Firm Update

SEC Proposes Amendments to Money Market Fund Rates

[Editor’s Note: The following post is authored by Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP]

On June 5, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) proposed amendments to rules under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Investment Company Act”) and related requirements that govern money market funds (“MMFs”). The SEC’s proposal is the latest action taken by U.S. regulators as part of the ongoing debate about systemic risks posed by MMFs and the extent to which previous reform efforts have addressed these concerns. (more…)

Reform of the German Competition Law: Overview of Relevant Changes

[Editor’s Note: The following post is authored by Arnold & Porter LLP]

On June 5, 2013, a committee of the two Houses of the German Parliament reached a long- awaited compromise on the reform of the German competition law. The 8th Amendment Bill of the German Act against Restraints of Competition (ARC) is now expected to be formally adopted and enter into force in the month of July this year. (more…)

Swaps Pushout Rule: Federal Reserve Clarifies Treatment of U.S. Branches of Foreign Banks

[Editor’s Note: The following post is authored by Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP]

The Federal Reserve has issued an interim final rule clarifying the treatment of uninsured U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks under Section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Act (“Swaps Pushout Rule”). The interim final rule clarifies that, for purposes of the Swaps Pushout Rule, all uninsured U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks are treated as insured depository institutions. Accordingly, a foreign bank swap dealer’s uninsured U.S. branch or agency will benefit from the Swaps Pushout Rule’s exemptions, transition period and grandfathering provisions to the same extent as an insured depository institution. The interim final rule also establishes a process for uninsured state branches and agencies of foreign banks and state member banks to apply to the Federal Reserve for a transition period from the July 16, 2013 effective date of the Swaps Pushout Rule. The interim final rule became effective on June 5, 2013, and comments on the rule are due on August 4, 2013. (more…)

CFPB Finalizes Rule on Mortgage Loan Originator Compensation and Qualifications

[Editor’s Note: The following post is authored by Arnold & Porter LLP]

I. BACKGROUND

On January 20, 2013, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued its final rule (the Final Rule) regarding mortgage loan originator compensation and qualification requirements1 under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), as amended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act). The Final Rule modifies existing compensation and qualification requirements under Regulation Z. It prohibits a creditor from compensating a loan originator based on a term of a transaction or a “proxy” for a term of a transaction. It also codifies the existing ban on “dual compensation,” in which a loan originator receives compensation from the consumer and an additional party other than the originator’s organization, but creates an exception allowing a loan originator organization to pay its employees or contractors a commission provided that the commission is not based on a term of a loan. The Final Rule provides a complete exemption from the statutory ban on the consumer payment of upfront points and fees. The Final Rule also includes requirements regarding loan originator qualifications, licensing, and recordkeeping, and implements statutory provisions regarding mandatory dispute resolution and the financing of credit insurance in connection with a residential mortgage loan. (more…)

Delaware Court Applies Business Judgment Rule to Going-Private Merger with Controlling Stockholder

[Editor’s Note: The following post is authored by Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP]

In a recent, landmark Delaware decision in In re MFW Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 6566-CS (Del. Ch. May 29, 2013), Chancellor Leo E. Strine, Jr. answered a frequently debated (but unresolved) question of whether a going-private merger with a controlling stockholder could be structured to invoke the business judgment rule, and not the entire fairness standard of review. Resolving this issue of first impression, the Court held that the business judgment rule will apply “when a controlling stockholder merger has, from the time of the controller’s first overture, been subject to (i) negotiation and approval by a special committee of independent directors fully empowered to say no, and (ii) approval by an uncoerced, fully informed vote of a majority of the minority investors.” (more…)