Monthly Archives: May 2013

FSOC Designation: Consequences for Nonbank SIFIS

Posted by Kobi Kastiel, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on
Friday, May 3, 2013
, , , , , ,
More from: , , , , ,

The following post comes to us from Arthur S. Long, partner and member of the financial institutions and securities regulation practice groups at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. This post is based on a Gibson Dunn memorandum by Mr. Long, Alexander G. Acree, Kimble C. Cannon, C.F. Muckenfuss III, and Colin C. Richard.

Treasury officials have recently suggested that the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) may soon designate the first round of systemically significant nonbank financial companies (Nonbank SIFIs). In March, Under Secretary for Domestic Finance Miller and Deputy Assistant Secretary for the FSOC Gerety stated that designations could occur “in the next few months.”

Moreover, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve) recently finalized its rule on determining when a company is “predominantly engaged in financial activities,” thus making the company potentially subject to FSOC designation. The final rule is notable for stating that an investment firm that does not comply with the Merchant Banking Rule’s investment holding periods and routine management and operation limitations may nonetheless be determined, on a case- by-case basis, to be engaging in “financial activities.” In addition, the final rule rejected the argument that mutual funds — including money market mutual funds — are “not engaged in a financial activity” and therefore not capable of designation.

READ MORE »

Financing Through Asset Sales

Posted by R. Christopher Small, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on
Friday, May 3, 2013
, ,
More from: ,

The following post comes to us from Alex Edmans and William Mann, both of the Department of Finance at the University of Pennsylvania.

In our paper, Financing Through Asset Sales, which was recently made publicly available on SSRN, we analyze a source of financing that is first-order in reality but relatively unexplored in the literature — selling non-core assets such as a division or a plant. Asset sales are substantial in practice: in 2010, there were $133bn of asset sales in the U.S., versus $130bn in seasoned equity issuance. In contrast, most existing research on a firm’s financing decisions studies the choice between debt and equity and ignores asset sales. We build a model that allows asset sales to be undertaken not only to raise capital, but also for operational reasons (dissynergies). We study the conditions under which asset sales are preferable to equity issuance and vice-versa, how financing and operational motives interact, and how firm boundaries are affected by financial constraints.

The firm comprises a core asset and a non-core asset. The firm must raise financing to meet a liquidity need, and can sell either equity or part of the non-core asset. Following Myers and Majluf (1984) (MM), we model information asymmetry as the principal driver of this choice. The firm’s type is privately known to its manager and comprises two dimensions. The first is quality, which determines the assets’ standalone (common) values. The value of the core asset is higher for high-quality firms. The value of the non-core asset depends on how we specify the correlation between the core and non-core assets. With a positive (negative) correlation, the value of the non-core asset is higher (lower) for high-quality firms. The second dimension is synergy — the additional value that the non-core asset is worth to its current owner.

READ MORE »

Proposed Rules for Global Derivatives Market

Posted by Luis A. Aguilar, Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, on
Thursday, May 2, 2013
, , , , , , , ,
More from:

Luis A. Aguilar is a Commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on Commissioner Aguilar’s statement at a recent open meeting of the SEC; the full text, including footnotes, is available here. The views expressed in the post are those of Commissioner Aguilar and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the other Commissioners, or the Staff.

Today [May 1, 2013], the Commission considers issuing a release proposing rules and interpretive guidance applicable to certain market intermediaries, participants, clearing agencies, data repositories, and trade execution facilities that are involved in cross-border transactions of security-based swaps. The proposed release is over 1,000 pages, contains over 2,000 footnotes, and requests comments on more than 630 questions with many subparts. Although the questions posed are many, they are intended to be balanced and fair to solicit views from all sides. This is a welcome approach, because it contributes to a healthy debate and dialogue that is vital to the Commission’s processes.

Today, the Commission also votes to reopen the comment period on the various outstanding rulemaking releases and policy statement concerning security-based swaps and market participants to allow the public additional time to analyze and provide comments in light of our cross-border release.

The length of the cross-border release and the reopening of the comment periods reflect the complexity and importance of the issues involved in securities-based swap transactions. In issuing today’s proposal and asking for comments on the Commission’s proposed approach to regulating the securities-based swap market, the Commission recognizes the interactions among many important rules in this area. It is important, therefore, that our rules avoid gaps and loopholes, and that they work together to provide the needed transparency, accountability, and protection to our economy, the markets, and, most importantly, to investors.

READ MORE »

Challenges Facing the Audit Profession and PCAOB Initiatives

Posted by James R. Doty, Chairman, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, on
Thursday, May 2, 2013
, , , , , ,
More from:

James R. Doty is chairman of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. This post is based on Chairman Doty’s keynote address at the Rice University Director-to-Director Exchange; the full text, including footnotes, is available here. The views expressed in the post are those of Chairman Doty and should not be attributed to the PCAOB as a whole or any other members or staff.

As you know, over the past couple of years, together with the board members and staff of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, I have been working to enhance the reliability of the external audit function and its usefulness to U.S. capital markets.

I will start off with an overview of some of the more significant issues confronting the audit profession. And then I’d like to open a more interactive discussion.

I. Corporate Governance Has Evolved to Suit the Needs of Capital Markets.

I have known many of you for years. I have watched and admired how you have navigated the many changes we have seen in both the energy industry and corporate governance.

Many of us have gained significantly more experience than we expected in identifying, addressing and preventing future threats to corporate success, such as differences in cultural expectations and business practices around the world and at home. Enron had a profound effect on Houston.

As this morning’s discussion demonstrated, you recognize that your work is never done. There is no perfect governance regime for all time.

READ MORE »

Court Dismisses Insider Preference Claims Against Affiliates of Goldman Sachs

Posted by Kobi Kastiel, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on
Thursday, May 2, 2013
, , , ,
More from: ,

The following post comes to us from Donald S. Bernstein, partner and co-head of the Insolvency and Restructuring Practice at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP. This post is based on a Davis Polk client memorandum.

Firms offering comprehensive financial services scored a significant victory on April 9, 2013, when Judge Robert Sweet of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Capmark Financial Group Inc.’s (“Capmark”) insider preference action against four lender affiliates of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (“Goldman Sachs”), which arose out of Capmark’s 2009 bankruptcy. [1] Davis Polk represented the Goldman Sachs lender affiliates and advanced the arguments adopted by Judge Sweet. The court’s opinion rejected Capmark’s attempt to cast the lenders as “insiders” of Capmark based on an indirect equity interest in Capmark held by funds managed by affiliates of Goldman Sachs and Goldman Sachs’s service as an advisor to Capmark. In doing so, Judge Sweet reaffirmed that corporate veils separating a lender from an affiliated entity holding equity positions or serving as advisor to the debtor will not lightly be disregarded, and that participation in an arm’s-length transaction as an ordinary commercial lender will not give rise to insider status. Furthermore, Judge Sweet held that reorganized debtors are judicially estopped from making an about-face on key factual issues underlying relief secured in bankruptcy court. In sum, the Capmark decision should pose a substantial obstacle to claims alleging that a lender is an “insider” by virtue of affiliated entities’ contacts with a debtor in the absence of evidence that the lender actually used the affiliates’ contacts to influence the debtor’s decisions.

READ MORE »

Supreme Court: Presumption Against Extraterritoriality Applies to Alien Tort Statute

Posted by Kobi Kastiel, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
, , , ,
More from: ,

The following post comes to us from Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., partner and co-chair of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher’s Appellate and Constitutional Law Group, Crisis Management Group, and Transnational Litigation and Foreign Judgments Group. The post is based on a Gibson Dunn client alert by Mr. Boutrous, Christopher M. Francis, Daniel M. Sullivan, and William E. Thomson.

On April 17, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., __ U.S. __ (2013), addressing the scope of the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (“ATS”). In Kiobel, the Court sharply limited the availability of U.S. courts to hear claims brought by foreign nationals against other foreign nationals for human rights violations committed outside the United States. Although the decision was unanimous, the Justices’ reasoning divided. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court, concluded that the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the ATS and that nothing in the ATS itself rebuts that presumption. The Chief Justice’s opinion, joined by Justices Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas, casts doubt on the viability of ATS claims arising from foreign acts, but leaves open the possibility that the presumption against extraterritoriality might be rebutted if claims “touch and concern the territory of the United States” with “sufficient force to displace” that presumption. A foreign defendant’s “[m]ere corporate presence” in the United States, however, does not suffice. Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, filed a concurrence in the judgment rejecting the application of the presumption against extraterritoriality and instead proposing that claims for violations of international law can be recognized under the ATS even for violations committed abroad either where the defendant is an American national or where the case sufficiently implicates a U.S. interest.

The Court’s analysis in Kiobel will likely have far-reaching repercussions for foreign nationals alleging that they have been the victims of human rights abuses outside the United States, for corporations potentially subject to expensive and difficult-to-predict ATS suits, and for foreign countries whose policies and actions might become the subject of ATS suits.

READ MORE »

M&A Representations and Warranties Insurance: Tips for Buyers and Sellers

Posted by Noam Noked, co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
, ,
More from: , ,

The following post comes to us from Paul A. Ferrillo, counsel at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP specializing in complex securities and business litigation, and is based on an article by Mr. Ferrillo and Joseph T. Verdesca that first appeared in D&O Diary.

No less than two years ago, had one tried to initiate a conversation with a Private Equity Sponsor or an M&A lawyer regarding M&A “reps and warranties” insurance (i.e., insurance designed to expressly provide insurance coverage for the breach of a representation or a warranty contained in a Purchase and Sale Agreement, in addition to or as a replacement for a contractual indemnity), one might have gotten a shrug of the shoulders or a polite response to the effect of “let’s try to negotiate around the problem instead.” Perhaps because it was misunderstood or perhaps because it had not yet hit its stride in terms of breadth of coverage, reps and warranties insurance was hardly ever used to close deals. Like Harry Potter, it was the poor stepchild often left in the closet.

Today that is no longer the case. One global insurance broker with whom we work notes that over $4 billion in reps and warranties insurance worldwide was bound last year, of which $1.4 billion thereof was bound in the US and $2.1 billion thereof was bound in the EU. Such broker’s US-based reps and warranties writings nearly doubled from 2011 and 2012. Reps and warranties insurance has become an important tool to close deals that might not otherwise get done. This post is meant to highlight how reps and warranties insurance may be of use to you in winning bids and finding means of closing deals in today’s challenging environment.

READ MORE »

Resource Allocation within Firms and Financial Market Dislocation

Posted by R. Christopher Small, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
, , , ,
More from: ,

The following post comes to us from Gregor Matvos and Amit Seru, both of the Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago.

Do firm boundaries mediate the effect of shocks to the financial intermediation sector? When the functioning of the intermediation sector is impaired – as was the case in the recent financial crisis – shocks can be transmitted to the broader economy since funds may not flow to highest value use without incurring significant cost. This issue has been extensively explored in the credit channel literature (e.g., Kashyap and Stein [2000]; Bernanke and Blinder [1988; 1992], and Bernanke and Gertler [1995]). However, unlike what is assumed in this literature, firms may be able to reallocate resources internally – for instance, between divisions in different industries – to ameliorate the effect of financial shocks. If so, external credit market conditions will impact the nature of resource allocation inside firms and between industries differently than they would in an economy with no internal capital markets. Diversified firms constitute a large part of economies around the world; therefore, resource allocation within firms can be of significant importance. In this paper we propose that firms shift resources between industries in response to shocks to the financial sector. We estimate a structural model to quantify the forces driving this reallocation decision, and show that these forces dampen shocks to the financial sector in economically significant ways.

READ MORE »

Page 7 of 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7