Banking and Finance Law Report : Banking & Finance Lawyer & Attorney : Porter Wright Morris & Arthur Law Firm : Bankruptcy, Commercial Lending

On February 23, 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission began what may become radical revisions to the regulation of money market funds when it adopted a number of significant changes to its rules governing money market funds. The changes were accompanied by a statement from the SEC chairman that indicated more regulatory change is on the way. SEC Release No. IC-29132 (Feb. 23, 2010) is online.

The new rules are generally intended to increase investor protections by increasing regulatory oversight of money market funds. For example, among other things, the new rules establish:

• liquidity requirements for money market funds (a daily cash or equivalent requirement of 10 per cent);
• a new restriction on the ability of funds to acquire illiquid securities;shorter maturity limits for securities held by money market funds;
• “know your investor” procedures requiring funds to hold liquid securities to meet foreseeable redemptions;
• a requirement for periodic stress testing to assess ability of a fund to maintain a stable net asset value upon the occurrence of events such as a sudden increase in interest rates;
• andnew disclosure requirements including a monthly report of holdings to the Commission and a monthly posting of holdings online.

In many of these areas there previously was little or no regulation. The rules are effective May 5, 2010, but a number of the new requirements are phased in over two years, including a new requirement that funds be able, as a matter of processing capability, to process transactions at prices other than a stable net asset value.

SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro’s statement on the new rules is online.

Ms. Schapiro’s remarks indicate that the SEC is continuing to study the possibility of floating net asset value money market funds, among other changes. She indicated the market place should expect further changes when she characterized the current regulatory changes as “important initial steps toward making money market funds less vulnerable to ‘runs’.” (Italics supplied.) One further change under study is the establishment of a private liquidity facility for money market funds in times of stress.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Having your laptop or smartphone searched or detained by Customs on your way back from a business trip would be a nightmare for most travelers, including bankers and other finance professionals. However, this scenario is quite possible under new governmental policies. In 2009, Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) both issued their respective new policies on border searches of electronic devices. It was a coordinated effort of CBP and ICE to update and harmonize their border policies to detect an array of illegal activities, including terrorism, cash smuggling, contraband, child pornography, copyright, and export control violations.

With all the technology innovations that allow business travelers to carry massive amounts of information in small electronic devices, CBP and ICE are facing an enormous challenge. On the one hand, travelers have a legitimate right to carry information on electronic devices. In that respect, there are serious concerns regarding the traveler’s expectation of privacy. On the other hand, the government has a duty to combat illegal activities and to enforce U.S. law at the border. The difficulty is finding the right balance between the government’s duty to enforce the law and the rights of travelers.

The legal basis for ICE and CBP policies is the border search exception to the Fourth Amendment requirement that officers obtain a warrant before searching someone’s property. But, assuming that they have this power, another key issue is exactly what CBP and ICE are allowed to do with one’s laptop. In short, they have authority to search and share information on laptops, disks, drives, tapes, mobile phones, Blackberries, cameras, music players, and any other electronic or digital devices — with or without “reasonable suspicion1” of illegality. Detention of the devices and/or information requires probable cause that an illegal activity is underway or is about to occur.

Searches
CBP searches may be conducted with or without suspicion of an unlawful activity. To the extent practicable, CBP searches should be conducted in the presence of a supervisor. ICE searches should be conducted by an ICE Special Agent, CBP Officer, or Border Patrol Agent. The searches should be conducted in the presence of, or with the knowledge of, the traveler. Naturally, the guidelines provide for exceptions to the traveler’s presence under certain circumstances where national security or operational considerations are an issue. ICE guidelines specifically state that the traveler’s consent for the search is not needed.

Detention
CBP detention of a device should not exceed five days, but that period can be extended. ICE detention periods may be longer — up to 30 calendar days or longer — if circumstances warrant. CBP is required to issue a Custody Receipt to the owner of the device (CBP Form 6051D) at the time of detention. ICE will also give the owner of the device documentation regarding its custody. Detention of electronic devices requires probable cause to believe that the device, or its contents, contains evidence of illegality that CBP and ICE are authorized to enforce.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Ohio employers will want to pay close attention to H.B. 434, which was proposed by House Representative Kenny Yuko, D-Richmond Heights, last week. The Bill is similar in nature to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ( “WARN”), but goes further than the federal law in several respects. For example, the Bill would require an employer in Ohio laying off 25 or more employees in any 30-day period to give at least 90-days’ advance written notice of the layoff to affected employees, local workforce policy boards, and certain state departments and local elected officials. The notice period would be expanded to 120 days for employers planning to lay off 250 or more employees. Also, the penalties for violations include double back pay for all affected employees, as well as the full value of their employee benefits.

The Bill does contain exceptions similar to those found in WARN, including exceptions for temporary facilities, layoffs arising from “circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable,” caused by “physical calamity, natural disaster, or act of war,” or where the employer can show that "notice would have blocked incoming capital which might have prevented the layoff.” 

H.B. 434 is still in the very early stages of the legislative process. However, because it would expand employer advance notice obligations in several respects beyond WARN’s requirements, it bears watching – and perhaps warrants a call to your State representative.  You can stay updated on H.B. 434 by subscribing to www.employerlawreport.com, a blog on employment related matters from Porter Wright Morris & Arthur.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

January 21, 2010, President Obama proposed reforms to the financial system designed to ensure no bank, or financial institution that contains a bank, will own, invest in, or sponsor a hedge fund, private equity fund, or proprietary trading operation for the bank’s own profit. The new reforms, known as the Volcker Rule after former chair of the Federal Reserve Board, Paul Volcker, are intended to prevent banks from engaging in what are now perceived as risky investments.

How the Volcker Rule will be drafted and applied is unclear. At a minimum it seems that banks may have to halt investments that use solely the bank’s capital. Banks may therefore have to divest their proprietary trading desks, although most banks have significantly smaller proprietary trading desks than they did prior to the economic crisis.

What constitutes proprietary trading operations under the Volcker Rule is unknown. For example, do such activities include the practice of facilitating trading for clients and investing alongside clients? Additionally, it is unclear whether only wholly-owned bank funds would be prohibited or any bank involvement in a hedge fund or private equity fund above a certain threshold. One approach, which would be a broad interpretation of the Volcker Rule, would be to prohibit any trading activity that could affect a bank’s balance sheet.

President Obama has pledged to work with Congress to implement the Volcker Rule as part of a comprehensive financial reform bill. The dynamics of the bill should have a direct effect on whether some banks will be willing to cease being a bank holding company in order to keep their trading and investment business.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link