On November 13, 2025, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s (“Treasury’s”) Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued a finding (“Finding”) and related notice of proposed rulemaking (“Proposed Rule”) pursuant to Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act (“Section 311”), targeting ten Mexico-based gambling establishments (“Gambling Establishments”).  FinCEN found transactions involving the Gambling Establishments to constitute a “class of transactions” of “primary money-laundering concern” for purposes of Section 311.  In particular, FinCEN found that the Gambling Establishments ultimately were controlled by a criminal group that used the establishments to facilitate money laundering for the Sinaloa Cartel. 

Continue Reading Treasury Continues Focus on Cartels: Understanding FinCEN’s Latest Action Restricting Transactions with Certain Mexico-Based Gambling Establishments

In response to the increased frequency of majority-backed debt restructuring transactions that have significantly disadvantaged minority debtholders, lenders in the syndicated loan market have increasingly turned to cooperation agreements among themselves as a means to mitigate the risk of exclusion from such deals. While often effective, this approach has been met with hostility from the sponsor community, and may inhibit a lender’s ability to freely manage and trade its loan position.

Crowell’s Bob Waldner recently published an article on this topic titled “An Overview of the Use of Cooperation Agreements Among Lenders in the Syndicated Loan Market” in The Review of Banking & Financial Services. In the article, Bob describes the elements of a typical cooperation agreement, considers some of its advantages and disadvantages, and discusses sponsors’ evolving response to these arrangements.

The Review of Banking & Financial Services, according to the publication, consists of articles on current topics in securities, commodities, or banking law that are written by outstanding practitioners in the field.

Banks and other regulated financial institutions have been digesting a set of four frequently asked questions (“FAQs”) about suspicious activity reports (“SARs”) issued jointly on October 9, 2025 by FinCEN and federal banking regulators (the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the National Credit Union Administration). According to remarks the same day from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the FAQs are intended to reduce the compliance burdens associated with filing SARs without diminishing the benefit of SAR reporting to law enforcement.

Continue Reading FinCEN and Banking Regulators Issue New FAQs on Suspicious Activity Reports

Recent weeks have seen several headline-grabbing instances of alleged financial frauds, leading directly to the bankruptcies of the First Brands and Tricolor corporate enterprises. Both companies are alleged to have engaged in deceptive off-balance sheet financing and double-pledging of collateral, tumbling into bankruptcy after these issues came to light. While their lenders will have to seek their recourse in costly and lengthy bankruptcy proceedings, the cases serve as sobering reminders to lenders of the critical importance of vigilant oversight and the need for transparency into their borrowers’ activities in today’s active and complex lending environment.

Continue Reading Use of Field Exams and QOE Reports to Safeguard Lenders in Risky Times

On Wednesday, November 5, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether President Trump’s tariffs—imposed under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) —were legal. The Court’s decision will have significant impacts for importers, as well as investors in the IEEPA tariff claims. Many investors have participated in the growing secondary market, in which they purchase the rights to potential tariff refunds from importers, thereby providing the importers with upfront cash in exchange for future gains, should the tariffs be overturned.

For importers and investors alike, the Court’s ruling will have major implications, with billions of dollars in customs revenue at play. And even if the tariffs are struck down, uncertainty surrounds how the actual refund process would work. As such, both importers and purchasers will be eagerly watching the arguments to “read the tea leaves” on the Court’s future decision.

Click here to listen in live on oral argument on Wednesday, November 5, starting at 10:00 AM ET.

Much has been made in the legal press and elsewhere following litigation funder Burford Capital’s announcement of its intention to purchase minority stakes in U.S. law firms. Since, except in a few specific U.S. jurisdictions, legal ethical rules prohibit actual ownership of law firms by non-lawyers, Burford was apparently referring to a structure known as “Management Service Organizations” or MSOs. The MSO structure for law firms entails a law firm essentially splitting into two parts: one part being the legal service providing, client-facing portion and the other part being the MSO, which will take over all other law firm functions: administration, accounting, technology, recruiting, HR, real estate, etc. – anything not directly related to the practice of law. As with any other vendor, the MSO is paid a fee for providing these services.

While MSOs are a relatively new phenomena in the law firm space, they have long been a staple in other industries, most notably in health care. Numerous health care providers, especially physicians’ practices, have taken advantage of outside capital and expertise in order to remove much of the administrative burden of running a practice and allow the doctors and nurses to focus on the practice of medicine. The adoption of MSOs in the health care field has been fairly widespread: other service industries like accounting and architecture have also adopted this model on a smaller scale. Many private equity investors (and litigation funders) are now looking to law firms as the next investment frontier.

Continue Reading Let’s Buy a Law Firm! – Management Service Organizations

On behalf of the entire Financial Services Group, welcome to FinTalk! FinTalk is the new flagship blog from Crowell & Moring’s Financial Services Group.

Drawing on the deep transactional and regulatory industry experience of our firm’s financial services attorneys, FinTalk delivers timely updates on the ever-evolving financial services landscape.

Across finance, regulatory, debt and claims trading, derivatives, digital assets, restructuring, litigation and more, check back often to find insightful discussion of the latest trends and developments at FinTalk.

Crowell has been shortlisted for “Exceptional Legal Services Provider for Litigation Funders (US-based)” by the International Legal Finance Association for its inaugural Legal Finance Awards.

The award recognizes law firms that provide direct and invaluable support to funders in creating deals, portfolio management, and other operational outputs, with a strong reputation in the sector for consistency, reliability, and excellence.

The Legal Finance Awards honor exceptional achievement and innovation within the global legal finance industry. Award winners will be announced at a ceremony on November 13, 2025 at the Law Society in London.

Tom Dell’Avvocato has joined Crowell & Moring U.K. LLP as a partner in its Financial Services Group. Dell’Avvocato brings extensive experience in non-contentious banking and finance transactions, with a focus on domestic and cross-border asset-based lending, as well as leveraged and specialty finance. He advises alternative and private capital providers, bank and non-bank lenders, and corporate borrowers on the structuring, restructuring, and execution of complex financing arrangements.

Continue Reading Asset Based Finance Lawyer Tom Dell’Avvocato Joins Crowell & Moring in London

The Ninth Circuit ruled that NFTs are not just digital collectibles but legally recognized goods under the Lanham Act. Yuga Labs, Inc. v. Ryder Ripps and Jeremy Cahen, Case No. 24-879 (9th Cir. July 23, 2025). NFTs are intangible, fully virtual, authenticating software code that is associated with separate digital or physical content. Although the Ninth Circuit found that there were genuine issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment on the issue of likelihood of confusion, the court recognized that NFTs are commercial products with tangible value subject to trademark protection. This means that NFT creators and projects can now claim trademark rights in their collections’ names, logos, and associated marks.

Continue Reading 9th Circuit Marches Forward to the Future Finding Digital Assets Are Protected Under Trademark Law