(800) 341-2684

Call Toll Free

Contact us

Online Inquiries 24/7

Laura Anthony Esq

MAKE VALUED ALLIANCES

Broker-Dealer

Supreme Court Strikes Down Chevron Deference

In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a decades old judicial precedent that provided guidance as to when judges could defer to a federal agencies’ interpretation of a law.  The original precedent derived from the 1984 case Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which gave deference to federal agencies’ interpretations of a law over the judicial system.  Although Chevron applied to all federal agencies, in light of a slew of recent litigation by and against the SEC related to rule making and interpretations (for example related to who is a “dealer” – see HERE) I decided to cover it in a blog.

Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council

Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (“Chevron”) held that a government agency must conform to any clear legislative statements when interpreting and applying a law, but courts will give the agency deference in ambiguous situations if its interpretation is reasonable.  In other words, if

SEC Adopts Changes To The Definition Of A “Dealer”

Two years after proposing rule changes (see HERE) the SEC has adopted final new rules amending the definition of a “dealer” under the Exchange Act.  Although the rule change comes after years of a continuous stream of litigation against small-cap and penny stock convertible debt lenders, the new rules specifically fail to provide regulatory clarity to this sector of the marketplace.

The amendments are intended to require certain proprietary or principal traders and liquidity providers to register as either a dealer or government securities dealer as applicable.  The rules amend Exchange Act Rules 5a5-4 and 3a44-2 to enhance the definition of “as part of a regular business” in Sections 3(a)(5) and 3(a)(44) of the Exchange Act.  The enhancement, however, is as to large proprietary traders and government securities dealers, leaving small cap traders to continue with rule making through judicial precedence.

Background

Although the amended rules are not limited to participants in the U.S. Treasury markets,

FINRA Approves OTC Markets To Trade Digital Securities

As the SEC continues its onslaught against the crypto industry, including the filing of high-profile actions against Binance, which operates the largest crypto asset trading platform in the world, and Coinbase, a multi-billion-dollar crypto trading platform, FINRA has quietly approved OTC Markets to provide trading services for digital asset securities.

OTC Markets announced the approval in early May but don’t expect any activity in the near future.  Concurrent with announcing the approval, OTC Markets CEO, R. Cromwell Coulson, stated:

“We also recently received FINRA approval to permit digital asset securities to be traded by broker-dealers on OTC Link ATS. This approval furthers our mission of operating regulated markets for broker-dealers and issuers of securities. While it will be some time until the regulatory framework and infrastructure develop, we believe our markets are well-positioned to be part of new trading, data, and disclosure solutions for these securities.”

OTC Markets is clearly putting itself in a position to

SEC To Shorten Settlement Cycle

On February 15, 2023, the SEC adopted final rules shortening the standard settlement cycle from two business days (T+2) to one business day (T+1).  A shorter settlement cycle will reduce the credit, market and liquidity risks in securities transactions.  The SEC previously shorted the standard cycle from three days (T+3) to T+2 in 2017 (see HERE) and at that time, and in speeches and rule making agendas since then, has consistently indicated efforts to move to T+1.

In addition to shortening the standard settlement cycle, the new rules also shorten the standard settlement cycle for firm commitment offerings priced after 4:30 p.m. from four business days (T+4) to T+2.   However, the rules do allow for underwriters and issuers to agree to an alternative settlement date, which is helpful in completing the numerous closing documents and processing steps that occur between the pricing and closing of deals.

The final rules will improve the processing of institutional trades by requiring

SEC Proposes Rules Related To Securities Lending Market

In November 2021, the SEC proposed new Exchange Act Rule 10c-1, which would require lenders of securities to provide the material terms of securities lending transactions to a registered national securities association (RNSA), such as FINRA.  FINRA would then make the information publicly available.  The proposed rules are part of an initiative by the SEC and FINRA to increase public access to information on short positions and borrowing related to short positions.

Although the rule would definitely provide an improved level of transparency to market participants regarding short positions, it will also add a significant compliance burden to broker dealers and clearing agencies.

Consistent with recent SEC proposals, the comment period was only open for 30 days following publication in the federal registrar and as such comments closed January 7, 2022.

Background

Securities lending is the market practice by which securities are transferred temporarily from one party, a securities lender, to another, a securities borrower, for a fee.  Most

SEC Denies Expert Market – For Now

As the compliance date for the new 15c2-11 rules looms near, on August 2, 2021, in a very short statement, the SEC shot down any near-term hope for an OTC Markets operated “expert market.”  The SEC short statement indicated that a review of the proposed exemptive order that would allow the expert market is not on its agenda in the short term.  The SEC continued that “[A]ccordingly, on September 28, 2021, the compliance date for the amendments to Rule 15c2-11, we expect that broker-dealers will no longer be able to publish proprietary quotations for the securities of any issuer for which there is no current and publicly available information, unless an existing exception to Rule 15c2-11 applies.”

The statement acts as a great segue for a review as to just what those exceptions may be.  In addition, this blog will discuss the OTC Markets proposed expert market and finish with a broader refresher on the new 211 rules including the

Digital Asset Securities – Progress For Broker Dealers

In December 2020, the SEC issued a statement and request for comment regarding the custody of digital asset securities by broker-dealers.  The Statement and request for comment sets forth suggestions for complying with the Customer Protection Rule and lists certain requirements that a broker-dealer could comply with to ensure that it would not be subject to an enforcement proceeding for violation of the Customer Protection Rule.

Two months later, in February 2021, the SEC Division of Examinations issued a risk alert focused on digital asset securities.  These statements were the first hitting head on the topic of digital asset custody since an August 2019 joint statement by the SEC and FINRA on the custody of digital assets (see HERE) and October 2019 joint statement by the SEC, FinCEN and the CFTC (see HERE).

The SEC and FINRA have been discussing issues of custody related to tokens and digital assets for years.  For example, issues surrounding the custody

Finders – Part 3

Following the SEC’s proposed conditional exemption for finders (see HERE), I’ve been writing a series of blogs on the topic of finders.  New York recently proposed, then failed to adopt a new finder’s regulatory regime.  California and Texas remain the only two states with such allowing finders for intra-state offerings.   Also, a question that has arisen several times recently is whether an unregistered person can assist a U.S. company in capital raising transactions outside the U.S. under Regulation S, which I addressed in the second blog in this series (see HERE).  This blog will discuss the New York, California and Texas rules.

New York

On December 1, 2020, the state of New York adopted an overhaul to some of its securities laws including modernizing registration and filing requirements with the Investor Protection Bureau and the Office of the Attorney General.  Although the proposed rules would have adopted a new definition of “finder” and required licensing and examinations

SEC Final Rule Changes For Exempt Offerings – Part 1

On November 2, 2020, the SEC adopted final rule changes to harmonize, simplify and improve the exempt offering framework.  The SEC had originally issued a concept release and request for public comment on the subject in June 2019 (see HERE).  For my five-part blog series on the proposed rules, see HERE,  HERE, HERE, HERE  and HERE.  The new rules go into effect on March 14, 2021.

The 388-page rule release provides a comprehensive overhaul to the exempt offering and integration rules worthy of in-depth discussion.  As such, like the proposed rules, I will break it down over a series of blogs, with this first blog focusing on integration.

Current Exemption Framework

As I’ve written about many times, the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) requires that every offer and sale of securities either be registered with the SEC or exempt from registration.  The purpose of registration is to provide investors with full and fair disclosure

Categories

Contact Author

Laura Anthony Esq

Have a Question for Laura Anthony?