The US federal banking agencies with responsibility for enforcing the Volcker Rule have issued temporary one year no-action relief with respect to certain private non-US investment funds that are not “covered funds” for purposes of the Volcker Rule, but that could be treated as “banking entities” for purposes of the Volcker Rule due to a foreign bank’s investment in or governance arrangements with the fund. [1] Such funds are referred to as “qualifying foreign excluded funds.” The relief generally provides that the US banking agencies will not take action against a foreign bank or treat a qualifying foreign excluded fund as a banking entity based on the foreign bank’s acquisition or retention of an ownership interest in, or sponsorship of, the qualifying foreign excluded fund.

The no-action relief is significant because being treated as a banking entity would cause the non-US fund itself to be subject to the Volcker Rule’s limitations on proprietary trading and other restrictions. Such limitations and restrictions could significantly impair the operations of a fund whose purpose is to engage in making proprietary investments for clients in the same manner as a covered fund.

(more…)

The Bank of England, the UK authority with powers to “resolve” failing banks, is consulting on how it might exercise its power of direction to remove impediments to resolvability. The Bank may require measures to be taken by a UK bank, building society or large investment firm to address a perceived obstacle to credible resolution. Concurrently, the Prudential Regulation Authority is proposing to impose a rule that would require a stay on termination or close-out of derivatives and certain other financial contracts to be contractually agreed by UK banks, building societies and investment firms with their non-EEA counterparties. This post discusses the proposed approaches by the UK regulators to ensuring that impediments to resolvability are removed, as well as certain cross-border implications.

(more…)

The US Securities and Exchange Commission recently adopted important changes to the financial responsibility rules for securities broker-dealers, including changes to the regulatory capital and regulatory reporting rules. The new rules include important regulatory capital changes in relation to acting as agent in securities lending, assumption of broker-dealer expenses, and important new recordkeeping and reporting rules relating to compliance with risk mitigation and financial responsibility.

Introduction

Summary of the Rule Changes

On July 30, 2013, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) adopted changes to its financial responsibility rules for securities broker-dealers, and, in particular, adopted important changes to Rule 15c3-1, the “net capital rule.” [1] The net capital rule is the principal SEC rule governing regulatory capital requirements for securities broker-dealers in the United States.

(more…)