Posts Tagged ‘Foreign banks’

New Credit Default Swap Terms to Be Implemented in September 2014

Posted by Yaron Nili, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Saturday August 9, 2014 at 9:00 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Isabel K.R. Dische and Leigh R. Fraser, partners at Ropes & Gray LLP, and is based on a Ropes & Gray publication by Ms. Dische, Ms. Fraser, and Molly Moore.

Earlier this year, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association Inc. (ISDA) published the 2014 Credit Derivatives Definitions (the 2014 Definitions). The 2014 Definitions introduce a new government bail-in Credit Event trigger for credit default swap (CDS) contracts on financial Reference Entities in non-U.S. jurisdictions and also modify the typical terms of sovereign CDS contracts in light of the Greek debt crisis, by allowing a buyer of protection to deliver upon settlement the assets into which the Reference Obligation has converted even if such assets are not otherwise deliverable. Further, they create a concept of a Standard Reference Obligation, which means that most CDS contracts on a given Reference Entity would have the same Reference Obligation, thereby increasing the fungibility of such CDS contracts.

…continue reading: New Credit Default Swap Terms to Be Implemented in September 2014

Volcker Rule and Covered Bonds

Posted by Yaron Nili, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Friday July 11, 2014 at 9:02 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Jerry Marlatt, Senior Of Counsel at Morrison & Foerster LLP, and is based on a Morrison & Foerster publication by Mr. Marlatt.

The subtler aspects of the Volcker Rule [1] continue to emerge. One of the subtleties is the extraterritorial reach of the Rule in connection with underwriting, investments in, and market making for covered bonds by foreign banks.

Foreign banks that underwrite, invest in, or conduct market making for covered bonds need to review their activity under the Volcker Rule.

…continue reading: Volcker Rule and Covered Bonds

US Intermediate Holding Company: Structuring and Regulatory Considerations for Foreign Banks

Posted by Kobi Kastiel, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Monday April 14, 2014 at 9:33 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Luigi L. De Ghenghi and Andrew S. Fei, attorneys in the Financial Institutions Group at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, and is based on a Davis Polk client memorandum; the full publication, including diagrams, tables, and flowcharts, is available here.

The Federal Reserve’s Dodd-Frank enhanced prudential standards (“EPS”) final rule requires a foreign banking organization with $50 billion or more in U.S. non-branch/agency assets (“Foreign Bank”) to place virtually all of its U.S. subsidiaries underneath a top-tier U.S. intermediate holding company (“IHC”). The IHC will be subject to U.S. Basel III, capital planning, Dodd-Frank stress testing, liquidity, risk management requirements and other U.S. EPS on a consolidated basis.

…continue reading: US Intermediate Holding Company: Structuring and Regulatory Considerations for Foreign Banks

Dodd-Frank Enhanced Prudential Standards for Foreign Banks with Limited US Footprints

Posted by Kobi Kastiel, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Wednesday March 26, 2014 at 9:02 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Luigi L. De Ghenghi and Andrew S. Fei, attorneys in the Financial Institutions Group at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, and is based on a Davis Polk client memorandum; the full publication, including diagrams, tables, and flowcharts, is available here.

The Federal Reserve has issued a final rule adopting a tiered approach for applying Dodd-Frank enhanced prudential standards to foreign banking organizations (“FBOs”). Under the tiered approach the most burdensome requirements (e.g., the requirement to establish a top-tier U.S. intermediate holding company) will only apply to FBOs with large U.S. operations, whereas fewer requirements will apply to FBOs with limited U.S. footprints.

We have summarized below the Dodd-Frank enhanced prudential standards that will apply to the following FBOs with limited U.S. footprints:

…continue reading: Dodd-Frank Enhanced Prudential Standards for Foreign Banks with Limited US Footprints

Final Federal Reserve Rules for Foreign Banking Organizations

Posted by Noam Noked, co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Sunday March 23, 2014 at 9:00 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Joseph T. Lynyak, III and Rodney R. Peck, partners in the Financial Services Regulation practice at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP and is based on a Pillsbury publication by Messrs. Lynyak and Peck.

This post describes the final regulations issued by the Federal Reserve Board (the “FRB”) on February 18, 2014, that radically modify the former requirements applicable to foreign banking organizations (“FBOs”) pursuant to the FRB’s Regulation K. The final rules (the “Final Rules”) impose various requirements on large FBOs that previously have been applied to large U.S. domestic bank holding companies and banks under the Dodd-Frank Act. In addition, however, the Final Rules also alter many of the former approaches to the regulation of FBOs in general, including the necessity for many FBOs to form “U.S. intermediate holding companies” for their U.S. operations.

Regardless of the category an FBO falls into, the Final Rules present significant additional compliance burdens.

…continue reading: Final Federal Reserve Rules for Foreign Banking Organizations

Enhanced Prudential Standards

Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, and is based on a Sullivan & Cromwell publication by Andrew R. Gladin, Rebecca J. Simmons, Mark J. Welshimer, and Samuel R. Woodall III. The complete publication, including Annexes, is available here.

On February 18, 2014, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “FRB”) approved a final rule (the “Final Rule”) implementing certain of the “enhanced prudential standards” mandated by Section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act” or “Dodd-Frank”). The Final Rule applies the enhanced prudential standards to (i) U.S. bank holding companies (“U.S. BHCs”) with $50 billion (and in some cases, $10 billion) or more in total consolidated assets and (ii) foreign banking organizations (“FBOs”) with (x) a U.S. banking presence, through branches, agencies or depository institution subsidiaries, and (y) depending on the standard, certain designated amounts of assets worldwide, in the United States or in U.S. non-branch assets. The Final Rule’s provisions are the most significant, detailed and prescriptive for the largest U.S. BHCs and the FBOs with the largest U.S. presence—those with $50 billion or more in total consolidated assets and, in the case of FBOs, particularly (and with increasing stringency) for FBOs with combined U.S. assets of $50 billion or more or U.S. non-branch assets of $50 billion or more.

…continue reading: Enhanced Prudential Standards

Enhanced Prudential Standards “First Take”

Posted by Noam Noked, co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Monday March 3, 2014 at 8:59 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Dan Ryan, Chairman of the Financial Services Regulatory Practice at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, and is based on a PwC publication.

Our observations on the Federal Reserve’s final rule:

1. Delayed effective date and higher threshold: Foreign Banking Organizations (FBOs) eked out several small victories in the final rule—in particular, the July 2015 compliance date has been pushed to July 2016 and smaller FBOs (i.e., those with under $50 billion in US non-branch assets) are no longer required to form an Intermediate Holding Company (IHC). The changes reflect the Federal Reserve’s attempt to respond to FBOs’ concerns, especially that smaller FBOs did not pose as much risk to US financial stability.

…continue reading: Enhanced Prudential Standards “First Take”

Dodd-Frank Enhanced Prudential Standards for U.S. Bank Holding Companies and Foreign Banks

Posted by Kobi Kastiel, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Thursday February 27, 2014 at 9:20 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Luigi L. De Ghenghi and Andrew S. Fei, and is based on two Davis Polk publications; the full publications, including visuals, tables, flowcharts and timelines, are available here (focusing on U.S. bank holding companies) and here (focusing on foreign banks).

Pursuant to Section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Federal Reserve has issued a final rule to establish enhanced prudential standards for large U.S. bank holding companies (BHCs) and foreign banking organizations (FBOs).

U.S. BHCs: The final rule represents the latest in a series of U.S. regulations that apply heightened standards to large U.S. BHCs. As the graphic below illustrates, under the emerging post-Dodd-Frank prudential regulatory landscape for U.S. BHCs, the number and stringency of prudential standards generally increase with the size of the banking organization.

…continue reading: Dodd-Frank Enhanced Prudential Standards for U.S. Bank Holding Companies and Foreign Banks

SIFIs and States

Posted by June Rhee, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Sunday January 5, 2014 at 9:00 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Jay Lawrence Westbrook, Benno C. Schmidt Chair of Business Law at The University of Texas School of Law.

Today an enormous global civilization rests upon a jury-rigged financial frame rife with moral hazards, perverse incentives, and unintended consequences. This article, SIFIs and States, forthcoming in the Texas International Law Journal, addresses one aspect of that fragile structure. It argues for basic reform in the international management of financial institutions in distress, with a special emphasis on SIFIs (Systemically Important Financial Institutions). The goal is to examine public institutional arrangements for resolution of financial institutions in the midst of a crisis, rather than the substantive rules governing the resolution process. The proposition central to this article is that the resolution of major financial institutions in serious distress will generally require substantial infusions of public money, at least temporarily. The home jurisdiction for a given financial institution must furnish the bulk of the public funds necessary for the successful resolution of its financial distress. The positive effect is that other jurisdictions may be likely to acquiesce in the leadership of the funding jurisdiction in exchange for acceptance of that financial responsibility. On the other hand, acceptance of the funding obligation would have profound consequences for the state as well as the institution, because the default of a SIFI may threaten the financial stability of that state. Until the crisis of 2007-2008, all that was implicit and unexamined in the political process; to a large extent it remains so.

…continue reading: SIFIs and States

Who Is Responsible for Libor Rate-Fixing?

Posted by June Rhee, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Thursday December 26, 2013 at 9:00 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Mark R. Patterson at Fordham University School of Law.

On December 4, the European Commission announced the imposition of €1.7 billion in fines on eight international banks for participation in cartels in euro- and yen-denominated interest-rate derivatives. The banks had conspired on submissions for euro and yen Libor rates, and the fines were imposed under European antitrust law. As EU Commissioner Joaquín Almunia said, “What is shocking about the LIBOR and EURIBOR scandals is not only the manipulation of benchmarks, which is being tackled by financial regulators worldwide, but also the collusion between banks who are supposed to be competing with each other.”

Commissioner Almunia’s comment might have been addressed specifically to U.S. antitrust enforcers. Although the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice has been involved in some of the settlements that the department has reached with banks, to date none of those settlements has included antitrust liability. Instead, the banks have pled guilty or admitted liability only for fraud, even though the statements issued by the Justice Department when announcing the settlements describe just the sort of collusion to which Commissioner Almunia referred.

…continue reading: Who Is Responsible for Libor Rate-Fixing?

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