On December 5, 2014, the Global Markets Advisory Committee, Foreign Exchange Markets Subcommittee (the “Subcommittee”) of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) submitted its recommendation to the Global Markets Advisory Committee on the timing of mandated clearing of foreign exchange non-deliverable forward (“NDF”) transactions.[1] READ MORE
In February 2015, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (“ISDA”) released a webinar on various issues related to the margin requirements for uncleared swaps.[1] Specifically, the webinar: (i) covered the organizational structure of ISDA’s Working Group on Margin Requirements Implementation Initiative and each of the Initiative’s “workstreams” responsible for tasks associated with the margin rules (i.e., the Portfolio Integrity Workstream, the Margin & Collateral Workstream, the Risk Classification & Methodology Workstream, the Data Sources Workstream, the Dispute Resolution Workstream, and the Legal & Documentation Workstream); (ii) provided an update on ISDA’s efforts to develop, and obtain regulatory approval for, its “standard initial margin model” (“SIMM”), which is a standardized method for calculating initial margin on uncleared swaps; and (iii) discussed significant legal and operational issues related to the implementation of the recently re-proposed uncleared swap margin regulations.[2] READ MORE
In the fourth quarter of 2014, bitcoin’s volatile price generally fluctuated between $300 and $400, about one-third of its all-time peak of around $1,200 from one year before. Despite this price drop during 2014, startup companies and financial products focused on bitcoin continue to burgeon, and, in turn, various regulators have recently proposed regulations, made pronouncements, and taken enforcement actions related to bitcoin. Section I below outlines significant companies and products in the bitcoin space, and Section II summarizes the state of bitcoin regulation.[1] READ MORE
On July 29th, the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court, issued an opinion[1] that addressed several issues regarding the calculation of early termination amounts under a standard derivatives master agreement, as well as the calculation of default interest under the master agreement.
In the case at issue, Lehman Brothers Finance S.A. (“LBF”) claimed that Sal. Oppenheim Jr. & Cie, KGAA (“Oppenheim”) had improperly calculated the early termination amount payable to LBF in connection with the termination of transactions governed by a 1992 ISDA Master Agreement under which “Market Quotation” had been selected as the payment measure. The transactions at issue were equity puts and calls that referred to the Nikkei 225 Stock Average Index (the “Index”). Pursuant to the terms of the master agreement between the parties, all transactions thereunder automatically terminated upon the bankruptcy filing of LBF’s parent, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”), at 1:44 a.m. New York time on Monday, September 15, 2008. LBF itself went into liquidation in December 2008. READ MORE
On November 24th, the Structured Finance Industry Group (“SFIG”) submitted a comment letter[1] to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and other prudential regulators (the “Prudential Regulators”) and to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) relating to proposed margin requirements for securitization transaction swaps. READ MORE
The “prudential regulators” (i.e., the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Farm Credit Administration, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency) re-proposed their April 2011 proposed rule imposing initial and variation margin requirements on banks and their counterparties in connection with uncleared swaps. The April 2011 proposed rule has been re-proposed rather than simply finalized in light of significant differences from the original proposal and the issuance of the 2013 final policy framework by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and the International Organization of Securities Commissions. READ MORE
On October 18, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (“ISDA”) announced that eighteen major global banks had agreed to sign a protocol (the “Protocol”) that imposes a stay on cross-default and termination rights under standard derivatives contracts governed by an ISDA master agreement. The terms of the Protocol, which was developed in close coordination with regulators to facilitate cross-border resolution efforts and to address risks associated with the disorderly unwind of derivatives portfolios, would apply where one of the Protocol signatories becomes subject to resolution action in its jurisdiction. READ MORE
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed, with certain exceptions, the lawsuit filed by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and others challenging the CFTC’s final cross-border guidance (the “Guidance”) issued in July 2013 and the extraterritorial application of the various CFTC rulemakings under Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Title VII Rules”).[1] The court held that the Guidance was not a legislative rule but rather was, in part, a policy statement and, in part, an interpretive rule and, therefore, generally not subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.[2] This holding was based largely on the court’s finding that the Guidance “reads like a non-binding policy statement and has been neither characterized nor treated in practice as binding by the CFTC.”[3]
The court also concluded that the CFTC has discretion to define the extraterritorial reach of the Title VII Rules through case-by-case adjudication rather than by rulemaking, and therefore the CFTC was not required to address within each Title VII Rule the scope of that Rule’s extraterritorial application.[4] However, the court agreed with the plaintiffs that the CFTC was required but failed to consider adequately the costs and benefits of the extraterritorial applications of certain of the Title VII Rules.[5] Without vacating them, the court remanded those rules – specifically, the Real-Time Reporting,[6] Daily Trading Records,[7] Portfolio Reconciliation and Documentation,[8] Entity Definition,[9] Swap Entity Registration,[10] Risk Management,[11] Chief Compliance Officer,[12] SDR Reporting,[13] Historical SDR Reporting,[14] and SEF Registration Rules[15] – to the CFTC to conduct an adequate cost-benefit analysis under 7 U.S.C. § 19(a).[16]
[1] Sec. Indus. & Fin. Mkts. Ass’n., et al., v. CFTC, 13-CV-1916 slip op. (D.D.C. Sept. 14, 2014) (the “Opinion”).
[2] Id. at 71-72.
[3] Id. at 69.
[4] See id. at 76.
[5] See id. at 80.
[6] Real-Time Public Reporting of Swap Transaction Data, 77 Fed. Reg. 1,182 (January 9, 2012) (codified at 17 C.F.R. Part 43).
[7] Swap Dealer and Major Swap Participant Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Duties Rules; Futures Commission Merchant and Introducing Broker Conflicts of Interest Rules; and Chief Compliance Officer Rules for Swap Dealers, Major Swap Participants, and Futures Commission Merchants, 77 Fed. Reg. 20,128, 20,133 (April 3, 2012) (codified at 17 C.F.R. § 23.202).
[8] Confirmation, Portfolio Reconciliation, Portfolio Compression, and Swap Trading Relationship Documentation Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 77 Fed. Reg. 55,904 (September 11, 2012) (codified at 17 C.F.R. §§ 23.500-506).
[9] Further Definition of “Swap Dealer,” “Security-Based Swap Dealer,” “Major Swap Participant,” “Major Security-Based Swap Participant” and “Eligible Contract Participant”, 77 Fed. Reg. 30,596 (May 23, 2012) (codified in various sections of 17 C.F.R.).
[10] Registration of Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 77 Fed. Reg. 2,613 (January 19, 2012) (codified at 17 C.F.R. §§ 23.21-22).
[11] Swap Dealer and Major Swap Participant Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Duties Rules; Futures Commission Merchant and Introducing Broker Conflicts of Interest Rules; and Chief Compliance Officer Rules for Swap Dealers, Major Swap Participants, and Futures Commission Merchants, 77 Fed. Reg. 20,128, 20,205-11 (April 3, 2012) (codified at 17 C.F.R. §§ 23.600-606).
[12] Id. at 20,200-01 (codified at 17 C.F.R. §§ 3.3).
[13] Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements, 77 Fed. Reg. 2,136 (January 13, 2012) (codified at 17 C.F.R. Part 45).
[14] Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements: Pre-Enactment and Transition Swaps, 77 Fed. Reg. 35,200 (June 12, 2012) (codified at 17 C.F.R. Part 46).
[15] Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 78 Fed. Reg. 33,476 (June 4, 2013) (codified at 17 C.F.R. Part 37).
[16] See the Opinion at 91-92.
On June 25, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted a final rule and interpretive guidance[1] (the “Final Rule”) to address the application of certain provisions of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”) to cross-border security-based swap activities. Generally, the Final Rule does not, itself, impose obligations on market participants, but, rather, is definitional and may determine the cross-border scope of the SEC’s eventual implementation of certain security-based swaps requirements under Dodd-Frank. Certain significant provisions of the Final Rule are discussed below. READ MORE
