Further Extension of Exemption from Rule 17g-5(a)(3) for Certain Non-U.S. Transactions

On November 16, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued an order extending the temporary exemption for rating agencies from the requirements for Rule 17g-5 for certain non-U.S. transactions for a further one-year period, expiring December 2, 2012.

By way of background, Rule 17g-5 is a series of rules designed to deal with conflicts of interest affecting credit rating agencies. A rating agency being hired by the issuer or arranger to determine a credit rating for a structured finance product is such a conflict of interest. It is also the normal, if not universal, circumstance for any issuance of a rated structured finance product. Given that there will be a conflict of interest, Rule 17g-5(a)(3) requires that the retained rating agency must provide to other rating agencies access to an internet website containing all the information provided to the retained rating agency in issuing its rating. It was thought that making the information supporting a credit rating available to other rating agencies would both keep the retained rating agency more diligent and encourage additional rating agencies to issue ratings on the structured finance product.

In the comment period before these new rules became effective on June 2, 2010, serious concerns arose about the extra-territorial affect of these provisions. Any rating agency active in the United States would apparently have to comply with these rules for all structured finance products which it rates whether or not there was any connection between the rated transaction and the United States. In effect, it would apply to all “Canadian” transactions because all rating agencies active in Canada are also active in the United Sates. In response to those concerns, the SEC exempted rating agencies from complying with 17g-5(a)(3) in respect of transactions where the issuer was not a U.S. person and where the rating agency had a reasonable basis to conclude that the structured finance product would not be offered and sold in the United States. The initial exemption order was available until December 2, 2010. It was later extended until December 2, 2011 and now, pursuant to this most recent order of the SEC, to December 2, 2012.

The most recent extension is also framed as a request for comment. While a frequent comment is that this exemption for non-U.S. transactions should be made permanent, apparently the SEC is seeking further comment on the issue.

New DBRS Policy on Securitized Lease Transactions Operative

On September 18, 2009, amendments to Canadian insolvency legislation came into effect. On December 22, 2009, DBRS issued a press release explaining its policy response to such amendments in connection with lease structured finance transactions. The policy response required that certain steps be taken by February 26, 2010. As we are now beyond that date, the DBRS policy is fully in effect for these transactions.


Background

The September 18, 2009 amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act incorporated specific provisions permitting insolvent debtors subject to reorganization proceedings to disclaim personal property leasing contracts. In many lease structured finance transactions some or all of the rights of the party providing the financing arise under agreements which are leases of personal property. In general, DBRS will not approve transactions where (1) the rights of the financing party arise under a lease contract which may be disclaimed under an insolvency proceeding, and (2) there is a risk that the lessor will become subject to insolvency proceedings. 

The DBRS policy only applies to those lease transactions which have not achieved bankruptcy remoteness after consideration of the amendments. While not specifically explained in the press release, presumably this is a reference to so called “two-step” transactions whereby the lease assets are first transferred in a sale transaction to a special purpose bankruptcy remote entity which then finances the assets. With bankruptcy remoteness achieved by the first sale, the assets are removed from the risk of the bankruptcy of the original seller. While there may still be a lease involved in the structure (the assets are often leased by the special purpose entity to another entity which in turn issues the asset backed securities), the lessor is a bankruptcy remote entity where the risk of an insolvency proceeding is not material. 

The transactions which have not achieved bankruptcy remoteness are presumably “one-step” transactions where the lessor is an operating entity and so subject to the risk of an insolvency proceeding. 


Requirements Under the New Policy

Lease structured finance transactions which seek to obtain or retain a DBRS rating now must meet the following requirements: 

Continue Reading...