Post on 23-Feb-2018
CMS Panel on CEE, Russia and CISIFLR Capital Markets Forum 2013
9 April 2013
Panellists
Jacqueline Steven
Director and Assistant
General Counsel
Alan MacAlpine
Vice President
BNY Mellon
Sarah Blomfield
Director, Global Financial
Advisory
CMS Panel on CEE, Russia and CIS | 9 April 2013 2
General Counsel
Bank of America Merrill
Lynch
BNY MellonAdvisory
Rothschild
Mathias Strasser
Partner
CMS Austria
Daniel Winterfeldt
Head of International Capital Markets
CMS London
CEE, Russia and CIS Market Update
− Russia
• Megafon IPO
• Procurement law
• Central security deposit law
CMS Panel on CEE, Russia and CIS | 9 April 2013 3
− Romania
• Collaboration Agreement between London Stock Exchange and Bucharest Stock Exchange – one year on
• Petrom transaction
− Austria
− Other
Current Structuring and Disclosure Issues With
Respect to Bank Regulatory Capital
Key topics
• Interplay of Basel III / CRD IV with current rules
CMS Panel on CEE, Russia and CIS | 9 April 2013 4
• Interplay of Basel III / CRD IV with current rules
• Scope of resolution tools, particularly the “bail-in tool”, under the EU’s
proposed framework for bank recovery and resolution
• State guarantees
Basel III / CRD IV
Overview
• CET 1 ratio of 4.5% (compared with 2% core Tier 1 ratio under Basel II)
• Overall Tier 1 ratio of 6% (compared with 4.5% under Basel II)
• New: (1) capital conservation buffer consisting of CET 1 capital of 2.5%; (2) countercyclical capital buffer consisting of CET 1 capital of
CMS Panel on CEE, Russia and CIS | 9 April 2013 5
2.5%; (2) countercyclical capital buffer consisting of CET 1 capital of between 0% and 2.5%; and (3) additional capital buffer for systemic risks
• AT 1 instruments must provide for mandatory write-down/conversion of into CET 1 if CET 1 ratio falls below a specified trigger (specified in CRD IV to be 5.125%)
• In addition, all AT 1 and Tier 2 are subject to mandatory write-down/conversion at the “point of non-viability”− This is part of Basel III – at the EU level, this isn’t addressed in CRR/CRD IV
but in the EU’s proposed Bank Recovery and Resolution Regime (see discussion below)
Basel III / CRD IV (cont’d)
Timetable
• CRR/CRD IV proposals published in July 2012
• Originally targeted effective date of 1 January 2013 was missed due to
intense political negotiations, mostly around non-Basel III issues (e.g.,
CMS Panel on CEE, Russia and CIS | 9 April 2013 6
intense political negotiations, mostly around non-Basel III issues (e.g.,
with respect to banker bonuses), and delays in the U.S. implementation
timetable
• March 2013: agreement reached between the EU Parliament, EU
Council and EU Commission
• EU Parliament to vote on CRR/CRD IV at its plenary session to be held
between 15 and 18 April 2013
• 1 January 2014 targeted as new effective date, with full implementation
on 1 January 2019
Basel III / CRD IV (cont’d)
Issues
• To achieve maximum regulatory capital effect, instruments issued in 2013 must comply with both: (1) current rules; and (2) because they will remain outstanding beyond 1 January 2014, CRD IV
• In addition, despite CRD IV’s “no gold plating” principle, Member States
CMS Panel on CEE, Russia and CIS | 9 April 2013 7
• In addition, despite CRD IV’s “no gold plating” principle, Member States have some leeway, which means issuers must consider Member States’ future approaches to the implementation of CRD IV in structuring the instruments
• Possible approaches
− Structure instruments to comply with stricter of current and future rules?
− Impose time limitations on those terms and conditions which become irrelevant after CRD IV implementation?
− Look to CRD IV for guidance on how to interpret currently applicable rules?
− In any event, need for close consultation with regulators
Bank Recovery and Resolution Regime
Overview
• The EU’s proposed Bank Recovery and Resolution Regime (BRR)
provides for, among other things, the resolution of banks if they are at
what Basel III refers to the “point of non-viability”
CMS Panel on CEE, Russia and CIS | 9 April 2013 8
• A bank becomes subject to resolution when
− It is failing because it
• risks losing its banking license
• is or soon will be insolvent
• is about to receive extraordinary public financial support (subject to
narrow exceptions)
− There is no reasonable prospect that an alternative regulatory or private
sector alternative would prevent the bank from failing
− Resolution of the bank is in the public interest
Bank Recovery and Resolution Regime (cont’d)
Resolution tools• The BRR provides for four “resolution tools”: (1) the sale of business tool;
(2) the bridge institution tool; (3) the asset separation tool; and (4) bail-in
tool− The bail-in tool empowers regulators to: (1) cancel a bank’s shares; (2) write
CMS Panel on CEE, Russia and CIS | 9 April 2013 9
− The bail-in tool empowers regulators to: (1) cancel a bank’s shares; (2) write
down the bank’s “eligible liabilities”; and (3) convert its eligible liabilities into
equity
• Affected creditors must not be treated worse than in a liquidation
scenario
• The first three tools are aimed at breaking up the bank, whereas the
fourth tool (the bail-in tool) is designed to put the bank back in a position
where it is able to continue to operate as a standalone institution
• Because the resolution tools are part of EU law, they take precedence
over any contrary provisions of national law or the terms and conditions
of the bonds to which they are applied
Bank Recovery and Resolution Regime (cont’d)
Eligible liabilities
• Eligible liabilities include all of a bank’s liabilities except
− Deposits up to the amount of the EU deposit insurance scheme
− Secured liabilities up to the value of the security
CMS Panel on CEE, Russia and CIS | 9 April 2013 10
− Secured liabilities up to the value of the security
− Client money
− Certain other liabilities (liabilities to employees, trade liabilities, and tax and
social security liabilities)
• Notwithstanding the above, regulators may exempt the following
instruments from the scope of the bail-in tool
− Covered bonds and hedging instruments “secured in a similar way”
− Derivatives where the exemption is necessary to allow the bank to continue to
function or to avoid systemic effects
Bank Recovery and Resolution Regime (cont’d)
Operation of the bail-in tool
• Regulators may apply the bail-in tool to eligible liabilities in whatever
amount is necessary to ensure the bank can continue as a standalone
institution
CMS Panel on CEE, Russia and CIS | 9 April 2013 11
• Bail-in order
− CET 1 capital (shares)
− AT 1 and Tier 2 capital
− Subordinated debt
− Instruments whose terms and conditions provide for a write-down or
conversion in a financial distress situation
− Other eligible liabilities, including senior debt
Bank Recovery and Resolution Regime (cont’d)
Timeline
CMS Panel on CEE, Russia and CIS | 9 April 2013 12
• Effective date of 31 December 2014 targeted, but bail-in tool may be
delayed until 31 December 2017
Bank Recovery and Resolution Regime (cont’d)
Issues
• Classic bond investors may be restricted in their ability to hold equity and
thus may be unable to invest in instruments with a write-down or
conversion feature
• Conversion is generally preferable to write-down, except if write-down is
CMS Panel on CEE, Russia and CIS | 9 April 2013 13
• Conversion is generally preferable to write-down, except if write-down is
only temporary
• How best to address the possibility of bail-in through disclosure, given
that many details are still unclear?
• Possible approaches
− Incorporate a write-down/conversion feature in the instruments’ terms and
conditions?
• If so, model the disclosure on the EU’s current proposal or use an
alternative wording?
− Merely describe the proposal in the regulatory section of the prospectus?
− Address in risk factors?
State Guarantees
Recent (December 2012) ESMA guidance on state guarantees for
bank instruments
• Confirmation that the Prospectus Directive/Regulation regime does not
apply to securities unconditionally and irrevocably guaranteed by a
Member State
CMS Panel on CEE, Russia and CIS | 9 April 2013 14
Member State
• However, where either the securities are not unconditionally and
irrevocably guaranteed or the bank wants to passport the offering to
another Member State, the Prospectus Directive/Regulation must be
complied with in full – i.e., generally, the prospectus must contain similar
disclosure about the guarantor as about the issuer
• ESMA notes that national regulators may authorize the omission of
information under Article 8 of the Prospectus Directive (disclosure would
be contrary to public interest, detrimental to issuer and not material or of
minor importance only for a specific offer)
Corporate Governance in CEE
Why is Corporate Governance important?
− Discourages fraud and excessive executive risk taking
CMS Panel on CEE, Russia and CIS | 9 April 2013 15
− Discourages fraud and excessive executive risk taking
− Builds investor confidence in companies and financial markets
− Helps to underpin long-term company performance
Overview of Corporate Governance
Leadership
Effectiveness
Whole board
responsible for
Is board
composition
appropriate?
Induction,
training,
CMS Panel on CEE, Russia and CIS | 9 April 2013 16
Corporate Governance
Leadership
Relationships
with
shareholdersRemuneration
Accountabilityresponsible for
long term
success
Effective
dialogue with
investors
Transparency,
performance
Setting risk
appetite,
internal
monitoring,
strategic fit
training,
evaluation and
re-election
Corporate Governance in CEE
− Pre-financial crisis, rapid growth across CEE driven by privatisation, deregulation and EU membership
• considerations of good corporate governance took a back seat in absence of co-ordinated pressure from outside investors and lack of government/regulatory focus on this area
CMS Panel on CEE, Russia and CIS | 9 April 2013 17
government/regulatory focus on this area
− Corporate Governance initiatives lag behind rest of EU because of relatively short history of CEE countries as market economies and absence of investor pressure groups (such as UK’s ABI) in the region
Balance between free market versus burden of compliance/
stakeholder protection versus abuse of corporate power
Key Corporate Governance themes in CEE
− State-driven rather than investor-group led
• Regulation tends to address wider constituency of interests (e.g. employee rights)
− Crackdown on performance-related pay “fat cats” less relevant as banks have not followed excessive risk-taking
CMS Panel on CEE, Russia and CIS | 9 April 2013 18
as banks have not followed excessive risk-taking practices/bonus culture of U.S./U.K. markets
− Existence of independent board members less prevalent than rest of EU
− Extra-territorial effect of FCPA/UK Bribery Act and increased global and political will to prosecute bribery and corruption
Focus on improving monitoring and efficiency of “comply or
explain” principles and increased shareholder transparency
Holding Company and Listing Jurisdictions
Holding companies• Corporate Governance and related investor expectations
• Tax considerations
− Typical Choices:• Cyprus, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, United Kingdom
CMS Panel on CEE, Russia and CIS | 9 April 2013 19
Listing venues• Peer group listings
• Market liquidity
• Time and expense
• Cyprus, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, United Kingdom
− Typical Choices:• Warsaw Stock Exchange, Frankfurt Stock Exchange, London Stock
Exchange, Irish Stock Exchange, Vienna Stock Exchange
Settlement and Corporate Actions Issues
− DTC Trends
− De-materialisation of DTC
CMS Panel on CEE, Russia and CIS | 9 April 2013 20
− T2S securities
− 801 and 802 exemptions
− Rule changes for Russian securities offerings
− Euroclear Market Claims
− Ukraine: transactions tax and depository receipts
Impact of Recent U.S. Securities Laws
Developments
− JOBS Act
− Foreign Private Issuers
CMS Panel on CEE, Russia and CIS | 9 April 2013 21
− FCPA Developments
− Conflict Mineral Rules and Guidance
− Insider Trading
CMS International Capital Markets Group
− Our International Capital Markets Group comprises experts across 30 jurisdictions, with a total of 54 offices in Western and Central Europe and beyond.
− We regularly advise investment banks, financial institutions, corporate issuers and government bodies on equity fundraising, debt capital markets and structured products in respect of both domestic and international
CMS Panel on CEE, Russia and CIS | 9 April 2013 22
and structured products in respect of both domestic and international transactions.
− We deliver top-quality service and value. Our team regularly works and trains together across our practice and sector groups. By combining our international capital markets and US securities expertise with the national market understanding of our locally based experts, we are able to work as a cohesive and efficient team.
− CMS has a substantial and active capital markets offering, handling transactions ranging from IPOs, secondary offerings and private placements to mergers and acquisitions of quoted companies. Our broad client base and sector experience ensure our advice is always delivered in the appropriate commercial context.
Contact details
Daniel is a US securities partner in the international corporate practice of the London office of CMS Cameron McKenna LLP andhas over 14 years-experience practising in the London and New York markets. Daniel has significant experience in representing US, UK, European and Asian investment banks and corporate issuers on a wide range of international securities
Daniel Winterfeldt
Head of International Capital Markets
T: +44 20 7367 2700
E: daniel.winterfeldt@cms-cmck.com
CMS Panel on CEE, Russia and CIS | 9 April 2013 23
representing US, UK, European and Asian investment banks and corporate issuers on a wide range of international securities transactions, including: Rule 144A and Regulation S equity and debt offerings; Regulation S, Category 3 transactions for US companies listing in the United Kingdom; rights offerings; exchange offers; equity-linked securities offerings; initial public offerings and secondary and follow-on offerings of equity securities, including SEC-registered transactions. Daniel also advises the London Stock Exchange on a range of US securities issues. Daniel was named in Chambers and Partners Directory for Equity Capital Markets and was recognised by The Lawyer as one of the Hot 100 legal practitioners for 2008.
Daniel is the founder and Co-Chair of the Forum for US Securities Lawyers in London (the “Forum”), a trade association representing over 1,500 US-qualified lawyers practising at a number of law firms and financial institutions in the London capital markets, as well as market participants including securities exchanges, settlement systems and registrars. Founded in 2006, the Forum is an independent, self-funded organisation dedicated to addressing issues of, application of and compliance with, US securities laws in the London and international capital markets. The Forum’s recent projects have included the submission of comment letters to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on its proposed changes on its proposed amendments to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Exchange Act, on its proposed amendments to the cross-border exemptions for business combination transactions and on its proposals on exemptions for foreign broker-dealers), as well as publishing a set ofprocedures for the electronic settlement of Regulation S, Category 3 shares during the one-year period following the Distribution Compliance Period (the “Year Two Project”). The Forum has also developed a set of procedures for the application of the 3(c)(7) exemption under the Investment Company Act to equity securities offerings on the London Stock Exchange.
At the 2012 FT Legal Awards, Daniel Winterfeldt was recognised with the only individual award, being named the Legal Innovator of the Year for his work building the capital markets practice as well as founding and co-chairing both the Forum for US Securities Lawyers in London and the InterLaw Diversity Forum. In addition, earlier this year Daniel was recognised for his US securities practice as well as his work with the Forum for US Securities Lawyers in London and the InterLaw Diversity Forum by being admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Contact details
Mathias Strasser
Partner
T: +43 1 40443 94550
E: mathias.strasser@cms-rrh.com
CMS Panel on CEE, Russia and CIS | 9 April 2013 24
Mathias Strasser is a Partner at CMS Reich-Rohrwig Hainz (in Vienna, Austria), where he focuses on the areas of mergers & acquisitions, private equity and capital markets.
He earned his law degrees from the University of Vienna and Harvard Law School. He then worked for a leading US law firm in New York, London and Frankfurt as European Counsel, advising on numerous significant international transactions.
Mathias is admitted to practice law in Austria, England and New York.
Facts and Figures
− 54 offices
− 48 cities
− 29 countries
Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
CMS Panel on CEE, Russia and CIS | 9 April 2013 25
CMS Adonnino Ascoli & Cavasola Scamoni (Rome); CMS Albiñana & Suárez de Lezo (Madrid); CMS Bureau
Francis Lefebvre (Paris); CMS Cameron McKenna (London); CMS DeBacker (Brussels); CMS Derks Star
Busmann (Amsterdam); CMS von Erlach Henrici (Zurich); CMS Hasche Sigle (Berlin); CMS Reich-Rohrwig
Hainz (Vienna) and CMS Rui Pena & Arnaut (Lisbon). Head office of each firm in brackets.
Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine and United Kingdom
Outside Europe
Algeria, Brazil, China, Morocco and United Arab Emirates
− > 750 partners
− > 2,800 fee earners
− > 5,000 total staff
− Combined annual turnover: EUR 808 million (2011)
----------------------------------------------
www.cmslegal.com