Canada: Letter In Response To Request For Comments Re: CSA Consultation Paper 91-405 - Derivatives: End-User Exemption

Last Updated: September 18 2012
Article by Priscilla P. Bunke and Courtney R. Burton

This letter is in response to the request for comments regarding Canadian Securities Administrators ("CSA" or the "Committee") Consultation Paper 91-405 - Derivatives: End-User Exemption ("CSA Paper 91-405"), which outlines an exemption (the "End-User exemption") for businesses who utilize over-the-counter derivatives ("OTC Derivatives") to manage and mitigate the risks related to their operations from a number of the proposed regulation requirements the Committee is recommending for the regulation of OTC Derivatives.

* * * * * * * * * *

September 5, 2012

DELIVERED VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Alberta Securities Commission
Autorité des marchés financiers
British Columbia Securities Commission
Manitoba Securities Commission
New Brunswick Securities Commission
Ontario Securities Commission
Saskatchewan Financial Services Commission

c/o:
John Stevenson, Secretary
Ontario Securities Commission
20 Queen Street West
Suite 1900, Box 55
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S8
e-mail: jstevenson@osc.gov.on.ca

c/o:
Me Anne-Marie Beaudoin, Corporate Secretary
Autorité des marchés financiers
800, Square Victoria, 22e étage
C.P. 246, Tour de la Bourse
Montréal, Québec H4Z 1G3
e-mail:consultation-encours@lautorite.qc.ca

Dear Sirs/Mesdames:

RE: CSA Consultation Paper 91-405 - Derivatives: End-User Exemption

This letter is in response to the request for comments regarding Canadian Securities Administrators ("CSA" or the "Committee") Consultation Paper 91-405 - Derivatives: End-User Exemption ("CSA Paper 91-405"), which outlines an exemption (the "End-User exemption") for businesses who utilize over-the-counter derivatives ("OTC Derivatives") to manage and mitigate the risks related to their operations from a number of the proposed regulation requirements the Committee is recommending for the regulation of OTC Derivatives.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the CSA Paper 91-405 and are supportive of the efforts of the CSA to exempt such "eligible market participants" from many of the proposed regulatory requirements such as the requirement to clear OTC Derivatives or registration, but not from the requirement to report trading activity to a trade repository ("TR"). We would also like to thank the CSA for providing an extended opportunity to comment on the proposed regulatory requirements contained in CSA Paper 91-405.

As counsel to counterparties ranging from energy producers and energy trading and marketing organizations to global financial institutions and derivatives market intermediaries, Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP ("FMC Law") has had extensive involvement with commodity swap transactions from a legal and regulatory perspective. In this letter, we comment from a regulatory, as opposed to a business standpoint on certain of the proposals contained in CSA Paper 91-405, including responding to certain questions asked by the CSA therein. This letter reflects the general comments of certain members of FMC Law's energy transactions and derivatives practice groups and does not necessarily reflect the overall views of our firm or our clients.

I. THE SCOPE OF THE END-USER EXEMPTION

According to the CSA:

[t]he end-user exemption is intended to address a specific segment of the market without compromising the broad objective of increased regulation of OTC Derivatives contracts. In order to achieve this intent, the requirements necessary to qualify an end-user as eligible for the exemption need to be precise, but also flexible enough to adapt to changes in markets.

CSA Paper 91-405 sets out the Committee's position with respect to the application of the End- User exemption; what criteria should be required to determine end-user eligibility; what criteria have been considered but excluded; how an End-User can determine whether or not they qualify for the End-User exemption; and what steps a market participant must take to rely on the End-User exemption.

The rationale behind this exemption is to prevent hardship to businesses who utilize OTC Derivatives to manage and mitigate risks related to their operations that may be caused by some of the new regulatory requirements. There is a commonality in the rationale that drives the proposed regulatory regime set out in CSA Paper 91-405 and other regulatory regimes applicable to businesses that utilize OTC Derivatives being proposed by other regulators in various international jurisdictions.

II. INTERNATIONAL BACKGROUND AND FOREIGN JURISDICTIONS

CSA Paper 91-405 reiterates the position of the Committee which was originally espoused in CSA Paper 91-401; the Committee will continue to monitor international standards and specifically review proposals relating to End-User exemptions in order to appropriately harmonize the Canadian approach to derivatives regulation. We agree with the CSA's approach in this respect as the trade in OTC Derivatives occurs in a global marketplace. As such, we feel a brief discussion regarding the international development of exemptions to the mandatory clearing obligations related to OTC Derivatives is warranted.

A. International Organization of Securities Commissions

In September 2009 the G-20 leaders met in Pittsburgh to examine the status of the financial structures that had failed or undergone significant stress in the years prior. Following this meeting, the G-20 leaders committed, in part, to the following:1

"All standardized OTC derivative contracts should be traded on exchanges or electronic trading platforms, where appropriate, and cleared through central counterparties by end-2012 at the latest. OTC derivative contracts should be reported to trade repositories. Non-centrally cleared contracts should be subject to higher capital requirements....

...strengthen financial market infrastructure by accelerating the implementation of strong measures to improve transparency and regulatory oversight of hedge funds, credit rating agencies and over-the-counter derivatives in an internationally consistent and non-discriminatory way."

Following the commitments made by the G-20 leaders in 2009 (the "G20 Commitments") that all standardized OTC Derivatives contracts be cleared through central counterparties ("CCPs") by end-2012, the Financial Stability Board (the "FSB") recommended in its report Implementing OTC Derivatives Market Reforms2(the "FSB 2010 Report") that the International Organization of Securities Commissions ("IOSCO") coordinate the application of central clearing requirements including any exemptions thereto as a means of minimizing the potential for regulatory arbitrage of the G-20 Commitments. The result of this mandate was publication of the IOSCO final report, Requirements for Mandatory Clearing (the "IOSCO Report").3

Outlined in the FSB Report was a recommendation that regulators should appropriately tailor any exemptions to mandatory clearing, and should not grant exemptions where doing so would create systemic risk. The IOSCO Report, in its Recommendation XI, articulates the following with respect to exemptions to mandatory clearing:

"A determining authority4 should seek to narrowly define exemptions and limit their number as appropriate. A determining authority should clearly communicate the terms of any exemptions from mandatory clearing obligations, whether permanent or temporary for product and participant level exemptions."

IOSCO cites select examples of End-User exemptions from various international jurisdictions as follows:5

Jurisdiction

Corporate End-User Exemption

Brazil

No exemptions for exchange traded derivatives regarding mandatory clearing.

E.U.

Transactions by non-financial entities undertaken with the purpose of hedging commercial risk are exempt subject to a threshold to be determined by European Securities and Markets Authority.

Japan

Mandatory clearing is applicable to Financial Instruments Business Operators, as defined in the Financial Instruments and Exchanges Act, which, in the initial stage, will include main securities companies and banks.

U.S.

An exception is available to certain non-financial entities that are using derivatives for hedging or mitigating commercial risk and who report how they generally meet their financial obligations associated with non-cleared derivatives.

B. U.S. Regulation

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the "Dodd-Frank Act"), which was passed in the U.S., implements reforms that, among other things, effect significant changes in the regulation of OTC Derivatives. On July 19, 2012, the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission (the "CFTC") published the End-User Exception to the Clearing Requirement for Swaps; Final Rule (the "Final Rule").6 In adopting the Final Rule, the CFTC triggered the implementation of certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act which govern the exception to the clearing requirement available to swap7 counterparties meeting certain conditions under the U.S. Commodities Exchange Act (the "CEA"), as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act. The Final Rule will become effective on September 17, 2012.

Specifically, section 2(h) (7) (A) of the CEA provides that the clearing requirement of section 2(h) (1) (A) of the CEA shall not apply to a swap if one of the counterparties to the swap:

  1. is not a financial entity;8
  2. is using swaps to hedge or mitigate commercial risk; and
  3. notifies the CFTC, in a manner set forth by the CFTC, how it generally meets its financial obligations associated with entering into non-cleared swaps.

The above exception to mandatory clearing of swaps is referred to by the CFTC in the Final Rule as the end-user exception (the "U.S. end-user exception").

C. E.U. Regulation

As a direct result of the G-20 Commitments, the European Commission drafted the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on OTC Derivatives, Central Counterparties and Trade Repositories (also known as the European Infrastructure Regulation) (the "EMIR")9. On June 29, 2012, the European Parliament met to consider the EMIR. On May 25, 2012, the European Securities and Markets Authority ("ESMA") published its consultation paper on the Draft Technical Standards for Regulation on OTC Derivatives, CCPs and Trade Repositories10(the "E.U. Technical Standards"); the comment period remained open until August 5, 2012. EMIR proposes to introduce changes to the OTC Derivatives market by mandating central clearing for standardized contracts and imposing risk mitigation standards for non-centrally cleared contracts.

Pursuant to EMIR, the obligation to clear OTC Derivatives contracts through a CCP and report derivatives to trade repositories will apply to "financial firms"11 and to non-financial firms (such as energy companies, airlines, manufacturers, etc.) that have large positions in OTC Derivatives. The proposal provides some limited exemptions from the clearing and reporting requirements for non-financial firms. Specifically, members of the European System of Central Banks (the "ESCB"), E.U. public bodies charged with the management of public debt, E.U. national bodies performing similar functions, multilateral development banks, central banks of third countries with regard to derivative contracts entered into with the members of ESCB and the Bank for International Settlements will not be subject to the clearing or reporting obligations.

The E.U. regime arguably appears to be less burdensome for End-Users than its U.S. counterpart. As mentioned above, the U.S. clearing obligation falls on everyone who trades an eligible contract, with a narrow exception when non-financial entities enter into certain hedging transactions. Again, the clearing obligation in the E.U. applies to financial counterparties when dealing with other financial counterparties, and non-financial counterparties only become subject to the clearing obligation when their positions (excluding certain hedges) exceed a specified clearing threshold.

III. SPECIFIC COMMENTS

We have the following responses to questions raised by the Committee in CSA Paper 91-405:

A. Q1: Do reporting obligations create any barriers to participation in the derivatives market that would be unique to the end-users or category of end-users?

We wish to indicate our general support for the CSA position that business that may qualify as End-Users be required to report trading activity to a trade repository, as collection of market data related to OTC Derivatives will assist in market reform by improving market transparency and increasing market confidence. However, from our various discussions with businesses that would potentially be eligible to qualify for the End-User exemption, many are concerned about the uncertainty still surrounding how they would satisfy the reporting obligations, what kind of reporting infrastructure they would need to build and the costs attached thereto.

We note in CSA Consultation Paper 91-402 – Derivatives – Trade Repositories ("CSA Paper 91- 402")12, the CSA requires only one counterparty to each OTC Derivatives transaction to report the transaction and any related post execution events to an approved trade repository. Transaction reporting obligations should be determined on counterparty type, and delegation of reporting to a third-party service provider including a central clearing house should be permitted.

CSA Paper 91-402 further specifies:

  1. Financial intermediaries should bear the reporting onus in transactions with End-Users;
  2. Transaction counterparties should be permitted to elect the reporting party for transactions between two financial intermediaries or two End-Users; and
  3. A foreign counterparty may assume reporting obligations provided that the transaction is reported to a trade repository approved in Canada.

As mentioned above, one of the aims of the End-User exemption is to permit a business that uses OTC Derivatives to manage its own business risks without increasing risk to the overall market. There are a large number of businesses that may qualify for the End-Users exemption who represent a nominal share of the overall marketplace (i.e. their trade in OTC Derivatives contributes negligible risk to the overall market or their engagement in the OTC Derivative market does not pose sufficient systematic risk concerns). As a primary goal of the new regulatory regime governing OTC Derivatives is to manage market risk, the mandatory reporting obligation should focus on those financial institutions and other market participants who might be sources of such systemic risk. Given the considerable potential costs of compliance with a mandatory reporting obligation, it is important that any new regime apply only to those counterparties and transactions which require increased regulatory oversight. Therefore, although we are generally supportive of the guidelines prescribed in CSA Paper 91-402, we would suggest that the Committee, in the upcoming rules governing TRs, provide certainty to market participants on their reporting obligations so that uncertainty surrounding recordkeeping, reporting and necessary reporting infrastructure can be avoided.

B. Q2: Are the end-user eligibility criteria proposed by the Committee appropriate? Q3: Should alternative or additional criteria be considered?

As outlined in CSA Paper 91-405, the End-User exemption will exempt eligible market participants from many of the new CSA proposed regulatory requirements. Again, the CSA indicates that the End-User exemption is intended to be available to the "eligible market participants" that use OTC Derivative trading activity to mitigate risks relate to the operation of their business.

The Committee rejected the idea of defining criteria to qualify for the End-User exemption (i.e. there is no definition of "eligible market participant" contained in CSA Paper 91-405), but recommends that criteria be developed related to qualifications necessary for End-Users to rely on the exemption, as follows:

1. Trading for own account, not a registrant or affiliate of a registrant.

This would include initial trades made as part of the management of risks related to the operation of its business as well as trades that are for the purpose of unwinding those positions, even if a portion of those trades are with the same party.

2. Not a financial institution.

The exemption would not be available to financial institutions or other market participants acting in a capacity that is similar to a financial institution.

3. Hedging to mitigate commercial risks related to the operation of a market participant's business.

The Committee considers the term "hedging" in this instance to include End-Users who conduct trade in OTC Derivatives for the purpose of mitigating risk related to the operation of business. Market participants which trade OTC Derivatives to generate profit will not be considered End- Users for the purposes of the exemption and may be required to meet registration requirements.

4. Centralized risk management and intra-group trading considerations.

The Committee takes the view that the policy reasons supporting the establishment of the exemption would apply to affiliated entities engaged in intra-group trading activity, where each entity would otherwise meet the eligibility criteria for exemption.

5. Large Derivatives participant considerations.

Some End-Users who conduct OTC Derivatives trading activities for their own account (i.e. to mitigate commercial risk rather than generate profit) may nevertheless be key participants in the market whose default would represent a systemic risk to the market because of the size or significance of their trading.

We would like to take the opportunity to comment on three aspects related to the eligibility criteria of the proposed End-User exemption, namely: (a) the lack of definition of "eligible market participant;" (b) qualifications necessary to rely on the End-User Exemption: nonfinancial institutions; and (c) qualifications necessary to rely on the End-User Exemption: large derivatives participants.

(a) Eligible Market Participants

As above mentioned, the term "eligible market participant" is not defined in CSA Paper 91-405, thereby making it the potentially qualified End-User's prerogative to decide to rely on the exemption. By not providing appropriate eligibility criteria, the onus is shifted to market participants to determine if they would be able to qualify for the End-User Exemption.

We find the lack of clarity regarding the criteria with which businesses may use to determine their ability to qualify for the End-User exemption as potentially creating significant uncertainty to market participants who trade OTC Derivatives to manage and mitigate business risk as well as for a variety of other reasons. This type of uncertainty was seen in the CFTC's approach to regulation as well. The CFTC considers its rulemaking related to the U.S. end-user exception as "permissive;" that is, the election of the U.S. end-user exception is at the discretion of the counterparty to the swap that meets the requisite conditions set forth in the CEA and the Final Rule. Specifically, the CFTC is, (except with respect to foreign governments, foreign central banks, international financial institutions and state and local government entities), declining to determine whether certain specific entities, or types of entities, are exempt from the clearing requirement or would qualify for the U.S. end-user exception based on their specific circumstances.

The lack of clarity in the definition of entities subject to compliance obligations was a contentious issue and cause for delay in the CFTC's mandate to make the rule implanting the Dodd-Frank Act. The Dodd-Frank Act was enacted on July 21, 2010. Following such enactment the CFTC published, in the Federal Register, a number of notices of proposed rulemaking to implement the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and establish a new framework for the regulation of swaps. The delegation in the Dodd-Frank Act to various U.S. federal agencies such as the CFTC to define certain key terms such as "end-user," "swap," "Swap Dealer," "Security-Based Swap Dealer," "Major Swap Participant" and "Major Security- Based Swap Participant"13 without clear guidance resulted in delays in the publication of certain final rules by the CFTC . As a result, the CFTC was required to reopen and extend comment periods and requests for comments, thus delaying the publication of certain final rules. It is generally felt by market participants in the U.S. that the lack of clarity in these (and other) key definitions was one of the principal sources of contention in the rulemaking process.

Further, in the Final Rule, the CFTC received a variety of comments from market participants regarding the general scope of the U.S. end-user exception. Two commentators, Commodity Markets Council ("CMC")14 and Riverside Risk Advisors, LLC ("Riverside"),15 recommended that the U.S. end-user exception should be available to a wide variety of entities. Conversely, Idaho Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association stated that the U.S. end-user exception should be narrowly tailored to businesses that produce, refine, process, market or consume underlying commodities and to counterparties transacting with non-financial counterparties. Many of the form letters received by the CFTC stated that the commentators generally agreed with the scope of the proposed U.S. end-user exception for non-financial companies engaging in commercial hedging and expressed concern with broadening the rule to include financial institutions or non-commercial hedges.

With respect to the call to broaden the definition made by CMC and Riverside, the CFTC states that the U.S. end-user exception to the clearing requirement is based on the type of counterparty (e.g. the electing counter-party must not be a financial entity) and the type of risk hedged or mitigated. This provides an appropriately flexible exception to the clearing requirement for commercial entities. The CFTC also commented on Riverside's call to include all potential counterparties access to the U.S. end-user exception by specifying that the reason behind the exclusion of financial entities was that the U.S. Congress specifically required all entities defined as financial entities, pursuant to the relevant terms of the CEA, to submit for clearing swaps that are subject to the clearing requirement. Thus, in the Final Rule the CFTC states that, despite changes to language of the proposed scope to make it consistent with the other provisions of the Final Rule as finalized, it is adopting the scope largely as proposed.

Therefore, we respectfully suggest the Committee, in writing the final rules governing the End- User exemption, turn its mind to creating a clear and well-defined set of criteria to categorize "eligible market participants." As well, articulated criteria will be particularly important to those market participants who trade OTC Derivatives to manage and mitigate business risk as well as for a variety of other reasons. These market participants must be able to determine which activity will be eligible for the End-User exemption and which activity will be subject to the mandatory clearing requirements and registration.

(b) Non-Financial Institutions

The term "financial institution" is not defined in CSA Paper 91-405. We would suggest that Committee apply a specific and comprehensive definition to the term "financial institution" that is both descriptive in nature and dove-tails with any other Canadian legislation that may include the term(s) "financial institution". For example, the Bank Act (Canada) defines "financial institution" as:

  1. a bank or an authorized foreign bank;
  2. a body corporate to which the Trust and Loan Companies Act applies;
  3. an association to which the Cooperative Credit Associations Act applies or a central cooperative credit society for which an order has been made under subsection 473(1) of that Act;
  4. an insurance company or a fraternal benefit society incorporated or formed under the Insurance Companies Act;
  5. a trust, loan or insurance corporation incorporated by or under an Act of the legislature of a province;
  6. a cooperative credit society incorporated and regulated by or under an Act of the legislature of a province;
  7. an entity that is incorporated or formed by or under an Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province and that is primarily engaged in dealing in securities, including portfolio management and investment counselling; and
  8. a foreign institution.

Failure to bring clarity to the term "financial institution" will result in market participant uncertainty with respect to the potential applicability of the End-User exemption to their specific business activities. This issue is especially poignant owing to the fact that proposed regulation, as outlined in CSA Paper 91-405, places the onus on market participants who may qualify for the End-User exemption to make the determination themselves as to whether or not the exemption is available to them.

The U.S. provides an example wherein despite defining the term "financial entity," market participants expressed frustration in clarity and lack of cohesion with other pieces of U.S. legislation. In Dodd-Frank, U.S. Congress defined "financial entity" to include swap dealers and security-based swap dealers; major swap participants and major security-based swap participants; commodity pools; private funds, as defined in the U.S. Investment Advisers Act of 1940; employee benefit plans, as defined in the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974; and persons predominantly engaged in activities that are in the business of banking, or in activities that are financial in nature, as defined in the U.S. Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. The International Energy Credit Association ("IECA"), in its comment letter to the CFTC, requested that the CFTC clarify the meaning of "financial entity."

The IECA suggested that because of implications of being listed as a "financial entity" under the Dodd-Frank Act, an entity may be reluctant to represent that it is a "financial institution" for the purposes of the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act (the "FDICIA"). Therefore, the IECA recommended that language used in the U.S. end-user exception be revised from the proposed verbiage that the clearing requirement shall not apply to a swap if one of the counterparties to the swap: "(i) is not a financial entity" to "(i) is not a financial entity as defined in section 2(h)(7)(C)(i) of the Act (determined without regard to whether such entity believes itself to be, or in fact constitutes, a 'financial institution' with in the meaning of the FDICIA16)."

At the end of the day, the CFTC declined to revise the definition as requested by IECA because "financial entity" and "financial institution" are different terms of reference in different U.S. statutes. The CFTC indicated:

Interpreting the meaning and use of "financial institution" under FDICIA is within the jurisdiction of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Accordingly, the [CFTC] is not included to render a view on the meaning of that term.

While the Committee's proposals as outlined in CSA Paper 91-405 do not appear to create such a clear issue on its face because the term "financial entity" is not utilized in CSA Paper 91-405 as it is in the U.S. example, the Final Rule provides illuminating narrative with respect to the critical importance of creating a fully developed definition of this term which is harmonized with any other applicable Canadian legislation.

(c) Large Market Participants

The Consultation Paper states that market participants who fall within the category of "large derivatives participants" will not be eligible for the exemption and will be required to meet registration requirements. We would suggest that the CSA should propose specific guidance regarding what would constitute a "large derivatives participant[s]" in its upcoming publication CSA Consultation Paper 91-407 – Registration (Derivatives); expected publication date September 2012.

In the EMIR, non-financial firms that have large positions in OTC Derivatives are subject to clearing and reporting obligations if their OTC Derivatives contracts exceed a certain threshold. The clearing threshold will be used to establish whether a non-financial counterparty will become subject to the clearing obligation. In practice, the EMIR suggests, if the positions of the counterparty will exceed that of the threshold, then the counterparty will become subject to the clearing obligation for all contracts.

The E.U. Technical Standards suggest that it would consider a derivative contract entered into by a non-financial counterparty to be "objectively measurable as reducing risk directly linked to the commercial activity or treasury financing activity or that of its group," when its object is to reduce the following risks:17

  1. the potential change in the value of assets, service, inputs, products, commodities or liabilities that non-financial counterparty or its own group owns, produces, manufactures, processes, provides, purchases, merchandises, leases, sells or incurs (or where it reasonably anticipates doing so) in the ordinary course of business;
  2. the potential change in the value of assets, services, inputs, products, commodities or liabilities referred to above, resulting from fluctuations of interest rates, inflation rates or foreign exchange rates; or
  3. the accounting treatment of the derivative contract is that of a hedging contract pursuant to International Financial Reporting Standards principles.

Again, we suggest that, in order to create certainty for market participants, clear criteria for eligibility should be developed. Further, the various definitions used in said criteria, including the term "large market participants," should be defined in such a manner that it brings certainty to those market participants who may wish to rely on the End-User exemption, especially those market participants who may have subsidiaries or trading relationships in other jurisdictions. An example would be whether or not the definition of "large market participant[s]" would accord with the term "Major Swap Participant" as introduced by the Dodd-Frank Act and further defined by the CEA.

E. Q4: Are the Committee's recommendations to exclude the specified end-user eligibility criteria from consideration appropriate?

The Committee considered, but excluded from further consideration, the following eligibility criteria:

1. Exemption based on volume or notional dollar values of trades

A prescribed threshold based on volume or notional dollar value of trades is not appropriate to include at this time as any such thresholds would need to be set at a level to ensure the End- User exemption would not be used by a market participant that has, or in the case of default, could have significant impact on the market.

2. Sector specific exemptions

Due to limited information, developing a sector specific exemption would risk defeating the objectives of the proposed regulatory framework as it would be difficult to measure the impact of such an exemption on the overall market.

3. Standardized contracts and clearing

Requiring the use of standardized contracts would be unduly restrictive to some market participants.

We agree with the Committee's suggested exclusion of an exemption based on volume or notional dollar value of trades. Because of the global nature of trade in the OTC Derivatives, the Committee would have a difficult time quantifying volume or dollar value of trades due to many factors, including the fact that some sectors, such as the trade in energy derivatives transactions, are done across North America (i.e. cross-border transactions). We also agree with the Committee's exclusion regarding the required use of standardized contracts.

However, we respectfully disagree with the Committee's proposed exclusion of sector specific exemptions as this exclusion defeats the purpose of the End-User exemption to exempt "eligible market participants" that use OTC Derivatives trading activity to manage and mitigate risks related to the operation of their business. Other jurisdictions have made allowances for sector specific exemptions; for example, the U.S. legislation related to forward contract exclusion, the so called "energy exemption" and the Brent Interpretation that provide exemptions for energy transactions that are physically delivered.

F. Q5: Is the Committee's proposal that the market participant itself determines its qualification for an exemption and provide notice to the regulator of its intention to rely on the exemption appropriate?

The Committee examined three general regulatory approaches that it could use in order for a market participant to commence relying on the proposed End-User exemption, as follows:

  1. the market participant itself determines it qualifies for the exemption and commences activity without further notice;
  2. the market participant applies for approval from a regulatory to use the exemption; or
  3. the market participant itself determines it qualifies for the exemption and provides notice to the regulator of its intention to rely on the exemption.

The Committee concluded the third option, providing notice to the regulator of an intention to rely on the exemption, is the most appropriate and efficient method of administering the proposed End-User exemption. While we support the regulatory approach espoused by the Committee, we believe that further guidance regarding eligibility criteria will be absolutely necessary to allow market participants to properly determine if they qualify for the exemption in the first instance. Further, without clear and comprehensive criteria to determine eligibility for the End-User exemption, regulators will have no ability to measure a market participant's application for approval.

In the U.S., in order for the U.S. end-user exception to apply, one of the counterparties must notify the CFTC "in a manner set forth by the [CFTC] how it generally meets its financial obligations associated with entering into non-clearing swaps." End-Users will be required to make this notification annually. In addition, however, End-Users will be required to notify the CFTC on a swap-by-swap basis. In practice, the reporting counterparty will only be required to report (on a swap-by-swap basis): (1) the election of the exemption; (2) which party is the electing party; and (3) whether the electing counterparty has already provided the additional required information through an annual filing. That being said, if the answer to the third question is "no," the reporting counterparty will have to provide the additional required information for that swap.

G. Q6: Is the proposed process to be followed by eligible end-users wishing to rely on the exemption appropriate?

Q7: Is the Committee's proposal to require board of directors' approval of the use of OTC derivatives as a risk management tool to demonstrate hedging compliance appropriate for non-registrant entities?

The Committee recommends a specific process to be followed by those businesses that may be potentially eligible for the End-Users exemption. In summary, the Committee believes:

...that end-users should be required to maintain full and complete records of all trading activity, a record of the board of director's approval of the use of OTC derivatives as a risk management tool, and records demonstrating what analysis was done by the end-user to demonstrate it satisfies the requirements necessary to rely on the end-user exemption.

Again, we would like to reiterate that it will be imperative to provide further guidance regarding eligibility criteria that market participants may apply to determine if they qualify for the End-User exemption. Without these criteria, market participants will be unable to comply with any proposed process articulated by the Committee with respect to relying on the exemption. We would also like to take the opportunity to comment on each portion of the process above described, specifically: (1) Board of Directors' approval to demonstrate hedging compliance; (2) Notice to regulator of intention to rely on End-User exemption; and (3) Record-keeping.

1. Board of Directors' approval to demonstrate hedging compliance.

We agree with the Committee's position with respect to this requirement. We specifically agree that board should be required to approve "the business plan or strategy," as opposed to requiring the board issue approval on a trade-by-trade basis as this would be onerous and a substantial cost burden on those business who may qualify as End-Users.

The CFTC has similarly specified that in order for a market participant to rely on the U.S. end-user exception, an appropriate committee of that counterparty's board (or equivalent body) must review and approve the decision to enter into swaps that are exempt. The CFTC clarifies that their position is one which allows for board approval on a general, as opposed to a swap-by-swap, basis. A counterparty seeking to rely on the U.S. end-user exception would then report its board's approval information annually or on a swap-by-swap basis. The CFTC expects that appropriate policies will be set by counterparties seeking to rely on the U.S. end-user exception and that these policies will be reviewed at least annually and more often upon a triggering event (e.g. a new hedging strategy considered).

2. Notice to regulator of intention to rely on End-User exemption.

This filing/notice requirement proposed by the CSA is less onerous than that suggested by the CFTC and more onerous that the filling/notice requirement prescribed by the EMIR. The CFTC suggests an annual filing in addition to swap-by-swap reporting that requires the reporting counterparty to simply check at least three boxes for each swap including: (1) the election of the exception; (2) which party is the electing counterparty; and (3) whether the electing counterparty has already provided the additional required information through an annual filing.18 The EMIR does not prescribe notice or reporting obligations on those entities that are exempt from the mandatory clearing obligations.19 We agree with the Committee's position (i.e. it seems to balance the U.S. approach with the E.U. approach) with respect to this requirement.

3. Record-keeping

The market participants who may be entitled to rely on the End-User exemption must keep sufficiently detailed records to demonstrate it meets the legal requirements of an exemption. As noted above, reporting requirements and reporting infrastructure will greatly influence which type of records and record retention a market participant will undertake. We suggest the Committee provide flexible guidance regarding reporting obligations so that uncertainty surrounding record-keeping, reporting and necessary reporting infrastructure can be avoided.

IV. CONCLUSION

We thank you for the opportunity to comment on CSA Paper 91-405 and would be pleased to discuss our thoughts with you further.

Footnotes

1 See The G-20 Toronto Summit Declaration, sections 25 and 19 (respectively), June 27, 2010, available here.

2 See Implementing OTC Derivatives Market Reforms, Financial Stability Board, October 25, 2010, available here.

3 See Requirements for Mandatory Clearing, Technical Committee of the International Organization of Securities Commission, February 2012, available here.

4 The IOSCO defines a "determining authority" as an authority with the power to mandate central clearing in its jurisdiction.

5 See Appendix II – Exemptions to Mandatory Clearing, ibid footnote 3.

6 See End-User Exception to the Clearing Requirement for Swaps; Final Rule in the Federal Register/Vol.77, No. 139/Thursday, July 19, 2012/Rules and Regulations, available here.

7 A "swap" is defined in the Dodd-Frank Act and includes (but is not limited to) a broad range of contracts, agreements, or transactions, including options that are based on other rates, currency commodities, securities, debt instruments, indices, quantitative measures, or other financial or economic interests; transactions that provide for purchase, sale, payment or delivery that is dependent on the occurrence or non-occurrence of a contingency associated with financial consequences; transactions that provide for payments based on interest or other rates; or transactions that are commonly known in the trade as swaps or swap agreements.

8 In Dodd-Frank, Congress defined "financial entity" to include swap dealers and security-based swap dealers; major swap participants and major security-based swap participants; commodity pools; private funds, as defined in the Investment Advisers Act of 1940; employee benefit plans, as defined in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974; and persons predominantly engaged in activities that are in the business of banking, or in activities that are financial in nature, as defined in the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956.

9 See Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories, European Commission, 2010/0250 (COD), available here.

10 See Consultation on the Draft Technical Standards for the Regulation on OTC Derivatives, CCPs and Trade Repositories, ESMA, June 25, 2012, available here.

11 Financial firms mean entities such as banks (both universal banks and investment banks; insurance companies; funds; etc.). Specifically, EMIR prescribes that financial counterparty: means investment firms as set out in Directive 2004/39/EC, credit institutions as defined in Directive 2006/48/EC, insurance undertakings as defined in Directive 73/239/EEC, assurance undertakings as defined in Directive 2002/83/EC, reinsurance undertakings as defined in Directive 2005/68/EC, undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS) as defined in Directive 2009/65/EC, institutions for occupational retirement provision as defined in Directive 2003/41/EC and alternative investment funds managers as defined in Directive 2010/.../EU.

12 See CSA Consultation Paper 91-402 – Derivatives: Trade Repositories, available here.

13 See Reopening and Extension of Comment Periods for Rulemakings Implementing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in the Federal Register/Vol.76, No. 86/Wednesday, May 4, 2011/Proposed Rules, available here.

14 Commodity Markets Council suggested that many market participants rely on customized over the counter swaps because they have small volume transactions or there are no standardized contracts available to hedge their specific commercial risks.

15 Riverside Risk Advisors, LLC requested that the CFTC allow all potential counterparties other than swap dealers or major swap participants to elect the U.S. end-user exception.

16 Ibid, footnote 6.

17 See Sections 56-62, ibid, footnote 10 for a more detailed and comprehensive discussion on the criteria for establishing which derivative contracts are objectively measurable as reducing risk directly related to the commercial activity or treasury financing.

18 If the third box is checked ``no,'' the reporting counterparty will have to provide the additional required information for that swap. The CFTC is requiring certain information on a swap-by-swap basis so it can verify that the U.S. end-user exception is being elected in compliance with the CEA and CFTC regulations.

19 Under EMIR, financial counterparties must report the details of all their OTC Derivative contracts (even if subject to clearing) to a registered trade repository (failing which, to the regulator). Non-financial counterparties only have to report their OTC derivatives contracts if their positions exceed an information threshold to be set by regulatory standards (when they must also notify the relevant regulator and justify exceeding this threshold).

About Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP (FMC)

FMC is one of Canada's leading business and litigation law firms with more than 500 lawyers in six full-service offices located in the country's key business centres. We focus on providing outstanding service and value to our clients, and we strive to excel as a workplace of choice for our people. Regardless of where you choose to do business in Canada, our strong team of professionals possess knowledge and expertise on regional, national and cross-border matters. FMC's well-earned reputation for consistently delivering the highest quality legal services and counsel to our clients is complemented by an ongoing commitment to diversity and inclusion to broaden our insight and perspective on our clients' needs. Visit: www.fmc-law.com

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration
Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:
  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.
  • Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.
    If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here
    If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here

    Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

    Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

    Use of www.mondaq.com

    You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

    Disclaimer

    Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

    The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

    Registration

    Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

    • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
    • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
    • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

    Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

    Information Collection and Use

    We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

    We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

    Mondaq News Alerts

    In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

    Cookies

    A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

    Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

    Log Files

    We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

    Links

    This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

    Surveys & Contests

    From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

    Mail-A-Friend

    If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

    Emails

    From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

    *** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .

    Security

    This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

    Correcting/Updating Personal Information

    If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

    Notification of Changes

    If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

    How to contact Mondaq

    You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

    If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.

    By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions