Photo of Jeffrey P. Taft

 

 

As discussed in a previous post, Section 4003 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or the CARES Act, authorizes $500 billion of liquidity to support businesses, states and municipalities “related to losses incurred as a result of coronavirus.”  It can be expected that a portion of the liquidity authorized by Section 4003

In a development with potential relevance for leveraged borrowers and, by extension, the CLO market, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or the CARES Act, was signed into law by President Trump on March 27, 2020. The CARES Act provides for liquidity support for both large and mid-size businesses that, unlike the Primary

On Monday, March 23, 2020, in response to the evolving economic crisis created by the COVID-19 epidemic, U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve authorized the establishment of two new facilities to support credit for large employers:

  • The Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility (PMCCF) will provide credit for new bond and loan issuance by directly purchasing eligible corporate bonds from investment grade issuers.
  • The Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility (SMCCF) will provide liquidity for outstanding corporate bonds and eligible exchange-traded funds (ETFs) by buying corporate bonds and ETFs in the secondary market.

The Federal Reserve will use authority granted by Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act to lend to the SPV to support the vehicle’s purchases. The programs were approved by the U.S. Treasury in initial amounts of $10 billion, with funds provided from Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF). SMCCF and PMCCF were not used during the 2008 financial crisis.


Continue Reading

The disruptions in economic conditions caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are reaching the commercial paper and longer term debt capital  markets.  The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve) has already set into motion three separate facilities as part of its effort to facilitate credit and help alleviate collateral volatility

Since its adoption in 2010, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (the “FDIC”) securitization safe harbor rule, 12 C.F.R. § 360.6 (the “Rule”), which relates to the treatment of financial assets transferred in connection with a securitization or participation transaction, has required that securitization documents require compliance with Regulation AB of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), 17 C.F.R. §§ 229.1100 et. seq. (“Regulation AB”) even in circumstances where Regulation AB by its terms would not apply to the issuance of obligations backed by such financial assets.   On January 30, 2020, the FDIC finalized and adopted changes (the “Adopted Change”) to certain provisions of the Rule to eliminate such requirement where Regulation AB would not otherwise apply to the related securitization transaction.  
Continue Reading

A United States Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court, Western District of New York, today issued his report and recommendation on the defendants’ motion to dismiss in Petersen et al. v. Chase Card Funding, LLC et al., No. 1:19-cv-00741 (W.D.N.Y. June 6, 2019).  The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of both the plaintiffs’ usury and unjust enrichment claims on preemption grounds, stating that “the preemption analysis boils down to this: does the application of New York’s usury statutes to these defendants ‘prevent’ or ‘significantly interfere’ with Chase USA’s power to sell or assign the receivables generated by its credit card accounts?”.  The Magistrate Judge answered this question in the affirmative, reasoning that “since applying New York’s usury statutes to defendants would prevent Chase USA’s ability to sell or assign the receivables from its credit card accounts, they are preempted.”

Continue Reading

In July, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) proposed a change (discussed here and here) to certain provisions of its securitization safe harbor rule (the “Rule”) to eliminate the requirement that the securitization documents for non-grandfathered bank-sponsored securitizations not otherwise subject to Regulation AB (i.e. non-public transactions) require compliance with the disclosure and periodic reporting requirements of Regulation AB.   If adopted in its proposed form, this would significantly ease the compliance burden associated with non-public bank-sponsored ABS issuances, potentially resulting in a greater volume of such transactions.

Continue Reading

In July, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) proposed a change (discussed here) to certain provisions of its securitization safe harbor rule (the “Rule”), which relates to the treatment of financial assets transferred in connection with a securitization or participation transaction.  The proposed change would eliminate the requirement under the Rule that disclosure documents for bank-sponsored securitizations not otherwise subject to Regulation AB’s disclosure requirements (i.e. non-public transactions) comply with Regulation AB.   This could significantly ease the compliance burden associated with non-public bank-sponsored ABS issuances, potentially resulting in a greater volume of such transactions.

Continue Reading

On July 16, 2019, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) proposed changes to certain provisions of its securitization safe harbor rule (the “Rule”), which relates to the treatment of financial assets transferred in connection with a securitization or participation transaction.  12 C.F.R. § 360.6. The proposed rule (“Proposed Change”) would eliminate the requirement that the securitization documents require compliance with Regulation AB of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), 17 C.F.R. §§ 229.1100 et. seq. (“Regulation AB”), in circumstances where Regulation AB by its terms would not apply to the issuance of obligations backed by such financial assets.  This proposed change would modify section 360.6(b)(2)(i)(A) of the Rule to read as follows:


Continue Reading

Minnesota Statute § 53C.02 prohibits a person from engaging in the business of a “sales finance company” within the State of Minnesota without a motor vehicle sales finance company license.  Section 53C.01, subd. 12 defines a sales finance company as:

“…a person engaged, in whole or in part, in the business of purchasing retail installment contracts in this state from one or more retail sellers…”


Continue Reading