United States: SEC Adopts Final Amendments To Financial Responsibility Rules For Broker-Dealers (Financial Services Alert - August 13, 2013)

Last Updated: August 16 2013

Edited by: Eric R. Fischer, Jackson B.R. Galloway and Elizabeth Shea Fries

On July 30, 2013, the SEC adopted final amendments (the "Final Amendments") to the financial responsibility rules for broker-dealers (SEC Release No. 34-70072) (the "Release").  The Final Amendments make changes to the net capital, customer protection, books and records, and notification rules for broker-dealers.  The SEC first proposed the rule changes in March 2007 and re-opened the public comment period on May 3, 2012.  The Final Amendments will be effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register (about the week of October 14) (the "Effective Date").  This article summarizes the principal elements of the Final Amendments.

Rule 15c3-1 – Net Capital Rule

Rule 15c3-1 under the Exchange Act (the "Net Capital Rule") requires a broker-dealer to maintain, at all times, a minimum amount of net capital depending on the nature of its business.  The capital standard in the rule is a net liquid assets test, which imposes standardized deductions (or "haircuts") on securities, with less-liquid securities subject to deeper haircuts.  The Rule also does not allow certain items to be included in net capital and requires certain other items to be included as liabilities.  Amendments to the Net Capital Rule include the following:

  • A broker-dealer, in calculating net capital, will be required to take into account any liabilities that are assumed by a third party if the broker-dealer cannot demonstrate that the third party has the resources – independent of the broker-dealer's income and assets – to pay the liabilities. 
  • A broker-dealer will be required to treat as a liability any capital that is contributed under an agreement giving the investor the option to withdraw it, and any capital contribution that is intended to be withdrawn within one year of its contribution.  The rule as amended provides that capital withdrawn within one year is deemed to have been intended to be withdrawn within a year unless the broker-dealer receives permission for the withdrawal in writing from its designated examining authority ("DEA").
  • A broker-dealer will be required to deduct from net capital the amount specified by its DEA with respect to the requirement to maintain fidelity bond coverage.  FINRA and other self-regulatory organizations ("SROs") specify maximum permissible deductible amounts for fidelity bond coverage.  Any amounts over the maximum permissible will be deducted from net capital.
  • The Net Capital Rule as amended provides that the broker-dealer must not be "insolvent." The Final Amendments define insolvent to mean that the broker: "(i) is the subject of a bankruptcy, equity receivership proceeding or any other proceeding to reorganize, conserve, or liquidate such broker or dealer or its property or is applying for the appointment or election of a receiver, trustee, or liquidator or similar official for such broker or dealer or its property;  (ii) has made a general assignment for the benefit of creditors; (iii) is insolvent within the meaning of section 101 of title 11 of the U.S. Code, or is unable to meet its obligations as they mature, and has made an admission to such effect in writing or in any court or before any agency of the United States or any State; or (iv) is unable to make such computations as may be necessary to establish compliance with this section or with [the Customer Protection Rule]."  As amended, Rule 17a-11 under the Exchange Act will require a broker-dealer meeting the definition of insolvent to provide notice immediately upon becoming insolvent to the SEC, the firm's DEA and, if necessary, the CFTC.
  • The amendments remove a limitation on the SEC's ability to issue an order temporarily restricting a broker-dealer from withdrawing capital or making loans or advances to stockholders, insiders and affiliates.  Previously, the SEC could only issue such an order if the withdrawals, advances, or loans to be halted, when aggregated with all other withdrawals, advances, and loans on a net basis during a 30-day period, exceeded 30% of the firm's excess net capital.  This 30-day/30% limitation will no longer be applicable after the Effective Date.

Rule 15c3-3 – Customer Protection Rule

Rule 15c3-3 under the Exchange Act (the "Customer Protection Rule") is designed to protect customers of a broker-dealer by segregating their securities and cash from the broker-dealer's proprietary business activities.  If the broker-dealer fails financially, but has conducted its business in accordance with the Customer Protection Rule, the customers' securities and cash should be readily available to be returned to them and, if the broker-dealer is liquidated in a formal proceeding under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 ("SIPA"), the securities and cash will be isolated and readily identifiable as "customer property" and, consequently, available to be distributed to customers ahead of other creditors.

The word "customer" is defined in the Customer Protection Rule to exclude broker-dealers.  However, as the SEC points out in the Release, the definition of "customer" in SIPA is broader than the definition in the Customer Protection Rule and does not exclude broker-dealers.  Broker-dealers as customers under the SIPA definition have a right to a pro rata share of the customer property, but are not entitled to receive an advance from the fund maintained by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation ("SIPC") for customers of failed broker-dealers.

A carrying broker-dealer that carries accounts holding proprietary securities and cash of other broker-dealers (so-called "PAB accounts") was not, under the prior rule, required to segregate cash and securities in PAB accounts as required for customer accounts, creating a risk that, if the carrying broker-dealer failed, there would not be sufficient customer property to make whole all SIPA customers, including broker-dealers with PAB accounts.  Certain amendments to the Customer Protection Rule are intended to correct the disparity in treatment of PAB accounts and the accounts of other customers.

The Final Amendments incorporate many of the provisions of a November 3, 1998 no-action letter issued to the NYSE and NASD (the "PAIB Letter"), which permitted a broker-dealer not to take a net capital deduction under the Net Capital Rule for cash held in a securities account at another broker-dealer, provided the other broker-dealer agreed to perform a reserve computation for PAB accounts, establish a separate reserve account, and maintain cash or qualified securities in the reserve account equal to the computed reserve requirement.  Because many of the provisions of the PAIB Letter are incorporated into the Final Amendments, the SEC staff is withdrawing the PAIB Letter on the Effective Date.

Definition of PAB Account.  The Final Amendments define the term "PAB account" to mean "a proprietary securities account of a broker or dealer (which includes a foreign broker or dealer, or a foreign bank acting as a broker or dealer) other than a delivery-versus-payment or a receipt-versus-payment account."  The definition goes on to state that the term PAB account "does not include an account that has been subordinated to the claims of creditors of the carrying broker or dealer."  Accounts subordinated to the claims of creditors of the carrying broker-dealer are excluded because they would not share pro-rata with other customers in customer property in the event of a failure of the carrying broker-dealer.  This exception allows carrying broker-dealers and the broker-dealers for whom they open accounts the flexibility to enter into business arrangements in which the carrying broker-dealer can use the funds and securities in a broker-dealer's proprietary account.  In addition, delivery-versus-payment ("DVP") and receipt-versus-payment ("RVP") accounts are excluded because funds and securities are not held in those accounts but are custodied outside of the carrying broker-dealer.

Treatment of PAB Accounts.  The amendments to the Customer Protection Rule and to Rule15c3-3a require carrying broker-dealers to:

  • Perform a separate reserve computation for PAB accounts (in addition to the customer reserve computation currently required for The Customer Protection Rule customer accounts);
  • Establish and fund a separate reserve account for the benefit of PAB account holders; and
  • Obtain and maintain physical possession or control of non-margin securities carried for PAB accounts unless the carrying broker has provided written notice to the PAB account holders that it will use those securities in the ordinary course of its securities business, and has provided opportunity for the PAB account holder to object to such use.

The Final Amendments require that a carrying broker that is maintaining PAB accounts establish a special reserve account for the PAB accounts, perform a separate reserve computation for the PAB accounts and maintain cash or qualified securities in the PAB reserve account in an amount equal to the PAB reserve requirement.

The new bank account that carrying broker-dealers must establish for PAB accounts must be called the "Special Reserve Bank Account for Brokers and Dealers."  However, since the PAIB Letter required carrying brokers to establish a special account with a slightly different name, the SEC is not requiring carrying brokers to rename special accounts already established prior to the Effective Date.

Other Amendments Relating to PAB Accounts.  The amendments make the following additional changes relating to PAB accounts:

  • A carrying broker-dealer with PAB accounts must notify its bank about the status of the PAB account and obtain an agreement and notification from the bank that the PAB reserve account will be maintained for the benefit of PAB account holders.
  • Paragraph (g) of the Customer Protection Rule has been amended to specify when a carrying broker-dealer can make withdrawals from a PAB reserve account.
  • A new paragraph (e)(4), added to the Customer Protection Rule, allows a carrying broker-dealer to use credits related to PAB accounts to finance customer debits under the Customer Protection Rule, but does not allow a carrying broker-dealer to use customer credits under the Customer Protection Rule to finance PAB debits.
  • The Net Capital Rule has been amended to provide that a broker-dealer need not deduct from capital cash and securities held in a securities account at a carrying broker-dealer except where the account has been subordinated to the claims of creditors of the carrying broker-dealer.

Banks Where Special Reserve Deposits May Be Held.  The amended Customer Protection Rule contains two new provisions governing banks at which reserve accounts are held.  First, cash on deposit in a bank affiliated with the broker-dealer may not be used to meet the reserve requirements.  However, this prohibition does not apply to securities held at an affiliated bank.  If a broker-dealer wishes to hold cash in a reserve account at an affiliated bank, it may do so by depositing qualified securities – securities issued or guaranteed by the United States – that may be held as cash.

Second, the broker-dealer also must exclude from the amount of cash in a special reserve account cash deposited with a non-affiliated bank to the extent the amount of the deposit exceeds 15% of the bank's equity capital as reported by the bank in its most recent Call Report or any successor form the bank is required to file by its appropriate Federal banking agency.  The SEC stated that it recognizes that while a U.S. branch of a foreign bank may meet the definition of "bank" under Section 3(a)(6) of the Exchange Act, it is not FDIC-insured and does not file Call Reports, and thus would not qualify as a bank at which cash may be held in reserve accounts.  The SEC further stated that it would consider requests for exemptive relief from broker-dealers wishing to hold a reserve account at a U.S. branch of a foreign bank.

Free Credit Balances – Sweep Accounts.  Amended paragraph (j)(2)(i) of the Customer Protection Rule will permit ongoing routine transfers from the customer's account outside of a sweep program with a one-time consent.  Specifically, the amended Customer Protection Rule provides:  "A broker or dealer is permitted to invest or transfer to another account or institution, free credit balances in a customer's account only upon a specific order, authorization, or draft from the customer, and only in the manner, and under the terms and conditions, specified in the order, authorization, or draft."

The Final Amendments define the term "Sweep Program" to mean a service provided by a broker-dealer where it offers to its customers the option to automatically transfer free credit balances in the securities account of the customer to either a money market mutual fund or an account at a bank whose deposits are insured by the FDIC.  Amended paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of the Customer Protection Rule permits a broker-dealer to transfer free credit balances held in a customer's securities account to a product in its Sweep Program or to transfer a customer's interest in one product in a Sweep Program to another product in its Sweep Program provided certain conditions are met, including:

  • The broker-dealer provides the customer with the disclosures and notices required by the Rule and by each SRO of which the broker-dealer is a member.
  • The broker-dealer provides the customer with written notice at least 30 calendar days before (A) making changes to the terms and conditions of the Sweep Program, (B) making changes to the terms and conditions of the product currently available through the Sweep Program, (C) changing, adding or deleting products available through the Sweep Program, or (D) changing the customer's investment through the Sweep Program from one product to another.  The notice must describe the new terms and conditions of the Sweep Program or product or the new product, and the options available to the customer if the customer does not accept the new terms and conditions.
  • For an account opened on or after the effective date of the amendments, the customer gives prior written affirmative consent to having free credit balances in the customer's securities account included in the Sweep Program after being notified of the general terms and conditions of the products available through the Sweep Program and that the broker-dealer may change the products available under the Sweep Program.

Other Changes.  The final rule amendments make additional changes, including the following:

  • Funds held in a commodities account meeting the definition of a "proprietary account" under CFTC regulations at a broker-dealer also registered with the CFTC are not to be included as free credit balances in the customer reserve formula.
  • A new paragraph (d)(4) has been added to the Customer Protection Rule (apparently causing existing paragraph (d)(4) to become (d)(5)) requiring a broker-dealer to take prompt steps to obtain physical possession or control over securities of the same issue and class as those included on the books and records of the broker-dealer that allocate to a short position of the broker-dealer or a short position for another person, excluding positions covered by paragraph (m) of the of the Customer Protection Rule, for more than 30 calendar days.
  • Provisions of Rule 15c3-2 under the Exchange Act concerning treatment of free credit balances not already covered by the Customer Protection Rule have been moved to the Customer Protection Rule and Rule 15c3-2 will be removed on the Effective Date.

Proposals Not Adopted.  Some rule changes proposed in 2007 were not adopted, including a proposal to expand the definition of "qualified securities" in the Customer Protection Rule to include certain money market funds, and a proposal to modify the haircut for money market funds in the Net Capital Rule from 2% to 1%.  The SEC is deferring consideration of those proposals until after any final action it may take on proposed changes to the regulatory scheme for money market funds under the Investment Company Act of 1940.  (See the June 11, 2013 Financial Services Alert for a discussion of the SEC's proposed amendments to its money market fund requirements.)

SEC Adopts New Broker-Dealer Reporting Requirements Related to Custody of Client Assets

The SEC approved rule amendments that will require broker-dealers to file annual and quarterly reports relating to their custody of client assets.  A forthcoming issue of the Alert will discuss this development in additional detail.

New Guidance on Advisers Act Custody Rule Treatment of Certain Private Certificated Securities

The staff of the SEC's Division of Investment Management provided guidance allowing certain certificated privately offered securities held by private funds to be treated in the same manner as uncertificated privately offered securities they hold.  The guidance describes conditions under which an adviser would not have to maintain with a qualified custodian an instrument evidencing ownership of a privately placed security (a "private stock certificate") held by a pooled investment vehicle (a "pool") in order to comply with Rule 206(4)-2 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (generally referred to as the "custody rule").  As a general matter under the custody rule, an adviser that has custody (as defined by the rule) of a pool's funds and securities must maintain them with a qualified custodian.  However, if the pool meets the conditions described in paragraph (b)(4) of the rule regarding the distribution of its audited annual financial statements, the rule already provides an exception to the qualified custodian requirement with respect to certain uncertificated privately offered securities ("Exempt Privately Offered Securities").  The custody rule provides that to be an Exempt Privately Offered Security, the security must:

  • be uncertificated;
  • have been acquired from the issuer in a transaction or chain of transactions not involving a public offering;
  • have its ownership recorded only on the books of the issuer or its transfer agent in the name of the pool; and
  • be transferable only with the prior consent of the issuer or holders of the outstanding securities of the issuer.

The staff guidance responds to inquiries regarding the treatment under the custody rule of private stock certificates that, aside from the fact that they were certificated, share the essential characteristics of Exempt Privately Offered Securities.  The guidance states that a private stock certificate held by a pool that distributes its audited annual financial statements in accordance with paragraph (b)(4) of the rule need not be maintained with a qualified custodian if:

  1. ownership of the security is recorded on the books of the issuer or its transfer agent in the name of the pool;
  2. the private stock certificate can only be used to effect a transfer or to otherwise facilitate a change in beneficial ownership of the security with the prior consent of the issuer or holders of the outstanding securities of the issuer;
  3. the private stock certificate has a legend restricting transfer; and
  4. the private stock certificate is appropriately safeguarded by the adviser and can be replaced upon loss or destruction.

The guidance also states the staff's position that a partnership agreement, subscription agreement or LLC agreement is not itself a certificate under paragraph (b)(2)(B) of the custody rule, and the securities these documents represent are Exempt Privately Offered Securities if they otherwise fall within the terms of that exception (as described above).  In addition, the guidance notes that the staff considers securities that are evidenced by ISDA master agreements that cannot be assigned or transferred without the consent of the counterparty to be Exempt Privately Offered Securities.

FRB, FDIC and OCC Jointly Issue Proposed Supervisory Guidance on Implementing Stress Tests for Mid-Sized Banking Organizations

The FRB, FDIC and OCC (the "Agencies") jointly issued  proposed supervisory guidance (the "Proposed Guidance") that describes high-level principles that should be used by mid-sized banking organizations to implement the stress tests such organizations are required to conduct under Section 165(i)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act.  Mid-sized banking organizations are defined as all bank and savings and loan holding companies, national banks, state member banks, state non-member banks, federal savings associations, and state chartered savings associations with more than $10 billion but less than $50 billion in total consolidated assets ("Mid-Sized Banking Organizations").  In the Proposed Guidance, the Agencies emphasize the importance of stress testing to Mid-Sized Banking Organizations as an ongoing risk management practice "that supports a company's forward-looking assessment of its risks and better equips the company to address a range of  macroeconomic and financial outcomes."

The Proposed Guidance describes the Agencies' supervisory expectations of Mid-Sized Banking Organizations and the methodologies that such companies should use in conducting annual stress tests.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act rules Mid-Sized Banking Organizations must assess the potential impact of a minimum of three macroeconomic scenarios:  (1) baseline, (2) adverse and (3) severely adverse on the Mid-Sized Banking Organization's consolidated losses, revenues, balance sheet (including risk-weighted assets) and capital.  The Proposed Guidance states that each scenario should be analyzed across all business lines and on the enterprise as a whole.  The Proposed Guidance makes it clear that Mid-Sized Banking Organizations are allowed flexibility in determining the methodologies they choose to use in conducting stress tests and that a Mid-Sized Banking Organization is expected to choose practices and methodologies that are appropriate for its risk profile, size, complexity, business risk, market foot-print and the materiality of specific portfolios of assets.  With respect to governance, controls, oversight and related documentation, the Proposed Guidance notes that the Agencies expect that Mid-Sized Banking Organizations will consider the results of stress testing in the respective company's capital planning, assessment of capital adequacy, and risk management practices.

Comments on the Proposed Guidance are due to the OCC and the FDIC by September 25, 2013 and to the FRB by September 30, 2013.

Federal Court Strikes Down FRB's Debit Card Interchange Fee and Network Exclusivity Rules

The Federal District Court for the District of Columbia (the "Court") recently struck down portions of the FRB's rule on interchange fees.  The Court's decision revolves around an amendment proposed by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) to the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, codified in Section 1075 of the Dodd-Frank Act (the "Durbin Amendment") in response to rising interchange fees.  Interchange fees are any fees established, charged or received by a payment card network for the purpose of compensating an issuer for its involvement in an electronic debit transaction.

Prior to the Durbin Amendment, the average interchange fee was approximately $0.44 per transaction.  The Durbin Amendment capped the fee at $0.21 plus 0.05% and an additional discretionary $0.01 for institutions using fraud prevention initiatives.  The Durbin Amendment also required that interchange fees for electronic debit transactions be "reasonable" and "proportional" to the cost incurred by the issuer and directed the FRB to issue rules interpreting such standards.  The Durbin Amendment also required the FRB to adopt rules that would:  (1) prohibit issuers and networks from restricting the number of payment card networks on which electronic debit transactions may be processed to one network or multiple affiliated networks; and (2) prohibit issuers and networks from inhibiting the ability of merchants to direct the routing of the electronic debit transaction for processing over any payment card network that may process the transactions.

In 2010, after meeting with debit card issuers, payment card networks, consumer groups and other interested groups, and circulating surveys to financial organizations and merchant acquirers, the FRB issued a proposed rule.  First, the FRB proposed that the interchange fee be limited to the costs associated with authorization, clearing and settlement ("ACS") of an electronic debit transaction.  The FRB also proposed two standards to govern "reasonable" and "proportional" interchange fees:  under Alternative 1 each issuer was allowed to recover its actual incremental ACS costs up to a safe harbor of $0.07; and under Alternative 2, the FRB placed a flat cap of $0.12 per transaction.  Second, to implement the network exclusivity prohibition in the Durbin Amendment, the FRB proposed two alternative methods for implementation:  Alternative A required at least two unaffiliated payment card networks active on each debit card, even if one network processed only signature transactions and one handled only PIN transactions; and Alternative B required at least two active unaffiliated payment card networks for each type of authorization method (i.e., at least two networks to process PIN transactions and two networks to process signature transactions).  The proposed rule would prohibit issuers and networks from preventing a merchant from directing the routing of an electronic debit transaction over any available network.

In July 2011, the FRB finalized its rules implementing the Durbin Amendment.  In a controversial move, the FRB adopted Alternative 2 as the standard for a "reasonable" and "proportional" interchange fee, but modified it from the alternative in the proposed rule.  In particular, under the final rule, an issuer could receive up to $0.21 per transaction plus an ad valorem amount of 5 basis points (0.05%) of the transaction's value.  The FRB reasoned that the statute allowed it to consider additional costs not explicitly excluded from consideration by the statute.  With regard to the network exclusivity prohibitions, the FRB adopted Alternative A interpreting the Durbin Amendment to restrict network exclusivity for each debit card and not for each method of authentication; thus a card complied with the FRB's final rule if it were enabled with only one PIN network and one signature network.

The final rule became effective in October 2011.  In November 2011, plaintiffs filed suit challenging the final rule. Plaintiffs claimed that the FRB's final rule was "arbitrary" and "an abuse of discretion" and sought declaratory relief.  More specifically, plaintiffs alleged that the Durbin Amendment limited the FRB's consideration of allowable costs to the incremental cost of ACS and alleged that by including other costs in the fee standard, the FRB acted unreasonably.  With regard to the network non-exclusivity provisions, plaintiffs claimed that the FRB disregarded the plain meaning of the Durbin Amendment and misconstrued the statute by requiring all debit cards be interoperable with at least two unaffiliated payment networks, rather than requiring that all debit transactions be interoperable over at least two unaffiliated networks.  Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment in March 2012.

In granting plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, the Court held that the FRB "completely misunderstood the Durbin Amendment's statutory directive and interpreted the law in ways that were clearly foreclosed by Congress."  The Court held that the Durbin Amendment is unambiguous in "bifurcating" the universe of debit transaction fees—those incremental ACS costs that must be considered—and other costs not specific to the transaction, which must be excluded.  The Court also noted that the Durbin Amendment required the FRB to issue rules "inhibiting the ability of any person to prohibit a merchant to direct the routing of the debit transaction" and Congress intended for each transaction to be routed over at least two competing methods for each authorization method.  However, according to the Court, the FRB "countermanded" Congressional intent by adopting a rule that required a choice among unaffiliated networks for each card, but not for each method of authentication (i.e., signature and PIN transactions).

Because the FRB's rules were "fundamentally" and "seriously" deficient, the Court remanded the case with instructions to the FRB to vacate both the interchange fee and network exclusivity rules.  However, noting the importance of interchange and network fees to the debit card system and that many had made "extensive commitments in reliance" on the rules, the Court stayed the effect of its decision to allow the FRB to replace the rules and requested briefs on two issues:  the appropriate length of the stay and whether current standard should remain in place until replaced by valid regulations or the FRB develops interim standards sufficient to allow the Court to lift the stay.

  National Association of Convenience Stores v. Board of Governors, No. Civ. 11-02075 RJL (D.D.C. July 31, 2013)

FDIC Releases Video Guidance Regarding Management of Interest Rate Risk

The FDIC released on its website a new video (the "Video") in its third installment of technical assistance videos designed to provide guidance to bank directors, officers and employees regarding regulatory and compliance issues and recent changes and developments.  Over the past several months the FDIC and other bank regulatory agencies have strongly urged banking institutions, in light of the current low level of interest rates and the potential significant increase in interest rate levels, to make certain that the applicable bank has in place robust processes to measure, and if needed mitigate, the bank's exposure to potential increases in interest rates.

The Video, which is over one hour in length, discusses interest rate risk and key elements of a bank's management and oversight of interest rate risk.  The Video has eight segments which cover, respectively,

  1. Overview of Interest Rate Risk; Recent Industry Trends
  2. Types of Interest Rate Risk
  3. Measurement Systems
  4. Rate Changes and Prepayment Assumptions
  5. Deposit Assumptions
  6. Risk Limits and Mitigation
  7. Internal Control and Review
  8. Review of Interest Rate Risk Management and Additional Resources

The Video is designed to be particularly useful to directors and officers of community banks, including members of a bank's asset-liability management committee.  The first two installments of the FDIC's technical assistance videos were discussed in the  April 9, 2013 Financial Services Alert and the July 30, 2013 Financial Services Alert.

Goodwin Procter Alert: Court Ruling Creates Potential Liability for Investment Funds and May Have Broader Implications

Goodwin Procter issued a  client alert that discusses the implications of a decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals holding that a private equity fund was a "trade or business" in determining whether the fund might be liable for the pension plan withdrawal liability of one of its portfolio companies.

French Regulator Adopts Stringent AIFMD Regime

EU Member States were obliged to implement the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive into their law by July 22nd.  In common with various other states, France is late in implementing the law, and the final version is very different from the initial proposal as we described it here.  For non-EU managers, the position in France is now:

Transitional Provisions

Unlike in most other member states, there will be no transitional exemption for non-EU managers.  This means that the French AIFMD requirements apply now not in July 2014.


The marketing of open-ended funds has always been practically impossible in France since it has always been subject to prior authorisation by the French regulator.  This will not change.

The marketing of closed-ended funds is permitted subject to a significantly more stringent AIFMD regime than that which applies in other member states.  We described here the minimum that the directive requires from non-EU managers that wish to market into the EU, but France will also require the fund to appoint a depositary and comply with the other provisions of the directive that otherwise apply only to EU managers including, presumably, the restrictions on remuneration although this is not yet clear.

In practical terms, this now means that the only way to have any dealings with French investors will be through reverse solicitation since this is not considered to be "marketing" and is therefore not subject to the AIFMD.

CFTC Adopts Rule Amendments Harmonizing Compliance Obligations for CPOs of Registered Investment Companies

The CFTC adopted rule amendments designed to harmonize certain compliance obligations for commodity pool operators ("CPOs") of registered investment companies that are required to register with the CFTC due to recent changes to CFTC Regulation 4.5.  Under the amendments, the CFTC will accept the SEC disclosure, reporting, and record-keeping requirements applicable to registered investment companies as substituted compliance for "substantially all" (in the words of the CFTC press release and related summary documents) of Part 4 of the CFTC's regulations.  The amendments also modify certain Part 4 requirements for all CPOs by allowing use of a third party service for record-keeping purposes and permitting all CPOs and commodity trading advisors to use a disclosure document for up to 12 months (extended to 16 months for CPOs of open-end registered investment companies relying on substituted compliance).  A more detailed description of the amendments will be forthcoming.

Goodwin Procter LLP is one of the nation's leading law firms, with a team of 700 attorneys and offices in Boston, Los Angeles, New York, San Diego, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. The firm combines in-depth legal knowledge with practical business experience to deliver innovative solutions to complex legal problems. We provide litigation, corporate law and real estate services to clients ranging from start-up companies to Fortune 500 multinationals, with a focus on matters involving private equity, technology companies, real estate capital markets, financial services, intellectual property and products liability.

This article, which may be considered advertising under the ethical rules of certain jurisdictions, is provided with the understanding that it does not constitute the rendering of legal advice or other professional advice by Goodwin Procter LLP or its attorneys. © 2013 Goodwin Procter LLP. All rights reserved.

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.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

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.


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.


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 by clicking here .

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.


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.


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.


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.


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 .


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.