CURRENT MONTH (August 2017)
ULC Adopts Uniform Regulation of Virtual Currency Businesses Act
By Pamela J. Martinson, Sidley Austin LLP
At its annual meeting in San Diego in July, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws approved and recommended for enactment in all the states a model act providing a framework for the regulation of businesses that exchange, store, or transfer virtual currencies, such as bitcoin, with or on behalf of consumers. A number of states, including New York and California, have or are considering laws to regulate these businesses, and existing state money transmission laws may also apply, leading to a great deal of uncertainty that negatively impacts investment and innovation in the area. The uniform law offers clear guidelines on activities that are regulated and those that are excluded from regulation, and provides for both reciprocity between states and an “on-ramp” to full registration for emerging companies. Significantly, the model act includes a minimum net worth requirement, and clarifies that the virtual currency held by an intermediary is not reachable by that intermediary’s creditors, providing important protections for owners of virtual currency. The next step is for the model act to be introduced in each state and considered for adoption.
Delaware Supreme Court Backs Deference to Deal Price
By K. Tyler O’Connell, Morris James LLP
In DFC Global Corp. v. Muirfield Value Partners, L.P., (Del. Aug. 1, 2017), the Delaware Supreme Court clarified when, in an appraisal action to value stockholders’ shares, the court should defer to the sale price. DFC Global Corp., a public company, was sold to a private equity buyer following an open, conflict-free sale process. In valuing the company, the trial court gave the deal price only one-third weight due to DFC’s uncertain regulatory environment and financial buyers’ need to achieve high internal rates of return. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, reasoning that economic principles strongly support that the market price derived from a fulsome sale process should receive greater weight in determining fair value. The Court may soon provide further guidance on this topic in the pending appeal of In re: Appraisal of Dell Inc., (Del. Ch. May 31, 2016).
Third Circuit Clarifies When Businesses Must Notify of Pending Layoff under the WARN Act
by Michael Enright, Robinson & Cole LLP
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently clarified when a business must notify employees of a pending layoff under the WARN Act. Although the “unforeseeable business circumstances” exception excuses noncompliance with the 60-day advance notice required by WARN, uncertainties remain about the scope of the exception. In re AE Liquidation, Inc., (3d Cir. Aug. 4, 2017) held that the probability of a layoff, not simply the possibility of one, triggered the notice requirement. To comply, employers relying on the exception still must provide actual notice when “probability” arises, even though giving less than 60 days’ notice.