It should rapidly become clear that my remarks belong only to me because I will be talking about the role of the SEC in an increasingly global financial and regulatory system from the viewpoint of a Chair on Day 18 of her tenure. Already, I find myself emphasizing to some outside the agency that the international aspect of the SEC’s role is not a distraction from our important core domestic duties. Rather, that role must be understood in order to fully appreciate the agency’s whole mission – to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation.

And it’s how we’re furthering that mission through our international efforts that I will speak about today.

…continue reading: Regulation in a Global Financial System

Today at the SEC and in government agencies around the world, regulators are shaping the rules that will govern the way over-the-counter derivatives are transacted. It’s a crucial task given the magnitude and importance of this market to the international financial system.

In the process, all of us are grappling with the fact that these transactions rarely respect national boundaries. They are complex transactions that routinely cross borders, and are potentially subject to multiple sets of rules.

To ensure our regimes work effectively, we need to have a common sense, flexible approach to the cross-border regulation of derivatives.

…continue reading: Regulation of Cross-Border OTC Derivatives Activities: Finding the Middle Ground

Cross-border mergers and acquisitions can provide tremendous business opportunities for companies looking to expand globally. Reduced labor and operational costs, new technology and vast new markets for existing products are just some of the benefits companies look to take advantage of when considering entering new geographical areas. However, in analyzing cross-border deals M&A professionals must be conversant with the risk factors associated with the vigorous and cooperative anti-corruption efforts being taken by regulators around the world. While these anti-corruption efforts are increasingly legislated through many jurisdictions, the most significant attention remains focused on the efforts undertaken by the United States in this area.

…continue reading: Cross Border Mergers & Acquisitions: Anti-Corruption Issues

On March 21, 2013, the staff of the Division of Trading and Markets (the “Staff”) of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) released responses reflecting the Staff’s views on frequently asked questions (the “FAQs”) relating to Rule 15a-6 (“Rule 15a-6” or the “Rule”) under the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). The FAQs affirm, among other things, the SEC’s broad interpretation of Rule 15a-6 confirming the applicability of both the “Seven Firms” and “Nine Firms” to foreign broker-dealers, including those that use unaffiliated US-registered broker-dealers to intermediate transactions in accordance with Rule 15a-6(a)(3). This memorandum provides a brief background of Rule 15a-6 and highlights the important points included in the FAQs.

Introduction

Broker-dealers [1] located outside the United States that conduct securities transactions with persons in the United States (including solicitation of those transactions) are required to register with the SEC, unless an exemption from registration is available. Rule 15a-6 under the Exchange Act, which the SEC adopted in 1989, currently provides a conditional exemption from broker-dealer registration for a non-US broker-dealer falling under the definition of “foreign broker or dealer” [2] that engages in certain activities involving certain US investors. Since the adoption of Rule 15a-6, the Staff has expanded its scope through “no action” and other interpretive guidance. [3] In 2008, the SEC proposed changes to update and expand the scope of the rule, but that proposal has yet to be adopted.

…continue reading: SEC Responds to Rule 15a-6 and Foreign Broker-Dealer FAQs

More than 40% of global M&A in 2012 involved acquirors and targets in different countries, including $170 billion of acquisitions in the U.S. by non-U.S. acquirors. Given the continuing accumulation of U.S. Dollars in emerging economies, many expect the trend to continue as Dollars are re-invested in the U.S. Natural resources will continue to be an important part of this story, including in the U.S., where substantial non-U.S. investment has been an important trend, as well as in resource-rich developed nations such as Canada and Australia, where non-domestic investment has lately been highly controversial.

Despite the empty election-year protectionist rhetoric in the U.S. last year, and continuing global concern over access to resources and technology by non-domestic actors, U.S. deal markets continue to be some of the most hospitable markets to off-shore acquirors and investors. With careful advance preparation, strategically thoughtful implementation and sophisticated deal structures that anticipate likely concerns, most acquisitions in the U.S. can be successfully achieved. Cross-border deals involving investment into the U.S. are more likely to fail because of poor planning and execution rather than fundamental legal or political restrictions.

Following is our updated checklist of issues that should be carefully considered in advance of an acquisition or strategic investment in the United States. Because each cross-border deal is different, the relative significance of the issues discussed below will depend upon the specific facts, circumstances and dynamics of each particular situation:

…continue reading: Checklist for Successful Acquisitions in the U.S.

Summary

On November 20, 2012, the New York Court of Appeals issued an opinion that is of substantial importance to international banks and financial institutions that maintain and use correspondent banking accounts in New York. In Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL (N.Y. Nov. 20, 2012), the Court of Appeals held that a non-U.S. bank’s maintenance and use of such an account to effect “dozens” of wire transfers, worth millions of dollars, on behalf of a non-U.S. client was sufficient to form the basis for personal jurisdiction under the New York State long-arm statute, N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(1). Due to the prevalence of U.S. dollar-denominated financial transactions, many non-U.S. banks maintain and use correspondent accounts in New York. As a result, the Licci decision has the potential to increase plaintiffs’ ability to establish personal jurisdiction over non-U.S. financial intuitions in state and federal courts in New York.

…continue reading: Personal Jurisdiction Over Non-U.S. Financial Institutions

I. Export Laws at a Glance

Most U.S. companies are aware at least generally that U.S. export laws regulate activities such as the shipment of tangible products out of the country and that certain countries are subject to strict economic sanctions. But many companies are unaware of the actual breadth and complexity of U.S. export laws and regulations and what impact those laws have on their business — the result being that many companies do not even know that they are in a legal minefield until it is too late.

The problem that many companies run into is that, though U.S. export laws were intended to focus on the export of sensitive goods to hostile countries and keeping potentially dangerous items out of the hands of persons intent on harming the U.S., the regulations that implement these laws — the very dense and complicated Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”) enforced by the Commerce Department — cover virtually every commercial good and technology originating in the U.S. Additionally, as explained below, the EAR cover much more than the shipment of goods from the U.S. to a foreign country. Rather, the EAR cover the re-export of U.S.-origin goods from one foreign country to another, as well as the release of technology to a foreign national located in the U.S. When overlaid with dozens of stand-alone economic sanctions programs enforced by the Treasury Department, such as the U.S. embargoes of Iran and Cuba, these laws and regulations come together to form a complicated web that effects virtually every U.S. company that does business overseas or that has a product for which there is a market overseas.

When these laws and regulations are violated, the sanctions can be severe. At a minimum, goods can be returned or seized by U.S. or foreign customs officials. More ominously, huge fines (up to twice the value of the transaction) can be imposed, willful violations can result in significant jail time for individuals, and resulting internal investigations and/or government investigations can be burdensome, distracting, very expensive, and cause serious reputational harm to a company.

…continue reading: U.S. Export Laws and Related Trade Sanctions

As you may know, I am the Commission’s designated representative on the Financial Stability Board, or FSB, which is an international forum of prudential financial regulators, market regulators, international financial institutions and standard setting bodies. And last spring I finished a tour of duty as the Commission’s head of delegation to the International Organization of Securities Commissions, also known as IOSCO, a position now ably filled by the Commission’s Director of the Office of International Affairs, Ethiopis Tafara. The experience I have had representing the Commission in these institutions has been enlightening. While I, like most people, already understood that we are living in an increasingly interconnected world, serving on IOSCO and the FSB has helped me better appreciate the extent of these connections in the financial system, as well as both the power and the limitations of these international forums.

One of the better-known achievements of IOSCO is how it has increased international cooperation among securities regulators in the area of enforcement. This cooperation has been extraordinarily valuable, facilitating countless Commission cases where crucial evidence rests outside of the United States. Building on this success, we are now establishing cooperative arrangements with other regulators in our supervision program.

…continue reading: International Coordination Among Regulators

In the paper, Cherry Picking in Cross-Border Acquisitions, my co-author (Yao Lu of Tsinghua University) and I investigate how investor protection (IP) affects the allocation of foreign capital inflows at the firm level. A simple model provides an explanation for a well documented but little understood phenomenon on international capital flows—the tendency of foreign investors to target better-performing firms in emerging markets.

When a foreign acquirer’s country has stronger IP than a target country, the acquirer’s controlling shareholder values private benefits of control less than controlling shareholders of local firms because stronger IP imposes greater constraints on diversion of corporate resources for private benefits. Within the target country, controlling shareholders of firms with more profitable investments take fewer private benefits and, hence, demand lower control premiums. Foreign acquirers, which value control premiums less, will target firms with more profitable investments. The tendency to cherry pick will intensify (moderate) as the IP gap between the acquirer and target countries increases (decreases).

…continue reading: Cherry Picking in Cross-Border Acquisitions

On June 29, the CFTC released proposed interpretive guidance regarding the cross-border impact of the swap-related provisions of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act. [1] The CFTC also released a proposed exemptive order that would provide non-U.S. registered swap dealers (“SDs”) and major swap participants (“MSPs”) with temporary conditional exemptions from many swap-related Title VII requirements for one year, and permit SDs and MSPs that are U.S. persons (as defined below) to defer compliance with some requirements until January 2013. [2] Comments on the proposed interpretive guidance are due 45 days after it is published in the Federal Register and comments on the proposed exemptive order are due 30 days after it is published in the Federal Register, both of which are expected shortly.

The Proposed Guidance

The proposed guidance interprets the cross-border reach of Title VII’s swap provisions. The main impacts would be as follows:

…continue reading: CFTC Proposes Cross-Border Guidance and Exemptive Order