The Comments Are In: What Do Non-U.S. Banks Think of the Proposed Volcker Rule Changes?
International Banking columnist Kathleen A. Scott follows up on a previous article that discussed proposed changes to the Volcker Rule issued for comment by the federal banking, commodities and securities regulators. In this month's column, she discusses some of the comments submitted by non-U.S. banks operating in the United States, their trade associations and other non-U.S. government entities.
January 08, 2019 at 02:46 PM
11 minute read
In my July 2018 column I discussed proposed changes to the Volcker Rule issued for comment by the federal banking, commodities and securities regulators (collectively, the Agencies).
An extended comment period ended Oct. 17, 2018. This month's column will discuss some of the comments submitted by non-U.S. banks operating in the United States, their trade associations and other non-U.S. government entities (collectively, the Commenters), focusing on some of the issues of particular importance to them.
Proposed SOTUS Changes
Many banks rely on the “Solely Outside the United States (SOTUS)” exemption from the Volcker Rule's restrictions on proprietary trading and certain private equity funds (“covered funds”). Revisions to the SOTUS exemption for proprietary trading include elimination of the prohibition that no financing for the banking entity's purchase or sale be provided by any U.S. branch or affiliate of the banking entity (the “Financing Prohibition”); a narrowing of the restrictions on trading with U.S. counterparties (the “Counterparty Restriction”) and a narrowing of the requirement that no banking entity personnel who arrange, negotiate, or execute such purchase or sale can be located in the United States to a restriction that only “relevant” personnel engaged in the banking entity's decision in the purchase or sale cannot be located in the United States (the “Personnel Restriction”).
With respect to the covered fund restrictions, in addition to eliminating the Financing Prohibition, the marketing prohibition on a non-U.S. covered fund being offered or sold to U.S. residents would be clarified to apply only if the offering actually is targeted at U.S. residents, thus incorporating into the regulation an interpretation on this issue released by the Agencies in 2015.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: For Big Law Names, Shorter is Sweeter
- 2Wine, Dine and Grind (Through the Weekend): Summer Associates Thirst For Experience in 'Real Matters'
- 3The 'Biden Effect' on Senior Attorneys: Should I Stay or Should I Go?
- 4'That's Disappointing': Only 11% of MDL Appointments Went to Attorneys of Color in 2023
- 5'You Are Not Alone': 120 Sex Assault Victims Plan to Sue Sean 'Diddy' Combs
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250