On February 14, 2013, SEC Chairman Elisse Walter at long last
indicated, in testimony for the Senate Banking Committee, that the
SEC's final regulations regarding "municipal
advisors" will "address ,,, the need for an
exception" to the definition of "municipal advisor"
for appointed board members of municipal securities issuers.
This acknowledgment came more than two years after the firestorm
ignited by the SEC's suggestion in proposed regulations issued
December 20, 2010
that appointed board members of issuers of municipal securities
were or might be required to register as "municipal
advisors," That suggestion provoked a substantial share
of the over 1,000 comment letters received by the SEC on the
The SEC's final regulations have not yet been issued and the
phrasing of the exception remains to be seen. However,
Chairman Walter's testimony is consistent with the conclusion
long since reached by most municipal market participants that the
SEC's interpretation of the Dodd-Frank legislation as requiring
or potentially requiring registration as municipal advisors by
non-elected board members who provide input relating to
issuance of municipal securities in the course of their board
duties was an overreach that would not be implemented. For
board members appointed to municipal bond issuers or to issuers of
state-sponsored Section 529 program municipal fund securities,
Chairman Walter's pronouncement is as close to a valentine
as the SEC dispenses.
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.
A federal district court in Minnesota recently held that the Bank Secrecy Act permits the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network to bring suit against individuals for willfully violating the BSA's AML program requirement.
Regulators were busy at the end of 2015, especially in the United States, perhaps being motivated to push forward new rule proposals in anticipation of a change in administration after the presidential elections later this year.
On January 15, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Office of Enforcement asserted that claims pursued in administrative enforcement actions are not subject to the three-year statute of limitations...