Financial Regulation

CFTC Asked to Extend Cross-Border Exemption

By Sarah G. Nowland, J.D. Candidate 2014 | Posted on

Several trade groups, including the Futures Industry Association (FIA), have asked the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) for a six month extension of an Exemptive Order from the Dodd-Frank cross-border derivatives rules.  The request points out three benefits of a possible extension.

First, the extension would give swap market participants more time to consider the SEC’s “recent proposals relating to its regulation of cross-border security-based swap activities.”  Second, “failing to extend the Exemptive Order in the absence of final cross-border guidance could increase uncertainty for international market participants.”  Third, an earlier expiration of the Exemptive Order “could jeopardize the productive and cooperative efforts underway towards meeting G20 commitments on an international basis.”  (more…)

Weekly News Update: SEC Enforces FCPA and Regulates Shell Companies

By James Kollar | Posted on

Recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged France-based oil and gas company Total S.A. with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by paying $60 million in bribes to an Iranian government official. The official then exercised his influence to help the company obtain valuable contracts to develop significant oil and gas fields in Iran. The SEC alleges that the company profited more than $150 million through the bribery scheme. Total S.A. attempted to cover their illegal payments by entering into phony consulting agreements with the intermediaries of the Iranian official and concealing the bribes in its records as legitimate business expenses relating to these consulting agreements. Total S.A., whose securities are publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange, agreed to pay more than $398 million to settle the SEC’s charges and a parallel criminal matter from the U.S. Department of Justice. The SEC’s order requires the oil company to pay $153 million in illegal profits and retain an independent consultant to review and report the company’s compliance with the FCPA. In the parallel criminal proceedings, Total S.A. agreed to pay a $245.2 million penalty as part of a deferred prosecution agreement.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has halted trading in the securities of 61 empty shell companies in the second-largest trading suspension in history. The suspension is part of the SEC’s ongoing “Operation Shell Expel” crackdown against the manipulation of microcap shell companies that the agency sees as ripe for fraud as the companies lay dormant in the over-the-counter market. The SEC is looking to thwart so-called pump and dump schemes which are among the most common types of fraud involving empty shell companies. By suspending the trading in these companies it obligates them to provide updated financial information to prove they are still operational, essentially rendering them useless to scam artists. This latest round of suspensions follows one under the same operation last year, in which 379 companies were suspended by the SEC before they could be manipulated for fraudulent activity to harm investors.

EDGAR Update

By Sarah G. Nowland, J.D. Candidate 2014 | Posted on

The SEC’s Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system has been updated to include the new Form 13F online application.  The ability to file online corresponds with the original goal of Section 13(f) of the 1975 Securities Exchange Act to “increase the public availability of information regarding the securities holdings of institutional investors.”  The new online application “illustrates each step of the process to submit an electronic submission and helps filers understand the tools provided by the SEC for constructing and transmitting those submissions.”  This update should make it easier for firms to provide current and accurate information about their holdings.  (more…)

The Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive – UK Treasury Releases Near-Final Draft of Implementing Regulations

By Goodwin Procter LLP - Glynn Barwick | Posted on

[Editor’s Note: The following Post is authored by Goodwin Procter LLP’s Glynn Barwick.]

The UK Treasury has recently published a new, and near final, version of the implementing Regulations for the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (the “AIFMD”). (We have commented on the consequences of the AIFMD for EU managers and non-EU managers in our 4 January, 11 January, 27 February and 27 March client alerts.) This updated version of the implementing Regulations represents a considerable improvement for managers compared to the initial draft.

In summary, with effect from the implementation date (22 July 2013), European managers of Alternative Investment Funds (“AIFs”) – essentially:

(a) any European manager of a PE, VC, hedge or real estate fund will need to be authorised in its home member state and comply with various requirements regarding the funds that it manages concerning information disclosure and third-party service providers; and

(b) any non-European manager of a PE, VC, hedge or real estate fund will need to comply with various marketing and registration restrictions if it wishes to obtain access to European investors.

This Client Alert discusses the major changes to the AIFMD implementing Regulations.

Click here to read the complete story.

The “Franken Amendment” Receives New Life; Plan Calls for SEC to Promulgate New Rules for Credit Rating Agencies

By Luke Burton, J.D. Candidate 2015 | Posted on

Senators Al Franken (D-MN) and Roger Wicker (R-MS) have renewed the call for the SEC to regulate how credit-rating agencies generate revenue. Eight of the nine registered credit-rating agencies employ what is known as the “issuer-pays” model in which ratings agencies receive “their principal revenue stream from issuers whose products they rate.” This model has been blamed for inflating the value of financial products, particularly mortgage-backed securities, and thus misleading investors and contributing to the 2007-2009 financial crisis. The senators want to prevent future manipulation by empowering the SEC to better regulate these credit-rating agencies’ revenue generating systems.

(more…)

BHCs Instructed to Conduct First Round of Mid-Cycle Stress Tests

By Sarah G. Nowland, J.D. Candidate 2014 | Posted on

This month the Federal Reserve instructed 18 Bank Holding Companies (BHCs) to conduct their first biannual Mid-Cycle Stress Test in compliance with the Dodd-Frank Act.  While the Federal Reserve has conducted its own stress tests since 2009, this is the first time firms will conduct the test based on their “own processes and analyses.” (more…)

Firm Advice: Implementing Dodd-Frank

By Joseph Santiesteban, J.D. Candidate 2014 | Posted on

The comment period recently expired on the Federal Reserve’s proposal to require foreign banking organizations with at least $50 billion in global assets and $10 billion in U.S assets to form an intermediate holding company for most of their U.S. assets.  The proposal is part of the Board’s implementation of Sections 165 and 166 of the Dodd-Frank Act. In a recent Client Alert, Gibson Dunn advises that “the IHC requirement likely exceeds the Board’s legal authority in implementing Sections 165 and 166 of Dodd-Frank, has the tendency to increase, rather than reduce, financial instability in the United States and globally, threatens other adverse effects, and does not effectively respond to the developments that the Board perceives in the U.S. operations of FBOs and in international banking regulation generally.” Gibson Dunn explains why here.

On April 10th, the White House released its proposed budget, which contained significant new tax proposals. While often general, the budget laid out specific proposals for: 1) the Buffet Rule, 2) marking to market of derivatives, and 3) alternative treatment for debt purchased on the secondary market. Skadden’s recent Client Alert explains the various proposals and both their foreign and domestic tax implications.

Class Action Complaint Alleges Conspiracy to Fix CDS Market

By Joseph Santiesteban, J.D. Candidate 2014 | Posted on

A group of institutional investors recently filed a class action complaint against some of the world’s largest banks alleging a conspiracy fix prices and monopolize the market for Credit Default Swaps (“CDS”) in violation of the Sherman Act § 1.  Defendants include Bank of America, Barclays, Citibank, and Goldman Sachs.   The complaint also names the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (“ISDA”), a financial trade association, which the complaint alleges is controlled by the defendant banks.  The plaintiffs are claiming potentially billions of dollars in damages.

A credit default swap is a method of transferring the risk of default for a financial instrument.  The purchaser pays a fixed payment to the seller in exchange for the promise to pay off the underlying debt in the event of a default.  The complaint alleges that because of the CDS market structure is unregulated and over the counter, every transaction must be with one of the defendant banks.

The complaint characterizes the CDS market as “starkly divided” between the defendant banks “who control and distort the market” and the plaintiffs “who, in order to participate in the market, must abide their distortions.”  The complaint alleges that this is the result of an opaque trading environment in which the defendant banks manipulate the bid-ask spreads through their negotiations with individual traders.  These manipulations cost the plaintiffs billions of dollars, says the complaint.  Plaintiffs allege that several of their attempts to create and regulated exchange were rebuffed by defendants.

Both the DOJ and the European Commission have been conducting their own investigations into these activities.  In March, the EU indicated that “ISDA may have been involved in a coordinated effort of investment banks to delay or prevent exchanges from entering the credit derivatives business.”

Federal Reserve FBO Proposal: Will Comments on the Intermediate Holding Company Requirement Be Heeded?

By Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP | Posted on

[Editor’s Note:  The following post is a Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Publication, authored by its Financial Institutions Practice Group.]

The comment period has now closed on the controversial proposed rule (FBO Proposal) of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) implementing Sections 165 and 166 of the Dodd-Frank Act (Dodd-Frank) for foreign banking organizations (FBOs) and foreign nonbank financial companies supervised by the Board.  If the FBO Proposal becomes final in the manner proposed, it will mark a sea change in the regulation of the U.S. operations of FBOs, by requiring FBOs with $50 billion or more in total global consolidated assets and $10 billion or more in total U.S. nonbranch assets to form an intermediate holding company (IHC) for almost all of their U.S. subsidiaries.  In our view, the IHC requirement likely exceeds the Board’s legal authority in implementing Sections 165 and 166 of Dodd-Frank, has the tendency to increase, rather than reduce, financial instability in the United States and globally, threatens other adverse effects, and does not effectively respond to the developments that the Board perceives in the U.S. operations of FBOs and in international banking regulation generally.

(more…)

Professor Paulus Speaks on Sovereign Debt Restructuring

By John Muse-Fisher, J.D. Candidate 2014 | Posted on

On April 17, legal practitioners, bankers, scholars, and students met at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco to discuss recent developments in sovereign debt restructuring.  Sovereign debt restructurings date to at least 300 B.C. and are a practical fact of life in today’s global economy.  Recent developments in the realm of sovereign debt restructurings include Greece’s recent restructuring, the Second Circuit’s potentially destabilizing decision in NML Capital v. Argentina, and the seemingly perpetual Eurozone debt crisis.

Professor Christoph Paulus, Director of the Institute for Interdisciplinary Restructuring (Berlin) and graduate of Berkeley School of Law (LLM ’84), presented his framework for creating a Eurozone sovereign debt restructuring mechanism (SDRM).  The IMF proposed an international SDRM in the early 2000s, but the plan lost out to market driven approaches.  Market driven approaches to sovereign debt restructuring include the use of Collective Action Clauses (CACs) in debt contracts, which allow a qualified majority of bondholders to change the terms of the contracts to effectuate a restructuring. 

Professor Paulus’s proposed Europe-centered SDRM envisions a “resolvency” proceeding for sovereigns – a more optimistic and palatable vision of restructuring than an “insolvency” proceeding.  The proposal includes three key requirements: (1) the inclusion of a resolvency clause in bond contracts that would trigger resolvency proceedings under certain circumstances; (2) the creation of a resolvency court overseen by a president who would in turn select 30–40 elder statespersons to serve as judges in potential resolvency proceedings, and; (3) the development of the resolvency court rules of procedure.  The envisioned resolvency process is roughly comparable to insolvency proceedings under most country’s corporate laws and would be intended to promote orderly negotiations between sovereigns and bondholders.

Following Professor Paulus’s presentation, Professor Barry Eichengreen facilitated a lively discussion detailing the limitations and virtues of an institutional approach as compared to market driven approaches, including CACs.  Professor Eichengreen described the moral hazard argument against the creation of an SDRM – that such an institution could make it too easy for sovereigns to write down their debt.  Nonetheless, Professor Eichengreen pointed out that the moral hazard argument now cuts the other way out of concerns that sovereigns borrow too much, and the market for sovereign debt requires greater discipline.  The group also considered Contingent Convertibles (CoCos), an additional market driven approach, as a means to facilitate smooth sovereign debt restructurings.  CoCos would convert sovereign debt to equity on the occurrence of certain measurable conditions, such as sustaining a particular GDP.

The ideas and issues raised at the Federal Reserve Bank provided a useful framework for understanding the potential of a Europe-centered SDRM to facilitate sovereign debt restructurings in the future.  Limitations and questions remain. There are hurdles to applying resolvency clauses in non-European jurisdictions. Certification is required for ensuring the legitimacy of the elder statespersons who would serve as judges. Methodological questions remain about calculating accurately the effect of an SDRM on liquidity in the bond market, and an account of the insufficiency of market-based solutions (especially CACs) to shore up the argument that an SDRM is in fact needed. Indeed, these ideas are still being developed and stakeholders are not in consensus about the best way forward.