Search results for

European bank capital will come of age this year. Regulatory and market developments have combined to create long-awaited optimism around the asset class

Alexei Bonamin Ricardo Mastropasqua On December 20 2013, the Brazilian Exchange Securities Commission (CVM) issued a set of rules which regulate the rendering of services related to the Brazilian capital markets' infrastructure, as follows: (i) CVM Instruction 541 regulates matters regarding the centralised deposit of securities; (ii) CVM Instruction 542 governs the rendering of securities custody services; and (iii) CVM Instruction 543 regulates securities bookkeeping services and the issuance of securities certificates. In accordance with CVM Instruction 541, the centralised deposit service of securities comprises the following activities: (i) securities' safekeeping by the central depository; (ii) controlling the chain of ownership of securities in the deposit accounts maintained on behalf of investors; (iii) restricting practices related to securities' disposal by the ultimate investor or by any third party outside the central depository environment; and (iv) the handling of trading instructions and of incidental events that affect the deposited securities, with the corresponding records on the deposit accounts. CVM Instruction 541 does not apply to positions held in the derivatives market outside the central depository environment. However, it does apply to the establishment of liens and encumbrances on positions held in derivative agreements of any kind, provided that the central depository is also authorised to provide registration services to such agreements. CVM Instruction 541 also applies to financial bills and other instruments that are subject to the jurisdiction of CVM.

Takeho Ujino The Act on Special Provisions of Civil Court Procedures for Collective Recovery of Property Damage of Consumers (Act 96 of 2013 – the Act) was promulgated on December 11 2013, and is scheduled to come into force within three years – the specific date to be designated by a cabinet order. The Act introduces a new class action system that sets out procedures which enable a group of consumers to recover damages collectively in a simple and prompt manner (the system). The system consists of two stages. In the first stage, the court will render a declaratory judgment on the common liabilities of the accused business operator, which must arise from a common legal and factual cause and be shared by multiple aggrieved consumers (common liabilities). Only a specified qualified consumer organisation certified by the Prime Minister as fulfilling the requirements of the system may file a first stage procedure. If the organisation succeeds at the first stage, the amount to be paid to each aggrieved consumer will be determined at the second stage, during which the group of aggrieved consumers delegates the resolution of their claims to the organisation, which then brings the relevant claims to the court. The court will then issue a decision regarding the amount of compensation that can be recovered from the accused business operator by each of the aggrieved consumers.

An employee share incentive plan (SIP) enables employees to acquire and hold shares in their employing company. They are generally implemented by employer companies in order to incentivise and retain employees (participants), and for such participants to receive indirect benefits from the appreciation in the growth of the company. Therefore, whilst such schemes are beneficial to the employee, they indirectly benefit the employer company. Employees with a vested interest in the success and performance of a company are more motivated to work, as their investment is based upon the performance of the company. SIPs can potentially lead to tax benefits for the employer company and the employee.

UBS’s purchase of StabFund from Swiss National Bank ended the stabilisation transaction it launched in 2008. Here’s what it means for the country’s banks

Iñigo de Luisa Ignacio Buil Royal Decree Law 4/2014 of March 7, on urgent measures for refinancing and restructuring corporate debt, significantly amends Spain's insolvency regulation in several key ways. One of its most relevant new provisions deals with the new regime for court-sanctioned (homologation) refinancing agreements (also known as Spanish schemes of arrangement) under the 4th Additional Provision of the Spanish Insolvency Law. The new framework is mainly aimed at improving refinancing processes in Spain. It will introduce more flexibility and new tools to enhance the deleveraging of viable Spanish companies, and facilitate pre-petition restructuring deals while preventing debtors from filing for concurso which is generally value-destructive as in more than 90% of cases results in liquidation, with very low recovery for creditors.

Diego Alejos Rivera In the past two years, several congressmen have presented bills which seek to adequately regulate credit cards, as they are an ever-growing financial service in Guatemala. The bills presented seek to establish adequate rules for all parties involved: credit card issuers; credit card holders and affiliated establishments. The issuance of credit cards is still only regulated by article 757 of the Guatemalan Commercial Code. This article, which came into effect in 1971, is the only legal basis for a multimillion dollar business. Article 757 establishes the requirements each credit card should incorporate, but fails to provide any structure on which the parties involved may act upon. As such, the evolution of credit card usage and issance in Guatemala so far has been mostly unregulated. This has given way to a business regulated through customary practice, which in some cases has allowed for certain practices that have raised concern from multiple sectors. Although not common, such practices have created a need, as proposed by various congressmen, to adequately regulate the credit card business through the passing by Congress of a modern and technical bill, which will set clear and modern rules for all participants.

Prior to the enactment of Capital Markets Law 6362 and of December 30 2012 (the Law), it was not clear whether over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives were subject to the Capital Markets Board's (CMBs) regulations under the old legislation. This was because the old legislation did not provide clear rules in terms of OTC derivatives. According to the CMB's principle decisions issued under the old legislation, OTC derivatives were not subject to the CMB regulations. Accordingly, it was generally understood that OTC derivatives did not require an authorisation from the CMB under the old legislation. However, given the fact that Article 6/8 of Decree No. 32 requires such transactions to be carried out through CMB-licensed intermediary institutions operating in Turkey, or by intermediary institutions abroad, this gave rise to an uncertainty amongst banks in particular that were willing to execute OTC derivatives with their customers.

Recent progress in proposals to amend the European Insolvency Regulation could change how debt restructurings are carried out in the region

Anna Pinedo In mid-February 2014, the Federal Reserve approved the final enhanced prudential rule for foreign banking organisations (FBOs) under Section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The final rule applies enhanced standards to FBOs that have a US banking presence, with the most onerous standards being applied to FBOs that have combined US assets of $50 billion or more, or US non-branch assets of $50 billion or more. Admittedly, the rule does not require subsidiarisation of the US operations of foreign banks, and it eliminates the requirement that FBOs with US assets outside the branch and agency network of less than $50 billion establish an intermediate holding company (IHC) for its US subsidiaries. This IHC requirement would apply only to the largest FBOs. The IHC would be subject to regulatory requirements applicable to comparably sized US institutions, such as risk-based capital standards and leverage requirements and other prudential standards on a consolidated basis, including stress testing. Branches and agencies would operate outside the IHC requirement, be subject to liquidity requirements, and may be required to hold liquidity buffers outside the United States. In addition, certain institutions would be required to implement certain risk management policies and procedures, including, for example, forming a risk committee to oversee risk management for its combined US operations and employing a US chief risk officer to aggregate and monitor risks of the combined US operations. Other prudential standards will be addressed separately, such as the large exposure framework for banks and remediation frameworks. Although the final rule addressed a number of the concerns that were raised regarding the December 2012 proposal, it still raises quite a number of issues for complex banking entities with international operations, including significant US businesses. The final rule was adopted shortly after the Volcker Rule had been finalised. It is too early to predict how the activities of foreign banks may be affected by the cumulative impact of the Volcker Rule and this rule. But many foreign banks will certainly consider carefully each of their businesses, the regulatory capital costs associated with these, whether it is possible or desirable to restructure certain businesses so that activities are conducted solely outside of the United States, and the incremental regulatory and compliance costs and risk exposure associated with retaining these businesses in the United States. Regulators outside of the United States can be expected to adopt, and in certain cases already have indicated that they are considering adopting, similar measures in order to address the risks posed in their jurisdictions by the activities of banking entities organised outside of their jurisdiction. One can't help but wonder whether this will lead to the balkanisation or localisation of banking activities.