Canadian Structured Finance Law : Canadian Structured Finance Law: Securitization/OTC Derivatives Blog by Stikeman Elliot Lawyers & Attorneys

The Canadian Securities Administrators released a consultation paper last week addressing the regulation of OTC derivatives markets. Specifically, the paper makes various recommendations regarding surveillance and monitoring, market conduct and enforcement that are intended to strengthen financial markets and manage specific risks related to OTC derivatives. The paper is one of a series of eight papers building on the high-level proposals found in Consultation Paper 91-401 released in November 2010.

Surveillance and Monitoring

Citing the limited market information currently available to regulators relating to the trading of OTC derivatives, the paper recommends that further study and research be undertaken on the development of a comprehensive surveillance system for monitoring OTC derivatives markets to supplement current market surveillance. According to the report, a comprehensive approach to surveillance and monitoring would include enabling regulator access to trading data and monitoring participant positions.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

Michael Rumball  -

Last week, I highlighted regulatory overkill in the U.S. where, together, Congress and the SEC have proposed scorched earth solutions to the issues raised by the financial crisis. Whereas the CSA commendably declined to imitate most of the more extreme U.S. initiatives, they seem to have gone off the rails somewhat in their approach to the exempt market. As was the case south of the border, the Canadian regulators have, in approaching a problem which could have been adequately addressed by a limited and targeted approach, instead mounted a multi-pronged attack. First, they proposed the removal of the existing prospectus exemptions for distributions of securitized products and the introduction of a new securitized product exemption which, although similar to the accredited investor exemption, is intended to exclude retail investors. Second, they would require that issuers deliver an information memorandum to investors which discloses “sufficient information about the securitized product and securitized product transaction to enable a prospectus purchaser to make an informed investment decision”. Finally, they proposed a certification requirement as to no misrepresentation for issuers and underwriters.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

Sterling H. Dietze -

It is currently a challenge in Canada for Canadian entities in the derivatives, securities lending and repurchase space to offer a first priority security interest on cash to their counterparties. The Quebec government recently introduced an amendment to the Derivatives Act (Quebec) (the QDA) that, if passed as tabled, will restore confidence in the use of absolute transfer of cash and the related use of contractual set-off or compensation when dealing with cash as credit support for these types of transactions from Quebec counterparties. The amendments also specifically address cash collateral provided to a derivatives clearing agency by its members. We give some background to this issue and then outline the application of the proposed rule.

Background

Cash as credit support for obligations of counterparties to derivatives, securities lending and repurchase transactions has become more and more prevalent over the past numbers of years. ISDA has reported that 80% of collateral for derivatives contracts is in the form of cash. The use of cash collateral will increase in importance as more and more derivatives transactions are cleared by central counterparties.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

 Michael Rumball -

Emerging from the vast literature generated by the recent financial crisis are two competing narratives attempting to identify the root cause of the crisis. One, emanating from the more conservative side of the political spectrum, emphasizes the role played by governmental policies encouraging and subsidizing the expansion of home ownership among middle and low income households. The other side focuses on the extent to which a free market philosophy came to dominate governmental thinking and led to deregulation and hence catastrophe. Although it will be crucial, from a policy perspective, to eventually ascertain just exactly what were the main drivers of the crisis, due to entrenched partisan and dogmatic differences, it may not be possible to do so until we have achieved some historical perspective. However, what does appear to be common to both narratives is that governmental actions, or, perhaps more precisely, their unintended consequences, were in some way heavily implicated.

Apart from anything else, what the foregoing might suggest is that governments should be cautious about its interventions in the market place. Rather than grand, sweeping reforms, the long-term effects of which governments have notoriously unable to accurately anticipate, what may be  called for are more surgical, incremental reforms, which, if necessary, can be revisited and adjusted from time to time as their effects become manifest.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

P. Jason Kroft and Javier Gonzalez -

On November 9, 2011, a group of Democrat and Republican U.S. senators introduced legislation to create a regulatory framework for an American covered bond market. Specifically, the United States Covered Bond Act sets out the legal context for such a market and clarifies investors’ rights in the event of an issuer’s default.

By way of background, covered bonds are debt products issued by financial institutions and backed by a cover pool of assets, such as high-quality mortgages and public sector loans. Although they operate similarly to asset-backed securities, there is an important difference: if the issuer defaults the investor has preferential claim to the loans. Covered bonds are therefore seen as a safe source of funding for financial institutions.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On November 10, 2011, the Quebec Minister for Finance introduced an amendment to Bill 7 presently before the Committee on Public Finance of the National Assembly which contemplates an amendment to the Derivatives Act (Quebec). The intent of the proposed rule is to give more clarity and certainty to the effectiveness of a contractual right of set-off in respect of cash given as credit support in connection with agreements including derivatives, securities lending and repurchase agreements (as well as under related master agreements) and dealings between a derivatives clear agency and its members. A more in-depth note will follow next week.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

Sean Vanderpol and Alex Colangelo -

On September 28, the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) released its decision in the case against Coventree Inc. Coventree, an investment bank specializing in structured finance, was the largest third-party sponsor of asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP) in Canada. OSC staff had alleged, among other things, that Coventree failed to disclose material facts in its prospectus of November 2006, and also failed to disclose material changes regarding subsequent developments in the subprime market.

Ultimately, the OSC found that while Coventree did not breach disclosure requirements with respect to its prospectus, the company did fail to disclose material changes to its business that occurred in early 2007 and during the August 2007 disruption in the ABCP market. Particular points of interest in the decision include the OSC’s discussion of materiality, the use of prospectus disclosure as a baseline for assessing the materiality of future events and the distinction made between a change in the price of a security and a change in the value of a security.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

 Michael Rumball -

As reported earlier, on July 26, 2011 the SEC issued for comment a proposing release entitled “Re-Proposal of Shelf Eligibility for Asset-Backed Securities and Other Additional Requests” (the Re-Proposal). The Re-Proposal put forward modifications to the proposals originally issued in April 2010 relating to those Shelf Eligibility Conditions dealing with certification and asset repurchases. The comment period for these re-proposals expired on October 4. 

As expected, the most contentious element of the Re-Proposal was that portion of the certification dealing with expected cash flow from the securitized assets. It may be recalled that the original proposal required the chief executive officer of the issuer to certify that “the securitized assets backing the issue have characteristics that provide a reasonable basis to believe that they will produce, taking into account internal credit enhancements, cash flows at times and in amounts necessary to service any payments of the securities as described in the prospectus”. While the Re-Proposal purports to address some of the criticisms levelled against the original proposal, it continues to address, in somewhat modified form, the ultimate performance of the offered securities. As argued earlier in this space, commentators continue to insist that “certification should only address the disclosure included in the prospectus, rather than a belief as to the future cash flows from the pool assets or the quality of the ABS”.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print
• Share Link