Posted on August 26, 2010 by Allix Magaziner

MSRB Scrutinizes PACs and the Potential for Circumvention of Rule G-37

Since 1994, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”) has sought to eliminate pay-to-play practices in the trillion dollar municipal securities market. As a result, the muni market has adopted and refined some of the toughest rules on political contributions. The rules promulgated by the MSRB have become a model for regulation of pay-to-play, as was shown with the SEC’s reliance on the MSRB rules in connection withits pay to play rule.

The MSRB continues to strengthen its influence over the activities of municipal bond brokers and dealers. Yesterday, the MSRB filed a proposed rule change with the SEC consisting of interpretive guidance in connection with Rule G-37 and the use of political action committees (“PACs”). The MSRB said it is reviewing the pay-to-play rules because recent consolidation in the financial industry has placed bond dealers under the control of banks, bank holding companies and other companies that have PACs.

The Proposed Interpretation provides guidance on factors that may result in a PAC being treated as a dealer-controlled PAC for purposes of Rule G-37. Rule G-37 provides that certain contributions to elected officials of municipal securities issuers made by dealers, MFPs associated with dealers, and PACs controlled by dealers and their MFPs (“dealer-controlled PACs”) may result in prohibitions on the dealers from engaging in municipal securities business with such issuers for a period of two years from the date of any triggering contributions. A dealer or MFP involved in the creation of a PAC would be viewed as controlling it. The dealer must also consider whether payments made by it or its MFPs to a PAC could be viewed as an indirect contribution.

The MSRB seeks industry comment through October 29 on whether to require dealers to disclose the names of affiliated PACs to the MSRB for public scrutiny. Such information would be posted on the MSRB web site.

 
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted on July 7, 2010 by Allix Magaziner

Federal Pay-to-Play Rule is Here to Stay

On Wednesday, June 29, the Securities and Exchange Commission unanimously approved the final text of a new rule under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 directed at preventing pay to play practices by investment advisers. In response to 250 comment letters, with divergent views on the issue, the Commission revised certain provisions of the rule it proposed last year but largely kept intact its initial proposal of regulations designed to ensure that investment advisors are prohibited from using campaign contributions to steer municipal investment business. Oddly enough, the Commission received no comment letters from the class of plan beneficiaries that it sought to protect with the proposed rule, although two public interest groups strongly supported the proposed revisions.

The new rule has three key elements:

1) It prohibits investment advisors from providing advisory services for compensation—either directly or through a pooled investment vehicle—for two years, if the advisor or certain of its executives or employees have made a political contribution to an elected official in a position to influence the selection of the advisor;

2) It prohibits advisory firms and certain executives and employees from soliciting or coordinating campaign contributions from others (a practice referred to as “bundling”) for any elected official in a position to influence the selection of the adviser. It also prohibits solicitation and coordination of payments to political parties in the state or locality where the adviser is seeking business; and

3) It prohibits investment advisors from paying third parties, such as placement agents, from soliciting a government client on behalf of the investment adviser, unless that third party is an SEC-registered investment advisor or broker/dealer subject to similar pay to play restrictions.

Finally, the rule contains a catch-all, “don’t let the lawyers find a loophole” provision, which prohibits acts done indirectly, which if done directly, would result in a violation of the rule (such as old favorites like funneling contributions through an investment adviser’s attorneys, spouses or affiliated companies).

JUSTIFIED BY PAST ABUSES

The Commission justified its approval of the new rule by referencing the perceived past success of MSRB rule G-37: “Our years of experience with MSRB rule G-37 suggests that the ‘strong medicine’ provided by that rule has both significantly curbed participation in pay to play and provides a reasonable cooling off period to mitigate the effect of a political contribution.” The Commission further rationalized the need for a tough federal rule based on its belief that neither “codes of ethics [nor] compliance procedures alone would be adequate to stop pay to play practices, particularly when the advisor or senior officers of the advisor are involved...” Under the rule, investment advisers remain obligated to adopt policies and procedures designed to prevent violation of the rule. The Commission affirmed “that an adviser’s implementation of a strong compliance program will reduce the likelihood, and therefore costs, of inadvertent violations.”

ANTICIPATING A FIRST AMENDMENT LEGAL CHALLENGE?

In the discussion portion of the rule, the Commission addressed comment letters and also tackled First Amendment concerns, explaining that the new rule is closely drawn to accomplish the goal of preventing quid pro quo arrangements while avoiding unnecessary burdens on the protected speech and association rights of investment advisers. The Commission pointed out “…the rule imposes no restrictions on activities such as making independent expenditures to express support for candidates, volunteering, making speeches, and other conduct.” The Commission distinguished the recent Citizens United Case, by stating: “Citizens United deals with certain independent expenditures (rather than contributions to candidates), which are not implicated by our rule.”

 

PLACEMENT AGENTS ARE NOT BANNED BUT SUBJECT TO FINRA REGULATION

The Commission, persuaded by comment letters, retreated from an outright ban on investment advisers hiring so-called placement agents. As outlined above, the regulations approved allow advisors to continue hiring placement agents provided those agents are registered with the SEC or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and subject to pay-to-play restrictions. The restriction on investment advisers using unregistered placement agents will not take effect for one year, in part to give FINRA, which has experience enforcing the MSRB rules, time to propose such rules. Andrew Donohue, who heads the SEC division of investment management, said that the FINRA regulations will be “at least as stringent” as his agency’s rules. Nevertheless, SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro warned in an open meeting Wednesday that if the SEC finds any signs of abuse of the new rule, it may still consider an outright ban. “If the Commission determines that third-party placement agents continue to inappropriately influence the selection of investment advisers for government clients even under our enhanced rule, I expect we would consider the imposition of a full ban,” said Schapiro.

SOME CONTRIBUTIONS PERMITTED - BUT HAVE AN ACCEPTED PAY TO PLAY COMPLIANCE PROGRAM IN PLACE

The Commission also attempted to temper the rule by providing certain exceptions to the prohibition on contributions. Contributions of $350 or less per election per candidate can be ignored “de minimus” if the contributor is entitled to vote for the recipient and contributions of $150 or less per election per candidate are permitted even if the contributor is not entitled to vote for the candidate. In addition, an adviser may apply to the Commission for an order exempting it from the two-year compensation ban. The SEC emphasized that a key factor in determining whether to exempt a firm in circumstances in which a violation occurs will be whether the firm has adopted and implemented an adequate pay to play compliance program.  As the Commission noted: “While we have designed the rule to reduce its impact, investment advisers are best positioned to protect these clients by developing and enforcing robust compliance programs designed to prevent contributions from triggering the two-year time out.”

The effective date of the new rule will be 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. As noted above, investment advisers may no longer use third parties to solicit government business except in compliance with the rule on one year after the Effective Date. Advisers may need to continue to provide advice for a reasonable period of time during which a client can seek to obtain advisory services from others. While some commentators urged the Commission to allow advisers to continue to receive fees during the two year time out for services provided pursuant to existing contracts, the Commission responded: “Allowing contracts acquired as a result of political contributions to continue uninterrupted would eviscerate the rule.”

The financial industry remains in the early stages of evaluating the impact this new federal pay to play rule will have on its activities. One thing we all know for certain, federal regulation of pay to play is here to stay.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted on March 23, 2010 by Allix Magaziner

SEC Warns Firms on Muni Pay-to-Play Rules

As we previously reported, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has given notice that it intends to take a very active role with respect to pay-to-play issues in the securities markets. On March 18, 2010, the SEC issued a report warning firms that municipal securities rules prohibiting pay-to-play apply to affiliated financial professionals, not just a firm’s employees. In the report the Commission made it clear that an executive who supervises the activities of a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer is not exempt from the MSRB’s pay-to-play rule just because he or she may be outside the firm’s corporate governance structure.

The pay-to-play rule at issue is MSRB Rule G-37, which generally prohibits firms from underwriting municipal bonds for an issuer for two years after a municipal finance professional (MFP) involved with that firm makes a campaign contribution to an elected official of that municipality. The Commission clarified that an executive may be deemed an MFP if he or she is not part of a broker-dealer, but oversees the broker-dealer from the vantage of a holding company.

The SEC report was issued in connection with an Enforcement Division inquiry into whether JP Morgan Securities Inc. (JPMSI) violated MSRB Rule G-37. JPMSI underwrote municipal bonds issued by the state of California within two years after the Vice Chairman of JPMSI’s parent bank holding company, JP Morgan Chase & Co., Inc. (JP Morgan Chase), who also led JP Morgan Chase’s investment banking business, gave a $1,000 contribution to the Treasurer of the State of California. As quoted from the report: “On September 10, 2002, the Vice Chairman forwarded an invitation for the California Treasurer’s New York fundraising event to JP Morgan Chase’s executive committee and to its Vice President for Government Relations with a handwritten note stating that the California Treasurer is an important client and soliciting their help in raising $10,000 for the event.” Although the Vice Chairman of JP Morgan Chase was not a director, officer or employee of JPMSI, the Commission found he nevertheless was an MFP associated with JPMSI because he functionally supervised JPMSI and served on the executive committee that oversaw JPMSI.

One commentator observed of the JPMSI investigation: “That is exactly the sort of behavior that the SEC wants to prohibit with MSRB Rule G-37 and its proposed pay to play rule.” The SEC merely said its report should serve as a “warning” about mixing political donations and state banking business.

The SEC report serves to remind the financial community that placing an executive who supervises the activities of a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer outside of the corporate governance structure of such broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer does not prevent the application of MSRB Rule G-37 to that individual’s conduct. “Firms cannot rely solely upon…organizational charts in determining whether a person is subject to those rules,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. The SEC will look to the activities, not merely the title, of an associated person in determining whether the person is subject to the pay-to-play restrictions. A key takeaway from this report is that pay-to-play remains a key focus of the SEC and the SEC is continuing to increase its involvement with respect to pay-to-play issues.
Tags: , , , , ,
Posted on December 15, 2009 by Pay-to-Play Blogger

MSRB Files Rule Change with SEC

As we highlighted in our November 11, 2009 blog post, in June the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”) announced plans to file a rule change with the SEC to revise Rule G-37. The MSRB created Rule G-37 in 1994 to prevent municipal securities dealers from being awarded business based on political contributions. The rule prohibits dealers from engaging in municipal securities business with issuers for two years if they make certain contributions to the political campaigns of officials of such issuers. The proposed revision to Rule G-37 would require municipal securities dealers, their muni professionals, and political action committees to disclose the political contributions they make to bond ballot election campaigns. On December 4, 2009, the MSRB filed with the SEC amendments to Rule G-37 and Rule G-8. Rule G-8 pertains to books and records to be made by brokers, dealers, and municipal securities dealers. Below please find a link to the text of the proposed rule changes. The SEC must approve the rules before they would become effective.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted on November 11, 2009 by Pay-to-Play Blogger

The SEC Has Been Busy With Pay-to-Play Compliance and Expects You To Be As Well

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has given notice that it intends to take a very active role with respect to pay-to-play issues in the securities markets and has put the regulated community on notice that it expects private corporate compliance training to be well under way as well.

As we have recently reported, the SEC has announced its intentions to take a significantly more aggressive regulatory posture with regard to the confluence of campaign contributions and public investing. Just last week, the House Financial Services Committee saw to it that the SEC has the tools for the job when it voted to double the SEC’s budget and awarded the Commission significantly greater regulatory powers.

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”) has also gotten into the act by recently announcing plans to file a rule change with the SEC to revise Rule G-37 to prohibit dealers from engaging in municipal securities business with issuers for two years if they make certain contributions to the political campaigns of officials of issuers. The proposed revision to Rule G-37 would require municipal securities dealers, their muni professionals, and political action committees to disclose the political contributions they make to bond ballot election campaigns.

Meanwhile, in a case which should get the attention of compliance officers everywhere, the SEC has recently notified Southwest Securities Inc. that it plans to recommend “administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings” against the company based, in part, on the company’s failure to conduct compliance training for its financial services staff. In that case, the SEC initiated the action as a result of the company’s alleged use of political donations to win municipal bank work. Southwest’s (now former) employee at the center of the allegations maintained that he only unintentionally exceeded the MSRB cap of $250 donation per election and that the SEC was “more concerned about Southwest Securities and their lack of compliance training of their bankers.” According to FINRA records, Southwest said the employee had failed to report political contributions as required by MSRB and the employee, in turn, faulted the company for failing to adequately inform him of the MSRB rules.

In another, very significant action, the SEC announced last week that banking powerhouse JPMorgan has entered into a multi-million dollar settlement with the agency over allegations that company employees made unlawful payments to friends of county officials. Under the settlement JPMorgan agreed to cancel interest-rate swap contracts between it and Jefferson County, Alabama, pay $75 million in civil fines and payments, and forfeit $647 million in claimed termination fees under the swap contracts.

The allegations giving rise to liabilities in excess of $722 million for JP Morgan ultimately arose from allegations concerning the actions of just two (now former) managing directors of JPMorgan. “The transactions were complex but the scheme was simple,” SEC Enforcement Director Robert Khuzami said in a statement. “Senior JP Morgan bankers made unlawful payments to win business and earn fees.”

These federal enforcement developments highlight the importance of instituting a proper compliance training program. Firms should review and revise policies, practices, and procedures to stay current on the most recent versions of the rules and regulations promulgated by the SEC and MSRB. The SEC has put the regulated community on notice that failure to implement proper compliance policies and train employees adequately can have significant negative consequences. By undertaking the effort to develop a comprehensive compliance program before problems arise, companies can better protect themselves from potential liability and its related, potentially catastrophic, costs and expenses. 

Tags: , , , ,