Item 1A. Risk Factors
Item 1A. Risk Factors.
Other than as noted below, there have been no material changes from the risk factors previously disclosed in response to "Part I—Item 1A. Risk Factors" of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, which is available on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov .
Our obligations to pay income taxes will increase beginning with our income taxes for the year ended December 31, 2022.
We expect to terminate our REIT election and became a taxable C-Corporation effective for the taxable year ended December 31, 2022. As a result, we will not be allowed a deduction for dividends paid to our stockholders in computing our taxable income and will be subject to U.S. federal and state income tax on our taxable income at corporate tax rates. This could impair our ability to satisfy our financial obligations and negatively impact the price of our securities. This treatment could also reduce our net earnings available for investment or distribution to our stockholders because of the additional tax liability to us. Further, federal and state income tax rates could increase in the future, exacerbating these risks. We also will be disqualified from electing REIT status under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, through December 31, 2026.
Our ability to use capital loss and NOL carryforwards to reduce future tax payments may be limited.
We have capital loss and NOL carryforwards that we may be able to use to reduce the income taxes that we owe following the termination of our REIT election beginning with our taxable year ending December 31, 2022. However, we must have taxable income or gains in future periods to benefit from these capital loss and NOL carryforwards, and there is a risk that we may not be profitable in future periods.
In addition, our ability to utilize capital loss and NOL carryforwards may be limited by various tax rules, including Sections 382 and 383 of the Code which generally apply if we undergo an “ownership change.” Our use of capital losses or NOLs arising after the date of an ownership change generally would not be affected by the limitations under Sections 382 and 383 (unless there were another ownership change after those new losses arose). In general, an “ownership change” occurs if there is a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in a corporation’s equity ownership by certain stockholders over a rolling three-year period. Similar provisions of state tax law may also apply to limit our use of existing state tax attributes such as NOLs. While we do not believe that we have experienced ownership changes in the past that would materially limit our ability to utilize our capital loss and NOL carryforwards, the rules under Sections 382 and 383 are complex and there is no assurance our view is correct or that an ownership change will not occur in the future. Also, to the extent not prohibited by our Articles of Amendment and Restatement, as amended, we may decide in the future that it is necessary or in our interest to take certain actions, including issuing additional shares of our stock, that could result in an ownership change. In the event that we experience one or more ownership changes in the future, our ability to use our pre-change capital loss and NOL carryforwards and other tax attributes to offset our taxable income will be subject to limitations. As a result, we may be unable to use a material portion of the capital loss and NOL carryforwards and other tax attributes, which could adversely affect our future cash flows. In addition, we may be discouraged from issuing additional common stock to raise capital or to acquire businesses or assets because such issuance may result in an ownership change that would cause the limitations imposed by Section 382 and 383 to apply to our capital loss and NOL carryforwards.
We may fail to realize the anticipated benefits of terminating our REIT election and becoming a taxable C-Corporation for our fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 or those benefits may take longer to realize than expected.
We believe that terminating our REIT election and becoming a taxable C-Corporation will, among other things, provide us with greater flexibility to use our free cash flows as we will no longer be required to operate under the REIT rules, including the requirement to distribute at least 90% of our taxable income to our stockholders. However, the amount of our free cash flows may not meet our expectations, which may reduce, or eliminate, the anticipated benefits of the transition from a REIT to a taxable C-Corporation. For example, if our cash flows do not meet our expectations, we may be unable to reduce our net recourse debt and deleverage our debt as quickly as we desire. Moreover, there can be no assurance that the anticipated benefits of the transition from a REIT to a taxable C-Corporation will offset its costs, which
67
Table of Contents
could be greater than we expect. Our failure to achieve the anticipated benefits of the transition from a REIT to a taxable C-Corporation at all, or in a timely manner, or a failure of any benefits realized to offset its costs, could negatively affect our business, financial condition, results of operations or the market price of our common stock.
Extensive regulation in the United States and abroad affects our activities, increases the cost of doing business and creates the potential for significant liabilities that could adversely affect our business and results of operations.
Our business is subject to extensive regulation, including periodic examinations by governmental agencies and self-regulatory organizations in the jurisdictions in which we operate around the world. Many of these regulators, including U.S. and foreign government agencies and self-regulatory organizations and state securities commissions in the United States, are empowered to grant, and in specific circumstances to cancel, permissions to carry on particular activities, and to conduct investigations and administrative proceedings that can result in fines, suspensions of personnel or other sanctions, including censure, the issuance of cease-and-desist orders or the suspension or expulsion of applicable licenses and memberships.
In recent years, the SEC and its staff have focused on issues relevant to global investment firms and have formed specialized units devoted to examining such firms and, in certain cases, bringing enforcement actions against the firms, their principals and their employees. Such actions and settlements involving U.S.-based private fund advisers generally have involved a number of issues, including the undisclosed allocation of the fees, costs and expenses related to unconsummated co-investment transactions (i.e., the allocation of broken deal expenses), undisclosed legal fee arrangements affording the adviser greater discounts than those afforded to funds advised by such adviser and the undisclosed acceleration of certain special fees. Recent SEC focus areas have also included, among other things, the misuse of material non-public information, material impacts on portfolio companies owned by private funds (e.g., real estate related investments) due to recent economic conditions, and compliance with practices described in fund disclosures regarding the use of limited partner advisory committees, including whether advisory committee approvals were properly obtained in accordance with fund disclosures.
The SEC’s oversight, inspections and examinations of global investment firms, including our firm, have continued to focus on transparency, investor disclosure practices, fees and expenses, valuation and conflicts of interest and whether firms have adequate policies and procedures to ensure compliance with federal securities laws in connection with these and other areas of focus. For example, our managed companies routinely engage our affiliated entities to provide asset level services, in accordance with the relevant fund legal documents. While we believe we have procedures in place reasonably designed to monitor and make appropriate and timely disclosures regarding the engagement and compensation of our affiliated services providers and other matters of current regulatory focus, the SEC’s inspections of our firm have raised concerns about these and other areas of our operations. On March 21, 2022, we received notice from the staff of the SEC’s Division of Examinations stating that they had closed the examination of Colony Capital Investment Advisors, LLC (CCIA), the investment adviser to certain legacy funds and vehicles holding legacy assets, generally covering the period from 2018-2019. In the letter, the staff noted that although the examination was being closed, the staff disagreed with our positions regarding certain alleged deficiencies relating to CCIA’s compliance with its fiduciary duty, duty of care and disclosure of affiliate transactions involving certain legacy businesses and operations, and that the closing of the exam did not preclude the SEC, including the Division of Enforcement, from taking further action. Although we believe that CCIA acted in accordance with applicable legal requirements and always conducted its business in the best interests of its clients, we have taken a number of steps to improve our investor disclosures and compliance processes in response to the CCIA examination. In addition, almost all of the relevant CCIA-managed investment vehicles and Colony legal entities have either been sold or wound down, and CCIA has not sponsored a new client investment vehicle in over two years and has no plans to do so. Nevertheless, it is possible that the SEC could determine to take further action regarding these matters, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.
In addition, in recent years the SEC and several states have initiated investigations alleging that certain private equity firms and hedge funds, or agents acting on their behalf, have paid money to current or former government officials or their associates in exchange for improperly soliciting contracts with the state pension funds (i.e., “ pay to play” practices). Such “pay to play” practices are subject to extensive federal and state regulation, and any failure on our part to comply with rules surrounding “pay to play” practices could expose us to significant penalties and reputational damage.
Further, we expect a greater level of SEC enforcement activity under the Biden administration, and it is possible this enforcement activity will target practices that we believe are compliant and that were not targeted by prior administrations. We regularly are subject to requests for information and informal or formal investigations by the SEC and other regulatory authorities, with which we routinely cooperate and, in the current environment, even historical practices that have been previously examined are being revisited. Even if an investigation or proceeding does not result in a sanction or the
68
Table of Contents
sanction imposed against us or our personnel by a regulator were small in monetary amount, the costs incurred in responding to such matters could be material and the adverse publicity relating to the investigation, proceeding or imposition of these sanctions could harm our reputation and cause us to lose existing investors or fail to gain new investors or discourage others from doing business with us.
In addition, we regularly rely on exemptions from various requirements of the Securities Act, the Exchange Act, the 1940 Act, the Commodity Exchange Act and ERISA in conducting our investment activities in the United States. Similarly, in conducting our investment activities outside the United States, we rely on available exemptions from the regulatory regimes of various foreign jurisdictions. These exemptions from regulation within the United States and abroad are sometimes highly complex and may, in certain circumstances, depend on compliance by third parties whom we do not control. If for any reason these exemptions were to become unavailable to us, we could become subject to regulatory action or third party claims and our business could be materially and adversely affected. Moreover, the requirements imposed by our regulators are designed primarily to ensure the integrity of the financial markets and to protect investors in our funds and are not designed to protect our stockholders. Consequently, these regulations often serve to limit our activities and impose burdensome compliance requirements.
It is difficult to determine the full extent of the impact on us of any new laws, regulations or initiatives that may be proposed or whether any of the proposals will become law. Any changes in the regulatory framework applicable to our business, including the changes as a result of, among others, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, may impose additional costs on us, require the attention of our senior management or result in limitations on the manner in which we conduct our business. It is expected that the Biden administration will increase the number of financial regulations and regulators. Furthermore, we may become subject to additional regulatory and compliance burdens as we expand our product offerings and investment platform, including raising additional funds. Moreover, as calls for additional regulation have increased as a result of heightened regulatory focus in the financial industry, there may be a related increase in regulatory investigations of the trading and other investment activities of alternative asset management funds, including our managed companies. Compliance with any new laws or regulations could make compliance more difficult and expensive, affect the manner in which we conduct our business and adversely affect our profitability.