US regulatory issues—debt capital markets

This overview is a guide to the Banking & Finance content within the US regulatory issues—debt capital markets subtopic, with links to appropriate materials.

Introduction

The most relevant US provisions applicable to international debt securities offerings outside the US are:

  1. the exemptions granted under Rule 144A and Regulation S of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act), and

  2. US Treasury Regulations section 1.163 5(c)(2)(i)(C) and (D) (TEFRA C and D Rules)

The US regulatory bodies with most relevance to international securities issues (and to related derivatives transactions) are

  1. the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and

  2. the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)

For more information about US regulation of debt capital markets, see Practice Notes: USA—Financial services regulation essentials and US regulation of debt capital markets—one minute guide.

For more information about the SEC and the CFTC, see Practice Note: USA—The US regulators.

In addition to the SEC, which oversees federal securities laws, most US states have their own agency responsible for enforcing local securities

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Banking & Finance News

High Court clarifies position of sole directors under Model Articles and the interaction between UK sanctions regulations and in-court appointment of administrators (Re KRF Services (UK) Ltd and others)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This High Court case (which addresses two important issues in UK company law and sanctions regulations) will be of interest to insolvency practitioners, corporate and restructuring lawyers, sanctions lawyers, and businesses and individuals which are affected by sanctions. Firstly, it clarifies the position of sole directors under the Model Articles for private limited companies. The court ruled that a sole director can validly pass board resolutions and bind the company, regardless of whether they have always been the sole director or were previously part of a multi-member board. This interpretation resolves conflicts between Article 7(2) and Article 11(2) of the Model Articles, with the court favouring Article 7(2)'s provisions. Secondly, the case examines the interaction between UK sanctions regulations and the in-court appointment of administrators. The court determined that making an administration application and order does not breach asset-freezing sanctions, even when the company is designated or controlled by a sanctioned person. While an Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) license is typically required for administrators to act, the court retains discretion to make immediate appointments in urgent situations. Written by Joshua Ray and Duncan Henderson, partners at CANDEY, which acted for the First and Second Applicants on this matter.

View Banking & Finance by content type :

Popular documents