"Insights Special Edition: Dodd-Frank Rulemaking: Volcker Rule and SIFI Proposals: Impact of the Proposed Regulations On Securitizations"


Securitization has been the focus of many rulemaking initiatives in the wake of the financial crisis. The Volcker Rule is not directly targeted at securitization and expressly states that nothing in it should be construed to limit or restrict the ability of a banking entity to securitize loans. Nevertheless, the proposed regulations, if enacted in their current form, would prohibit or restrict banking entities from engaging in many common securitization practices in the asset-backed commercial paper market and in other sectors. The most significant issues arise because the definition of “covered fund,” which is intended to target hedge funds and private equity funds, also encompasses many issuers of asset-backed securities (ABS), including collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP) conduits. Banking entities will be prohibited from holding an ownership interest in or sponsoring a covered fund under the proposed regulations, subject to narrow exceptions. The proposed regulations effectively would mean that a U.S. bank could not sponsor and lend to an ABCP conduit in the manner that most such conduits are currently structured and could not hold an ownership interest in a CDO. In addition, the prohibition in the proposed regulations on proprietary trading would require banking entities, which could include bank-sponsored issuers of ABS that do not fall under the definition of covered funds, to establish and implement compliance programs and satisfy recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

Prohibition on Banking Entity Investment in Covered Funds

The proposed regulations prohibit banking entities from directly or indirectly acquiring or retaining an ownership interest in or sponsoring a covered fund, subject to certain exceptions. A “covered fund” is defined to include “[a]n issuer that would be an investment company, as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940 … but for section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of that Act.”2

Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act excludes from the definition of investment company any issuer whose outstanding securities (other than commercial paper) are beneficially owned by no more than 100 persons and are not offered in a public offering in the United States.3 Section 3(c)(7) is an exclusion for issuers who do not offer their securities in a public offering in the United States and who restrict the offering to “qualified purchasers,” a category of large investors similar to those who would qualify as “qualified institutional buyers” for the purposes of Rule 144A under the Securities Act.4 These exclusions are utilized for many types of securitization transactions including CDOs, collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) and ABCP conduit transactions.

Please see full insight below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.