Archive for the ‘Legislative & Regulatory Developments’ Category

Delaware Innovates to Create a World-Class Arbitration Regime

Posted by Yaron Nili, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Thursday March 19, 2015 at 9:08 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Greg Varallo, Director and Executive Vice President at Richards, Layton & Finger. This post is part of the Delaware law series, which is cosponsored by the Forum and Corporation Service Company; links to other posts in the series are available here.

On March 11, 2015, the Delaware State Bar Association gave its formal approval to HB 49, which was filed yesterday in the Delaware Legislature. If passed by the Legislature, the bill, which bears the title the Delaware Rapid Arbitration Act, will establish Delaware as a cutting-edge seat for business arbitrations. Building on the best of the state’s earlier experiment with judicially annexed arbitration, the new legislation was crafted with extensive consultation and input from constituencies around the US and internationally. One thing became clear as a result of those consultations: businesses and their advisors are alarmed at the marked drift in arbitration practice away from timely, efficient dispute resolution.

…continue reading: Delaware Innovates to Create a World-Class Arbitration Regime

Delaware (Again) Proposes Sledgehammering Fee-Shifting Bylaws

Posted by Yaron Nili, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Thursday March 12, 2015 at 9:08 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from John L. Reed, chair of the Wilmington Litigation group and a partner in the Corporate and Litigation groups at DLA Piper LLP, and is based on a DLA Piper Corporate Governance Alert by Mr. Reed and Ed Batts. This post is part of the Delaware law series, which is cosponsored by the Forum and Corporation Service Company; links to other posts in the series are available here.

As part of the annual update cycle for Delaware’s General Corporations Law (DGCL), the Delaware Bar has returned to last year’s controversy on fee-shifting provisions in bylaws and certificates of incorporation to propose, yet again, destroying the ability of Delaware corporations to, in their organizing documents, have the losing party in an intra-company (i.e. fiduciary duty) lawsuit pay the prevailing party’s legal fees.

The proposal is among several 2015 legislative changes to the DGCL proposed by the Council of the Corporation Law Section of the Delaware State Bar Association, which is the working-level body that, historically through consensus, creates changes to the DGCL.

…continue reading: Delaware (Again) Proposes Sledgehammering Fee-Shifting Bylaws

SEC’s Swaps Reporting and Disclosure Final Rules

Posted by Yaron Nili, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Sunday March 1, 2015 at 9:00 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Dan Ryan, Leader of the Financial Services Advisory Practice at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, and is based on a PwC publication by Troy Paredes, Samuel Crystal, and David Kim.

On February 11, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released two final rules toward establishing a reporting and public disclosure framework for security-based swap (SBS) transaction data. The SEC’s Commissioners had voted in January to approve the rules, 3 to 2. [1] These rules are the SEC’s first substantive SBS requirements since the SEC began laying out its cross-border position through final rules in June 2014. [2] Chair White has consistently stressed the need to complete substantive SBS requirements and now appears willing to do so even when the SEC Commissioners are divided.

The SEC rules diverge from existing Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) requirements in some key ways. These divergences will create technical complexity for dealers who have built systems and processes to meet already live CFTC regulations. For example, the SEC’s broader, more exhaustive, and possibly repetitive scope of “Unique Identifier Codes” (UIC) will be problematic for market participants. A less obvious problem will be the SEC’s requirement to report SBS data within 24 hours (until modified by the SEC as the rule suggests), as dealers will likely want to delay public dissemination for as long as possible which will run counter to their existing set-ups for the CFTC requirement to report to a swap data repository (SDR) “as soon as technologically practicable.”

…continue reading: SEC’s Swaps Reporting and Disclosure Final Rules

Risk Governance: Banks Back to School

Posted by Kobi Kastiel, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Sunday September 14, 2014 at 9:00 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Dan Ryan, Leader of the Financial Services Advisory Practice at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, and is based on a PwC publication.

On September 2, 2014, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) finalized its risk governance framework for large banks and thrifts (“Guidelines”) that was proposed in January 2014. [1] The Guidelines formalize the heightened risk management standards that the OCC has been communicating through the supervisory process for several years, but do so somewhat more flexibly than the January proposal (“proposal”) did. Although many firms have been working to enhance their risk management programs to meet the proposal and supervisory communications, most still have work to do in order to meet the Guidelines’ requirements.

The Guidelines maintain the proposal’s emphasis on risk governance at the bank level to ensure safety and soundness, and affords the OCC greater flexibility (prescribed under regulations) to take enforcement actions in response to a bank’s compliance failure. The responsibility to oversee risk management remains with the Board of Directors which retains its ultimate risk governance oversight role; however, the Guidelines clarify that the Board need not take on responsibility for day-to-day managerial duties as the proposal had suggested.

…continue reading: Risk Governance: Banks Back to School

Senator Schumer’s Anti-Inversion Bill

Posted by Kobi Kastiel, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Thursday September 11, 2014 at 9:05 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Neil Barr, partner and co-head of the Tax Department at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, and is based on a Davis Polk client memorandum by Mr. Barr, Rachel D. Kleinberg, and Michael Mollerus.

A draft of the bill that is being considered by Senator Schumer (D-NY) to reduce some of the economic incentives for corporate inversions was made publicly available yesterday. Senator Schumer has indicated that, while the proposed bill is still the subject of discussion and is subject to change, he intends to introduce the bill into the Senate this week. The following is a summary of the provisions in the proposed bill as it currently stands.

…continue reading: Senator Schumer’s Anti-Inversion Bill

2014 Amendments Affecting Delaware Alternative Entities and the Contractual Statute of Limitations

Posted by Yaron Nili, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Sunday August 31, 2014 at 9:00 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Scott E. Waxman, founding partner in the Delaware office of K&L Gates LLP, and is based on a K&L Gates alert authored by Mr. Waxman, Eric N. Feldman, Nicholas I. Froio, Andrew Skouvakis, and Zachary L. Sager. This post is part of the Delaware law series, which is cosponsored by the Forum and Corporation Service Company; links to other posts in the series are available here.

On August 1, 2014, amendments to Delaware’s alternative business entity statutes, [1] as well as the statute of limitations applicable to Delaware contracts, [2] became effective. These amendments (the “2014 Amendments”) represent a continuing effort by Delaware to create a flexible statutory framework for alternative business organizations and transactions involving business entities generally. This post briefly summarizes the more significant 2014 Amendments.

…continue reading: 2014 Amendments Affecting Delaware Alternative Entities and the Contractual Statute of Limitations

Delaware Legislature Clarifies Section 251(h) Second-Step Merger Provisions

Posted by Yaron Nili, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Friday August 1, 2014 at 9:00 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Abigail Pickering Bomba, partner in the corporate practice at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, and is based on a Fried Frank publication by Ms.Bomba, David N. Shine, John E. Sorkin, and Gail Weinstein. This post is part of the Delaware law series, which is cosponsored by the Forum and Corporation Service Company; links to other posts in the series are available here.

The following amendments to Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) Section 251(h) have been passed by the Delaware legislature, clarifying a number of issues that have arisen since adoption of the law last year. If signed by the Governor (as is expected), the amendments will apply to merger agreements entered into on or after August 1, 2014. Under Section 251(h), a merger agreement can include a provision that eliminates the need for a target stockholder vote for a merger after a tender or exchange offer if, among other conditions, the acquiror then owns at least the number of shares that would be sufficient to approve the merger under the DGCL and the target’s charter. The amendments provide for the following:

…continue reading: Delaware Legislature Clarifies Section 251(h) Second-Step Merger Provisions

Money Market Fund Reform

Posted by Mary Jo White, Chair, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, on Friday July 25, 2014 at 9:00 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: Mary Jo White is Chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The following post is based on Chair White’s remarks at a recent open meeting of the SEC, available here. The views expressed in this post are those of Chair White and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the other Commissioners, or the Staff.

Today’s [July 23, 2014] reforms will fundamentally change the way that most money market funds operate. They will reduce the risk of runs in money market funds and provide important new tools that will help further protect investors and the financial system in a crisis. Together, this strong reform package will make our financial system more resilient and enhance the transparency and fairness of these products for America’s investors.

…continue reading: Money Market Fund Reform

SEC’s Cross-Border Derivatives Rule

Posted by Yaron Nili, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Saturday July 19, 2014 at 9:00 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Dan Ryan, Leader of the Financial Services Advisory Practice at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, and is based on a PwC publication.

The SEC provided the “who” but not much else in its final rule regarding cross-border security-based swap activities (“final rule”), released at the SEC’s June 25, 2014 open meeting. Although most firms have already implemented a significant portion of the CFTC’s swaps regulatory regime (which governs well over 90% of the market), the SEC’s oversight of security-based swaps means that the SEC’s cross-border framework and its outstanding substantive rulemakings (e.g., clearing, reporting, etc.) have the potential to create rules that conflict with the CFTC’s approach. The impact that the SEC’s regulatory framework will have on the market remains uncertain, but the final rule at least begins to lay out the SEC’s cross-border position.

…continue reading: SEC’s Cross-Border Derivatives Rule

Proposed Dodd-Frank Concentration Limit on Financial Institution M&A Transactions

Posted by Kobi Kastiel, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Wednesday June 11, 2014 at 9:00 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post is based on a Davis Polk publication by Luigi L. De Ghenghi, Randall Guynn, Margaret E. Tahyar and Andrew S. Fei; the full publication, including visuals, tables and flowcharts, is available here.

In May 2014, the Federal Reserve issued a proposal that would implement the financial sector concentration limit set forth in Section 622 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The proposal reflects the Financial Stability Oversight Council’s January 2011 Study and Recommendations Regarding Concentration Limits on Large Financial Companies.

The concentration limit generally prohibits a financial company from merging or consolidating with, acquiring all or substantially all of the assets of, or otherwise acquiring control of another company if the “liabilities” of the resulting financial company, calculated using methodologies in the proposal, exceed 10% of aggregate financial sector liabilities.

…continue reading: Proposed Dodd-Frank Concentration Limit on Financial Institution M&A Transactions

Next Page »
 
  •  » A "Web Winner" by The Philadelphia Inquirer
  •  » A "Top Blog" by LexisNexis
  •  » A "10 out of 10" by the American Association of Law Librarians Blog
  •  » A source for "insight into the latest developments" by Directorship Magazine