InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FDIC, OCC approve final rule revising Volcker Rule
On November 14, the OCC, FDIC, Federal Reserve Board, CFTC, and SEC published a final rule, which will amend the Volcker Rule to simplify and tailor compliance with Section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act’s restrictions on a bank’s ability to engage in proprietary trading and own certain funds. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the five financial regulators released a joint notice of proposed rulemaking in July 2018 designed to reduce compliance costs for banks and tailor Volcker Rule requirements to better align with a bank’s size and level of trading activity and risks. The final rule clarifies prohibited activities and simplifies compliance burdens by tailoring compliance obligations to reflect the size and scope of a bank’s trading activities, with more stringent requirements imposed on entities with greater activity. The final rule also addresses the activities of foreign banking entities outside of the United States.
Specifically, the final rule focuses on the following areas:
- Compliance program requirements and thresholds. The final rule includes a three-tiered approach to compliance program requirements, based on the level of a banking entity’s trading assets and liabilities. Banks with total consolidated trading assets and liabilities of at least $20 billion will be considered to have “significant” trading activities and will be subject to a six-pillar compliance program. Banks with “moderate” trading activities (total consolidated trading assets and liabilities between $1 billion and $20 billion) will be subject to a simplified compliance program. Finally, banks with “limited” trading activities (less than $1 billion in total consolidated trading assets and liabilities) will be subject to a rebuttable presumption of compliance with the final rule.
- Proprietary trading. Among other changes, the final rule (i) retains a modified version of the short-term intent prong; (ii) eliminates the agencies’ rebuttable presumption that financial instruments held for fewer than 60 days are within the short-term intent prong of the trading account; and (iii) adds a rebuttable presumption that financial instruments held for 60 days or longer are not within the short-term intent prong of the trading account. Additionally, banks subject to the market risk capital prong will be exempt from the short-term intent prong.
- Proprietary trading exclusions. The final rule modifies the liquidity management exclusion to allow banks to use a broader range of financial instruments to manage liquidity. In addition, exclusions have been added for error trades, certain customer-driven swaps, hedges of mortgage servicing rights, and certain purchases or sales of instruments that do not meet the definition of “trading assets and liabilities.”
- Proprietary trading exemptions. The final rule includes changes from the proposed rule related to the exemptions for underwriting and market making-related activities, risk-mitigating hedging, and trading by foreign entities outside the U.S.
- Covered funds. Among other things, the final rule incorporates proposed changes to the covered funds provision concerning permitted underwriting and market making and risk-mitigating hedging with respect to such funds, as well as investments in and sponsorships of covered funds by foreign banking entities located solely outside the U.S.
- Application to foreign banks. The final rule aligns the methodologies for calculating the “limited” and “significant” compliance thresholds for foreign banking organizations by basing both thresholds on the trading assets and liabilities of the firm’s U.S. operations. The final rule includes changes to the exemptions from the prohibitions for underwriting and market making-related activities, risk mitigating hedging, and trading by foreign banking entities solely outside the U.S. Additionally, the final rule also includes changes to the covered funds provisions, including with respect to permitted underwriting and market making and risk-mitigating hedging with respect to a covered fund, as well as investment in or sponsorship of covered funds by foreign banking entities solely outside the U.S. and the exemption for prime brokerage transactions.
FDIC board member Martin J. Gruenberg voted against the rule, stating the “final rule before the FDIC Board today would effectively undo the Volcker Rule prohibition on proprietary trading by severely narrowing the scope of financial instruments subject to the Volcker Rule. It would thereby allow the largest, most systemically important banks and bank holding companies to engage in speculative proprietary trading funded with FDIC-insured deposits.” Gruenberg emphasized that the final rule “includes within the definition of trading account only one of these categories of fair valued financial instruments—those reported on the bank’s balance sheet as trading assets and liabilities. This significantly narrows the scope of financial instruments subject to the Volcker Rule.”
The final rule will take effect January 1, 2020, with banks having until January 1, 2021, to comply. Prior to the compliance date, the 2013 rule will remain in effect. Alternatively, banking entities may elect to voluntarily comply, in whole or in part, with the final rule’s amendments prior to January 1, 2021, provided the agencies have implemented necessary technological changes.
SEC charges online auction portal with violating whistleblower protection laws
On November 4, the SEC announced the filing of an amended complaint in an action against an online auction portal and its CEO (collectively, “defendants”), along with the CEO’s wife as a relief defendant. The original complaint, filed in May, alleged that defendants operated a $23 million fraudulent securities offering and misappropriated investor proceeds. The amended complaint adds, among other things, a new count for “Impeding: Rule 21F-17 of the Exchange Act,” alleging that the defendants took actions to impede individuals from communicating with the SEC and other agencies regarding misconduct at the company by conditioning the return of investor money on signing agreements with confidentiality clauses purportedly prohibiting the reporting of potential securities law violations to law enforcement agencies. The SEC seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions, disgorgement plus prejudgment interest, and penalties.
SEC seeks input on RMBS asset-level disclosure requirements
On October 30, the SEC requested public input on asset-level disclosure requirements for residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). The current requirements, which were adopted in 2014 in response to the financial crisis, require issuers to disclose a wide range of data on each mortgage loan in the underlying pool at the time of an offering and on an ongoing basis. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in September, the U.S. Treasury Department released a Housing Reform Plan, which, among other things, recommended that the SEC review the RMBS asset-level disclosure requirements to assess the number of required reporting fields and to clarify certain defined terms for SEC-registered private-label securitization offerings. In response to Treasury’s plan, Chairman Clayton requests that SEC staff assess the “RMBS asset-level disclosure requirements with an eye toward facilitating SEC-registered offerings,” and seeks public input on a variety of questions related to the topic, including (i) whether the circumstances in the RMBS market have changed since the financial crisis and the 2014 adoption of the requirements; (ii) whether one or more data points in the requirements should be revised and why; and (iii) whether any data points should be eliminated and if elimination would result in any adverse effects. The announcement does not contain a deadline for members of the public to submit their input.
Federal financial regulators join the Global Financial Innovation Network
On October 24, the CFTC, FDIC, OCC, and SEC announced that they joined the Global Financial Innovation Network (GFIN). GFIN was created by the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority in 2018 and is an international network of 50 organizations, including the CFPB and other financial regulators. As previously covered by InfoBytes, GFIN members are committed to supporting financial innovation by (i) collaborating on innovation and providing accessible regulatory contact information for firms; (ii) providing a forum for joint regulation technology work; and (iii) providing firms with an environment in which to trial cross-border solutions. According to the FDIC’s announcement, “[p]articipation in the GFIN furthers these objectives and enhances the agencies’ abilities to encourage responsible innovation in the financial services industry in the United States and abroad.”
Waters and Brown urge regulators to reconsider Volcker Rule changes
On October 17, House Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif) and Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) wrote to the heads of the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, OCC, SEC, and CFTC to oppose the federal financial regulators’ recent approval of changes to the Volcker Rule. (Previous InfoBytes coverage here.) According to Waters and Brown, the final revisions—which are designed to simplify and tailor compliance with Section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act’s restrictions on a bank’s ability to engage in proprietary trading and own certain funds—“open the door to the very risky, speculative activities that Congress sought to prohibit.” Specifically, the letter addresses rollback concerns such as (i) narrowing the definition of a “trading account,” which would weaken the short-term intent prong; (ii) “eliminating metrics reporting”; (iii) “removing activity restrictions on non-U.S. banks”; and (iv) “expanding permitted activity related to covered funds.” Waters and Brown urged the regulators to reconsider their decision to adopt the revisions, and requested that they be provided with the data and metrics used by the regulators during their analysis, as well as the regulators’ justification for “eliminating or reducing the information and data reported by banking entities.”
SEC obtains temporary injunction against unregistered digital token offering
On October 11, the SEC announced it obtained a temporary restraining order through an emergency action filed against two offshore entities that allegedly raised more than $1.7 billion of investor funds. According to the complaint, the entities sold approximately 2.9 million digital tokens worldwide, including more than 1 billion tokens to 39 U.S. purchasers. The entities promised that the tokens would be delivered upon the launch of its own blockchain by the end of October 2019. The SEC alleges the entities violated Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act by failing to register its offers and sales of securities with the SEC. In addition to the emergency relief, the SEC is seeking a permanent injunction, disgorgement, and civil penalties against the offshore entities.
Agencies issue BSA compliance reminder on digital assets
On October 11, the SEC, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a joint statement to remind persons who engage in digital asset activities or handle cryptocurrency transactions of their anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). According to the agencies, AML/CFT obligations apply to entities defined as “financial institutions” under the Bank Secrecy Act, which include “futures commission merchants and introducing brokers obligated to register with the CFTC, money services businesses (MSB) as defined by FinCEN, and broker-dealers and mutual funds obligated to register with the SEC.” The obligations include, among other things, (i) establishing and implementing an effective AML program; and (ii) complying with recordkeeping and reporting requirements such as suspicious activity reporting (SARs).
The agencies note that persons who engage in digital asset-related activities may have AML/CFT obligations regardless of the “label or terminology used to describe a digital asset or a person engaging in or providing financial activities or services involving a digital asset.” According to the agencies, the facts and circumstances underlying the asset or service, “including its economic reality and use,” is what determines how the asset is categorized, the applicable regulatory treatment, and whether the persons involved are financial institution under the BSA.
Additionally, FinCEN reminded financial institutions of its supervisory and enforcement authority to “ensure the effectiveness of the AML/CFT regime,” emphasizing that persons who provide money transmission services are MSBs subject to FinCEN regulation. FinCEN also referred to its May 2019 interpretive guidance, which consolidated and clarified current FinCEN regulations, guidance, and administrative rulings related to money transmissions involving virtual currency. (Previous InfoBytes coverage here.)
SEC settles with blockchain company for $24 million over unregistered ICO
On September 30, the SEC announced a settlement with a blockchain technology company resolving allegations that the company conducted an unregistered initial coin offering (ICO). According to the order, the company raised several billion dollars from the general public after an ICO, in which it publicly offered and sold 900 million digital assets in exchange for virtual currency, to raise capital to develop software. The SEC alleges that the company violated Section 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act because the digital assets it sold were securities under federal securities laws, and the company did not have the required registration statement filed or in effect, nor did it qualify for an exemption to the registration requirements. The order, which the company consented to without admitting nor denying the findings, imposes a $24 million civil money penalty.
SEC announces several FCPA-related bribery settlements
At the end of September, the SEC announced three settlements resolving claims related to alleged violations of the FCPA.
On September 27, a UK-based bank holding company agreed to pay over $6 million to settle alleged charges that it violated the FCPA by hiring relatives of government officials and other clients in an attempt to secure business in the Asia Pacific-region. According to the SEC, the bank hired more than 100 people connected to foreign government officials or other clients through the bank’s unofficial intern “work experience program,” or as part of its formal internship program, graduate program, or for permanent positions. Employees then created false books and records that concealed the practices and circumvented internal controls in place to prevent the activities. In the administrative order, the SEC ultimately charged violations of the books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA. Without admitting or denying wrongdoing, the bank agreed to pay a $1.5 million civil money penalty (CMP) and more than $4.8 million in disgorgement and interest.
In a second administrative order announced the same day, a Canadian fuel technology company agreed to pay over $4.1 million to settle FCPA bribery charges connected to a Chinese government official. The SEC alleged that the company and its former CEO transferred shares of stock in a Chinese joint venture to a Chinese private equity fund, in which the official had a financial stake, in an attempt to secure business and obtain a $3.5 million dividend payment. The SEC noted that the company concealed the identity of the private equity fund in its books and records, as well as in its public filings, by “falsely identifying a different entity as the counterparty to the transaction,” and that the CEO circumvented and falsely certified the sufficiency of the company’s internal accounting controls put in place to prevent such actions. Without admitting or denying wrongdoing, the company and the CEO consented to a cease and desist order covering violations of the anti-bribery, books and records, and internal controls provisions of the FCPA, and agreed to pay a $1.5 million CMP and $120,000 CMP, respectively, and more than $2.5 million in disgorgement and interest.
On September 26, a Wisconsin-based marketing provider agreed to pay nearly $10 million to settle FCPA charges related to bribery schemes in Peru and China. The alleged misconduct included the company’s Peruvian subsidiary paying or promising bribes to Peruvian government officials from at least 2011 to January 2016 in an attempt to secure sales contracts and avoid penalties, while also creating false records to conceal certain transactions with a sanctioned Cuban telecommunications company. The SEC stated that the company’s China-based subsidiary also made improper payments to employees of state owned entities and private customers through sham sales agents. According to the administrative order, the company violated the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA as well as the books and records and internal controls provisions, including by failing to ensure that its internal accounting controls were sufficient to prevent the alleged bribery schemes in Peru and China. Without admitting or denying wrongdoing, the company consented to a cease and desist order, agreed to pay a $2 million CMP and over $7.8 million in disgorgement and interest, and will, for a one-year period, self-report on its compliance program.
SEC charges digital platform for unregistered ICO
On September 18, the SEC announced it filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against a digital platform and its owner (collectively, “defendants”) for raising over $14 million in an unregistered initial coin offering (ICO) in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 and for acting as unregistered brokers for other digital asset offerings in violation of Section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The SEC contends the defendants claimed to investors that their tokens would increase in value upon trading and that ICO token holders would be able to swap them for other tokens on the platform, at an average of a 75 percent discount. The SEC notes that the tokens had experienced “a precipitous loss in value” since issuance, averaging roughly 1/20th of the average purchase price during the offering. Moreover, the SEC alleges the defendants acted as a broker for other ICOs, raising over $650 million for their clients. The SEC’s suit seeks a permanent injunction, disgorgement of profits plus interest, and civil penalties.