date.

For a secured lender operating in multiple states, keeping track of the implementation dates can be confusing. Losing track of them can potentially lead to significant consequences, including loss of priority in crypto assets. For an overview of the adoption of the UCC amendments by the various states so far, take a look at our recent Alert.

June 10, 2024 by Roger S. Chari

Congressional Disapproval of SAB 121 Vetoed

On May 31, 2024, the President vetoed H.J.Res 109, which evidenced the disapproval by Congress of Staff Accounting Bulletin 121 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. This followed several years of industry and bipartisan efforts in Congress to blunt the effect of or nullify the rule.

On its face, SAB 121 is fairly innocuous. Crypto assets held in custody by an SEC reporting company for its clients must be reported both as an asset and as a liability on its balance sheet. From an accounting perspective, this is balance sheet neutral since the asset and liability cancel each other out.

For regulated banks that want to expand their traditional client custody business from securities and other financial assets to crypto, this is a departure from the standard accounting treatment that can be prohibitively expensive. Assets held in custody are usually balance sheet neutral to a bank since they belong to the bank’s customers and are not included on the bank’s balance sheet. Adding the asset and subtracting it as a liability is mathematically neutral. However, treating crypto in custody as a liability of the bank triggers the minimum capital requirements that banks are required by regulators to maintain to manage investment risk and prevent a collapse if there is a run on the bank.

Why did the SEC change the rule for crypto assets in custody? Did they have the authority to do so? Why does it apply to banks? We discuss these and other questions in our recent Alert.

October 8, 2021 by Michael A. Witt

Cryptocurrency Issues for Lenders and Borrowers: How to Proceed In the Absence of Industry Clarity

States are beginning to recognize cryptocurrency as a form of collateral under their Uniform Commercial Codes. As a result, commercial lenders and borrowers are learning more about their legal rights in cryptocurrency. Of particular concern for borrowers and lenders alike is the enforceability of a security interest on cryptocurrency as collateral. Forty-seven U.S. states have not passed legislation on cryptocurrency as an asset category, whereas Texas, Rhode Island and Wyoming have passed cryptocurrency legislation. These three states call cryptocurrency, “Virtual Currency”. The collateral is defined in Texas, for example, as “digital representation of value that functions as a medium of exchange, unit of account, and/or store of value and is often secured using blockchain technology”. To perfect its lien in cryptocurrency, a secured lender can file a financing statement or execute a “control” agreement. That said, it is unclear whether filing a financing statement is sufficient to put prospective secured parties on notice of a then-existing lien. As such, until the industry gains clarity on this matter, lenders need to perfect via “control” to have any certainty in the viability of the priority of their security interest.

Even how a lender goes about “controlling” Virtual Currency, though – which is also a perfection method for asset types such as deposit accounts and investment property – is less than crystal clear at this point. For a user to access cryptocurrency, one needs what is called a private “key.” As such, some prospective lender in this space might require possession of that private key as a condition to funding. However, unless a borrower does not plan to access its cryptocurrency during the course of a loan, from a practical matter, it seems unlikely that a borrower would want to give up its private key. Some industry experts have discussed similar control mechanisms that secured lenders use for deposit account collateral or other receivables, such as deposit account control agreements or source code escrow agreements. Still, until those control mechanisms make their way through the court system, it is impossible to know with any degree of certainty how those methods would work and if they would achieve the requisite “control” under the new law.

For further guidance, please check this space regularly, subscribe to our blog or reach out to Michael Witt or Max Fargotstein.