Financial Industry Developments

SEC Reopens Comment Period for Proposed Amendments to Rule 13n-4 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

On January 15, the Securities and Exchange Commission reopened the comment period for proposed amendments to rule 13n-4 through a release entitled "Access to Data Obtained by Security-Based Swap Data Repositories and Exemption from Indemnification Requirement[.]"  The SEC reopened the comment period due to the recent passing of the Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2015, which contained provisions that affected the language in the prior proposal.  Release.

Rating Agency Developments

On January 20, Fitch issued CDOs: Advance Notice Of Proposed Criteria Change: Corporate Cash Flow And Synthetic CDO Rating Methodology.  Report.

On January 19, DBRS published Structured Finance Flow-Through Ratings.  Release.

Distressed Debt and Restructuring Developments

Oil & Gas Bankruptcy Issues: Part 2 Typical Deal Structures and Financings

In this second of five videos on the oil & gas industry, Orrick Restructuring Chair Ron D'Aversa and Restructuring Partner Doug Mintz discuss oil & gas deal structures and oil & gas financings.

Investment Management

SEC Approves Interim Final Rules Implementing Two Provisions of the FAST Act

On January 13, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it approved interim final rules implementing two provisions of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, adopted by Congress in December, that revise financial reporting forms for emerging growth companies and smaller reporting companies.

The Congressionally mandated rules revise Forms S-1 and F-1 to provide that as long as emerging growth companies' registration statements include all required financial information at the time of the offering, they will be allowed to omit certain historical period financial information prior to the offering.  In addition, the rules revise Form S-1 to allow smaller reporting companies to use incorporation by reference for future filings the companies make under the federal securities laws after the registration statement becomes effective.

The interim final rules also include a request for comment on whether the rules should be expanded to include other registrants or forms.

The rules will become effective when published in the Federal Register and the public comment period will remain open for 30 days following their publication.

SEC Announces 2016 Examination Priorities

On January 11, the SEC announced its Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations' (OCIE) 2016 priorities.  New areas of focus include liquidity controls, public pension advisers, product promotion, and two popular investment products – exchange-traded funds and variable annuities.  The priorities also reflect a continuing focus on protecting investors in ongoing risk areas such as cybersecurity, microcap fraud, fee selection, and reverse churning.

The 2016 examination priorities address issues across a variety of financial institutions, including investment advisers, investment companies, broker-dealers, transfer agents, clearing agencies, and national securities exchanges.  Areas of examination include:

• Retail Investors –  OCIE will continue several 2015 initiatives to assess risks to retail investors seeking information, advice, products, and services to help them plan for and live in retirement. It also will undertake examinations to review exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and ETF trading practices, variable annuity recommendations and disclosure, and potential conflicts and risks involving advisers to public pension funds.
• Market-Wide Risks –  OCIE will continue its focus on cybersecurity controls at broker-dealers and investment advisers.  New initiatives for 2016 include an evaluation of broker-dealers' and investment advisers' liquidity risk management practices, and firms' compliance with the SEC's Regulation SCI, designed to strengthen the technology infrastructure of the U.S. securities markets.
• Data Analytics – OCIE's enhanced ability to analyze large amounts of data will assist examiners' ongoing initiatives to assess anti-money laundering compliance, detect microcap fraud, and review for excessive trading.  Data analytics also will help examinations focused on promotion of new, complex, and high-risk products.

The published priorities for 2016 are not exhaustive and may be adjusted in light of market conditions, industry developments and ongoing risk assessment activities.

RMBS and Other Securities Litigation

Trustees Seek Approval of $4.5 Billion Settlement

On January 20, trial commenced before Justice Marcy Friedman in New York County Supreme Court to determine whether Deutsche Bank, U.S. Bank, and the other trustees of 330 RMBS trusts acted reasonably when they reached a $4.5 billion settlement of claims against JP Morgan in its capacity as sponsor of those trusts.  Under the proposed agreement, JP Morgan would make a $4.5 billion payment to be distributed among the trusts and perform certain mortgage loan servicing improvements in exchange for a release of claims related to mortgage loan representations and warranties and mortgage loan servicing.  There are two objectors that have challenged the validity and fairness of the settlement:  Ambac, which insured eight of the trusts, and W&L Investments, LLC, a certifcateholder in two of the trusts. The trial is expected to last roughly two weeks.  Amended Petition.

Claims Against RMBS Trustees Dismissed

On January 19, Judge Richard Berman of the Southern District of New York dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction, the vast majority of claims asserted against Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo in their respective capacities as RMBS trustees for 564 and 273 RMBS trusts, pooling a collective $826.5 billion in securitized loans.  Plaintiffs in the two actions claimed the court had federal jurisdiction over certain of the claims arising from the Trustee Indenture Act of 1939, and asked the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the accompanying state law claims as well.  Judge Berman held that while the court was empowered to exercise supplemental jurisdiction it would not do so, because the state claims pressed by Plaintiffs predominated over the federal ones.  Judge Berman stressed that Plaintiffs asserted no federal claims in connection with almost 90% of the trusts at issue in the Deutsche Bank action and roughly 96% of trusts at issue in the Wells Fargo action.  The court concluded that to permit such a relatively small number of federal claims to pull in a much larger body of state claims would improperly allow "a federal tail…to wag what is in substance a state dog."  The court granted plaintiffs three weeks to file a joint amended complaint with the state law claims removed.  The court did not rule on the merits of Plaintiffs' TIA or state law claims.  Order.

European Financial Industry Developments

EBA Consults on Draft Guidelines on Implicit Support for Securitization Transactions

On January 20, the EBA published a consultation paper (EBA/CP/2016/01) on draft guidelines on implicit support for securitization transactions under Article 248(2) of the Capital Requirements Regulation (Regulation 575/2013) ("CRR").

Examples of implicit support include the purchase of deteriorating credit risk exposures from the underlying pool, improving the quality of credit enhancements, the sale of discounted credit risk exposures into the pool of securitised credit risk exposures, the purchase of underlying exposures at above market price, ad hoc credit enhancements or an increase in the first loss position according to the deterioration of the underlying exposures. The provision of implicit support undermines the achievement of significant risk transfer, hence, under Article 248 of the CRR, there are restrictions on providing implicit support to securitisations. The draft guidelines recognise the fact that implicit support should not cover support that institutions are contractually obliged to provide. Such explicit support is assessed under guidelines EBA/GL/2014/05 on significant risk transfer.

Originator institutions and sponsor institutions which have failed to comply with the relevant requirements shall, at a minimum, must hold own funds against all of the securitised exposures as if they had not been securitised. Article 248(2) of the CRR sets out a mandate for the EBA to issue guidelines on what constitutes arm's length conditions and when a transaction is not structured to provide support. A transaction is not considered to provide support if it is executed at arm's length conditions and is taken into account in the assessment of significant risk transfer.

The draft guidelines include (i) the conditions to be satisfied in order to determine that a relevant transaction is not structured to provide support, depending on whether the relevant transaction is entered into by a sponsor institution or by an originator institution, (ii) an objective test for assessing whether a relevant transaction is entered into at arm's length terms, (iii) clarifications regarding the notification requirements for relevant transactions and (iv) further guidance on how the conditions for assessing whether a transaction is structured to provide support, including the factors set out in points (a)-(e) of Article 248(1) CRR, should be assessed.

To ensure that the test is applied correctly, the assessment is to be made with due regard to the information available to each of the parties at the time when the transaction is entered into, and not to such information that is available at a later date.

The EBA will hold a public hearing on the draft guidelines on February 18, 2016.

European Commission Letter to ESMA on Application of AIFMD Passport

On January 19, ESMA published a letter it has received from the European Commission relating to the application of the EU passport under the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (2011/61/EU) ("AIFMD") to non-EU alternative investment fund managers ("AIFMs") and alternative investment funds ("AIFs").

The Commission stated that with regard to the advice on granting the AIFMD passport to managers and funds established in third countries, it agrees that the country-by-country approach adopted by ESMA is correct. It noted that the nature of the test set out in Article 67 of the AIFMD may result in different outcomes depending on the regulatory and supervisory framework of the third countries in which non-EU AIFMs and funds are established.

The Commission stated that it will take a decision [as to whether the AIFM Directive passporting regime should be extended to the management and marketing of AIFs by non-EU AIFMs, and to the marketing of non-EU AIFs by EU AIFMs] when a sufficient number of countries have been appropriately assessed.

The Commission invites ESMA to:

• Complete, by June 30, 2016, the assessment of the USA, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, Canada, Isle of Man, Cayman Islands, Bermuda and Australia.
• Provide a more detailed assessment of the capacity of supervisory authorities and their track record in ensuring effective enforcements, including in those countries looked at in the first wave of countries.
• Provide a preliminary assessment of the expected inflow of funds by type and size into the EU from relevant third countries.

The letter concludes with the Commission agreeing with ESMA's suggestion that it produces another opinion on the functioning of the passport and national private placement regimes once the AIFMD is fully transposed in all member states and there is more experience on the functioning of the framework. (An accompanying press release explains that ESMA suggested it produce another opinion because the delay in implementing the AIFMD, together with the delay in its transposition in some member states, made it difficult for ESMA to provide a definitive assessment by July 2015, the initial legislative deadline).