In November 1998, the MSRB published an interpretation about the use of electronic media to deliver and receive information by brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers under Board rules (the “1998 interpretation”).  Since that time, the MSRB has been granted rulemaking authority over municipal advisors, and in the exercise of that authority, the MSRB has been developing a comprehensive regulatory framework for municipal advisors.

 

The Board believes that the use of electronic media to deliver and receive information under Board rules also is important for municipal advisors, and extends the guidance provided in the 1998 interpretation, as relevant, to municipal advisors.  See Rule G-32 Interpretation – Notice Regarding Electronic Delivery and Receipt of Information by Brokers, Dealers and Municipal Securities Dealers (November 20, 1998).

 

The MSRB is providing interpretive guidance to address the applicability of Rule G-42, which establishes core standards of conduct for municipal advisors [1] that engage in municipal advisory activities,[2] other than municipal advisory solicitation activities (for purposes of this guidance and Rule G-42, “municipal advisors”), in the area of conduit financing. Using various scenarios, the guidance discusses a municipal advisor’s relationship(s) with, and duties and obligations owed to, a municipal entity issuer, an obligated person that is a conduit borrower,[3] or both, in connection with the issuance of municipal securities for the conduit borrower. For purposes of this guidance, the MSRB assumes that the conduit borrower is not a municipal entity, as defined in Section 15B(e)(8) of the Exchange Act, except in the final section of the guidance entitled, “When a Conduit Borrower is also a Municipal Entity.”

 

A few broad principles should be noted. First, institutions that are often conduit borrowers, such as large universities, may choose to issue debt securities directly without the involvement of a municipal entity issuer. The exemption from registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”)[4] may be based on Section 3(a)(4)[5] or Regulation D under the Securities Act,[6] rather than on Section 3(a)(2).[7] In such cases, there may be no municipal security, and Rule G-42 would not apply. In cases where there is a private placement “tail” (i.e., a non-municipal security) side-by-side with the issuance of a tax-exempt municipal security, the advice and the activities a municipal advisor engages in regarding the tax-exempt security, including any conduct or communication to fulfill the municipal advisor’s duties and obligations under Rule G-42, may have an impact or consequences for the municipal advisor with respect to its negotiations or other activities related to the non-municipal security (e.g., the disclosure to the client of a material conflict of interest as required under Rule G-42(b)).

 

Second, the scenarios described below may involve advice given to both the municipal entity issuer and the conduit borrower. Rule G-42 provides that a fiduciary duty is owed only to a municipal entity, and a duty of care is owed to both the municipal entity and the conduit borrower. If an issue arises as to an activity that involves only the duty of care, such as inquiry as to the facts that provide the basis for advice provided to the client, the duty owed may be the same to both the municipal entity and the conduit borrower. Other issues, however, may involve the duty of loyalty owed the municipal entity as part of the municipal advisor’s fiduciary duty, and thus the municipal advisor’s obligation to the issuer may be higher (or different) than the duty owed the conduit borrower.

 

Initially, the MSRB provides interpretive guidance regarding the applicability of Rule G-42 when an issuer hires a municipal advisor to provide advice directly to a conduit borrower (“First Scenario”). The MSRB then considers whether an issuer may retain a municipal advisor (either for a specific transaction, or on a long-term basis), and then provide advice that the issuer obtains from the municipal advisor, in connection with a specific issuance of municipal securities, indirectly through the issuer, to the conduit borrower in connection with the issuance (“Second Scenario”). In a third scenario, the MSRB considers whether a conduit borrower may retain a municipal advisor that, as a practical matter, will also provide advice to an issuer on which the issuer will rely, in cases where the issuer chooses not to retain a separate municipal advisor, and, in such circumstances, whether the municipal advisor must provide the issuer the disclosures set forth in Rule G-42 (“Third Scenario”). The MSRB also provides interpretive guidance regarding the application of Rule G-42 to an issuer and a conduit borrower when the issuer and the conduit borrower retain the same municipal advisor to provide advice regarding an issuance (“Fourth Scenario”). Finally, in a fifth scenario (“Fifth Scenario”), the MSRB interprets the applicability of Rule G-42 to a scenario involving two natural persons, A and B, who are employees or otherwise associated persons of a registered municipal advisor, where A is retained by the issuer to provide municipal advisory services to the issuer, and B is retained by the conduit borrower to provide municipal advisory services to the conduit borrower.

 

Section 1: First Scenario

 

In the First Scenario, the MSRB considers the applicability of Rule G-42, when, in connection with a specific issuance of municipal securities, an issuer hires a municipal advisor to provide advice directly to a conduit borrower. (For purposes of the First Scenario, the MSRB assumes that the municipal advisor does not provide municipal advisory services to the issuer. Instead, consistent with the issuer’s intent, the municipal advisor is retained for, and in fact, provides municipal advisory services solely to or on behalf of the conduit borrower.)

 

Under Rule G-42, a municipal advisor may provide municipal advisory services directly to a conduit borrower, in connection with an issuance of municipal securities by an issuer, if the municipal advisor is retained and compensated by the issuer. Whether a person (in this case, the municipal advisor retained by the issuer) is a municipal advisor to the issuer, another person (in this case, the conduit borrower), or both and therefore is subject to Rule G-42, is activity-based and turns on whether the person is providing advice or otherwise engaging in municipal advisory activities for or on behalf of the recipient. Although the First Scenario focuses on the payment of compensation by the issuer, the existence or non-existence of compensation is not a factor in determining whether the municipal advisor is a municipal advisor to the issuer or to the conduit borrower.[8] In addition, the fact that, as to the conduit borrower, the municipal advisor is paid compensation by a third party is also not a factor in determining if the municipal advisor is a municipal advisor to the conduit borrower.

 

In the First Scenario, the municipal advisor engages in municipal advisory activities solely for or on behalf of the conduit borrower, and is subject to the requirements of Rule G-42. The municipal advisor is required to comply with all the provisions of Rule G-42 as to the conduit borrower,[9] and the rule applies in all respects to the municipal advisor in its relationship with the conduit borrower, except provisions applicable solely to a municipal entity client.

 

The threshold question regarding the application of Rule G-42 to the municipal advisor in its relationship to the issuer is whether the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) would interpret the facts and circumstances of the First Scenario – where the issuer does not receive the municipal advisory services, and the services are in fact provided solely to and on behalf of the conduit borrower – as the municipal advisor engaging (as a legal matter) in municipal advisory activities also to or on behalf of the issuer.

 

The Exchange Act definition of municipal advisor includes a person that “[p]rovides advice[10] to or on behalf of [emphasis added] a municipal entity or obligated person with respect to municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal securities, including advice with respect to the structure, timing, terms, and other similar matters concerning such financial products or issues.”[11] The SEC has stated that the determination of “whether a person provides advice to or on behalf of a municipal entity or an obligated person regarding municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal securities depends on all the relevant facts and circumstances.”[12] The meaning of the phrase “on behalf of” in the context of the First Scenario and more broadly, whether a person is engaged in municipal advisory activities for or on behalf of another person and is a municipal advisor to such person are interpretive issues that are solely within the jurisdiction of the SEC. Requests for interpretation regarding such issues should be directed to the SEC’s Office of Municipal Securities.

 

If, in the First Scenario, the activities of the municipal advisor with the issuer are not interpreted by the SEC to mean that the municipal advisor is also a municipal advisor to the issuer, then the municipal advisor would not be required to comply with Rule G-42 with respect to the issuer. For example, the municipal advisor would not be required by Rule G-42 to provide disclosures of conflicts of interest, if any existed, to the issuer.

 

Although compensation is not a factor in determining whether a person is a municipal advisor to a particular party (except as to a solicitor municipal advisor), the MSRB believes that, in the First Scenario, the compensation paid by the issuer to the municipal advisor for services for a conduit borrower may present a material conflict of interest, requiring the municipal advisor to make full and fair disclosure of such conflict in writing to the conduit borrower. Rule G-42 requires a municipal advisor to disclose all material conflicts of interest under Rule G-42(b)(i). (Such requirements are also incorporated in Rule G-42(c)). The requirement is not limited to actual material conflicts of interest. As provided in Rule G-42(b)(i)(F), for example, the municipal advisor must disclose potential material conflicts of interest that the municipal advisor becomes aware of after reasonable inquiry, that could reasonably be anticipated to impair the municipal advisor’s ability to provide advice to or on behalf of the client in accordance with the applicable standards of conduct under the Rule – the duty of care, and if applicable, the duty of loyalty. In this scenario, the client is the conduit borrower and the municipal advisor owes its client the duty of care as provided in Rule G‑42(a)(i) and SM .01.[13] Even if the compensation paid by the issuer to the municipal advisor is not viewed as an actual material conflict of interest by the municipal advisor, the municipal advisor must carefully consider if such payments give rise to a potential material conflict of interest. In the MSRB’s view, the payments from the issuer to the municipal advisor may create a relationship between the municipal advisor and the issuer, that even if not a municipal advisor-client relationship, generally would give rise to a potential material conflict of interest that could reasonably be anticipated to impair the municipal advisor’s ability to provide advice to or on behalf of the conduit borrower in accordance with the standards of Rule G-42(a). Before making any such disclosures to the conduit borrower, the municipal advisor should consider the guidance set forth in SM .05. Under SM .05, when a municipal advisor is required to make disclosures of material conflicts of interest, including those required under Rule G-42(b)(i)(F), the municipal advisor’s disclosures must be sufficiently detailed to inform the conduit borrower of the nature, implications and potential consequences of each conflict, and must also include an explanation of how the municipal advisor addresses or intends to manage or mitigate each conflict.

 

Finally, the relationship between the issuer and the municipal advisor, however characterized or limited, may create other compliance concerns under Rule G-42. For example, in some cases, the issuer, although not the client, may wish to provide policy direction or instructions to the municipal advisor regarding the issuance of the municipal securities. If the issuer communicates, explicitly or implicitly, an instruction or direction which the municipal advisor follows and which inhibited or limited the municipal advisor’s ability to fulfill its duties and obligations to the conduit borrower client under Rule G-42, the municipal advisor would violate the rule.

 

Section 2: Second Scenario

 

The MSRB has been asked to provide guidance regarding a scenario where a municipal advisor is engaged in municipal advisory activities as directed by an issuer and for such issuer, pursuant to an explicit arrangement or agreement, and the municipal advisor “indirectly” also provides advice to a conduit borrower, because the issuer provides to the conduit borrower the advice the issuer receives from the municipal advisor. For purposes of this Second Scenario, the MSRB assumes that the municipal advisor is aware of the flow of information from the issuer to the conduit borrower.

 

To assess whether the municipal advisor owes duties to the conduit borrower when the municipal advisor provides advice to the issuer that then flows through to the conduit borrower, again, a threshold question must be answered: Is the municipal advisor also engaged in municipal advisory activities for or on behalf of the conduit borrower because the conduit borrower is receiving, through the issuer, some or all of the advice that was provided by the municipal advisor to the issuer, establishing a municipal advisory relationship between the municipal advisor and the conduit borrower?

 

As set forth above, the SEC has stated that the determination of “whether a person provides advice to or on behalf of a municipal entity or an obligated person regarding municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal securities depends on all the relevant facts and circumstances,”[14] and whether a person is engaged in municipal advisory activities for or on behalf of another person and is a municipal advisor to such person are interpretive issues that are solely within the jurisdiction of the SEC.[15] 

 

 

If, in the Second Scenario, the transfer of advice from the issuer to the conduit borrower is interpreted by the SEC to mean that the municipal advisor is engaged in municipal advisory activities for or on behalf of the conduit borrower, the municipal advisor must comply with the requirements of Rule G-42 with respect to the issuer and the conduit borrower. This dual representation may raise several compliance issues.

 

Rule G-42 distinguishes the duties and obligations that a municipal advisor owes to an issuer client (i.e., a municipal entity) from those owed to a conduit borrower client in two provisions. First, in the conduct of all municipal advisory activities for and on behalf of an issuer client, a municipal advisor is subject to a fiduciary duty as provided in Rule G-42(a)(ii). The fiduciary duty is more specifically described as a requirement to act in accordance with a duty of loyalty[16] and a duty of care,[17] as described in, respectively, SM .02 and SM .01. In contrast and as discussed above, when the municipal advisor’s client is a conduit borrower, the municipal advisor owes a duty of care to the client as provided in Rule G-42(a)(i) and SM .01, but not a duty of loyalty. Second, in connection with a municipal advisor’s municipal advisory activities for and on behalf of an issuer client, a municipal advisor, and any affiliate of the municipal advisor, is prohibited from engaging in certain principal transactions with the issuer, as provided in Rule G-42(e)(ii).[18] This specific prohibition does not apply to a municipal advisor when its client is a conduit borrower. However, all other provisions and protections in Rule G-42 apply in the same manner to a municipal advisor whether its client is an issuer (i.e., a municipal entity) or a conduit borrower. For example, municipal advisors must provide the same timely disclosures of material conflicts of interest and material legal and disciplinary events in the earliest stages of their dealings with their conduit borrower clients as they provide to their municipal entity clients (and supplement such disclosures as necessary during the relationship). Similarly, municipal advisors have the same obligations to an issuer client and a conduit borrower to provide written documentation of the municipal advisory relationship (and supplement such documentation as necessary during the relationship). Also, if a municipal advisor makes a recommendation of a municipal securities transaction to either type of client, the municipal advisor must have a reasonable basis to believe that the recommended municipal securities transaction is suitable for the client.

 

The MSRB believes that a municipal advisor’s dual representation of an issuer and a conduit borrower with respect to the same issuance raises at least two types of compliance issues and concerns. First, the differing standards and other distinctions that Rule G-42 makes between issuer clients and conduit borrower clients will require a municipal advisor to consider whether, in every aspect of its conduct and representation, the municipal advisor acts in compliance with the more stringent standard applicable to its issuer client, and also fulfills its duties and obligations to its conduit borrower client. Moreover, under Rule G-42, compliance concerns and issues may require greater diligence to identify and address, because although certain duties and obligations are specified in Rule G-42(a)(i) and (ii) and SM. 01 and SM .02, generally, all of the specific duties or obligations that fall under the broad umbrella of the fiduciary duty cannot be specifically enumerated. Among other things, the MSRB cannot anticipate and identify all the situations that may arise in a particular offering, and, as a result, the rule cannot provide explicit instruction or guidance to a municipal advisor to an issuer, regarding what acts must be taken (or avoided) or what must be communicated (or not communicated) to an issuer to comply fully with the municipal advisor’s fiduciary duty. Similarly, all duties and obligations that a municipal advisor owes to a conduit borrower under the duty of care in a particular offering also cannot be specifically enumerated for the same reasons.

 

Further, when compliance issues or concerns arise, whether the duty owed is a fiduciary duty (a duty of loyalty and a duty of care) or a duty of care, under Rule G-42 and SM .04, the standards of conduct applicable to the municipal advisor and, except as provided in SM .04, the duties and obligations owed to the municipal advisor’s client(s), cannot be eliminated, diminished or modified by disclosure, mutual agreement or otherwise. SM .04 makes clear that nothing in the rule shall be construed to permit a municipal advisor to alter the standards of conduct or impose limitations on any of the duties prescribed in Rule G-42. For example, in various requests for guidance, the MSRB was asked, regarding dual representations, if the MSRB could confirm a municipal advisor engaged in dual representations could continue its representation of both clients if full and fair disclosures of any conflicts of interest or other issues were made to both clients. Generally, disclosure alone would not be sufficient for a municipal advisor to ensure, in all facts and circumstances, that a municipal advisor would be in compliance with all the duties and obligations owed to one or both clients, including, as to a fiduciary, the obligation of a municipal advisor not to “engage in municipal advisory activities for a municipal entity client if it cannot manage or mitigate its conflicts of interest in a manner that will permit it to act in the municipal entity’s best interests.”[19] However, certain limitations may be placed on the scope of a municipal advisory relationship with a client, and the ability to do so is not limited to dual representation scenarios. Under SM .04, if requested or expressly consented to by a client, a municipal advisor may limit the scope of the municipal advisory activities to be performed to certain specified activities or services. (The effectiveness of any such specified limitation of the scope of municipal advisory activities may be negated, however, if the municipal advisor then engages in a course of conduct that is inconsistent with the specified limitations.)

 

In the Second Scenario and any other scenario involving a dual representation, before entering into the dual representation, a municipal advisor must determine if it is possible to meet its duties and obligations to both clients under Rule G-42. The municipal advisor must determine it can comply with Rule G-42 when the duties and obligations owed to one client, the issuer, are more stringent and more difficult to fulfill, than those duties and obligations that the municipal advisor owes to the second client, the conduit borrower. Among other things, the duty of loyalty owed to the issuer requires a municipal advisor to act in the best interests of the issuer client without regard to the financial or other interests of the municipal advisor. The municipal advisor must consider whether it will be able to act consistently with this standard during the entire engagement while also providing municipal advisory services to the conduit borrower client, without putting its interests or the interests of the conduit borrower, before or above those of the issuer client, including not providing any advantages or benefits to itself or any other client to the loss or detriment of the issuer, including any financial loss or lost opportunity.

 

In addition, as discussed above, in all municipal advisory relationships, a municipal advisor must identify and disclose to its client material conflicts of interest, after reasonable inquiry, and such disclosures must be sufficiently detailed to inform the client of the nature, implications and potential consequences of each conflict. In the MSRB’s view, conflicts of interest are, in most cases, inherent in a dual representation, although they may not always be material. In a dual representation, the MSRB believes that such conflicts of interest should be identified prior to or upon engaging in municipal advisory activities with each client. Further, in the MSRB’s view, the potential for an identified, but non-material conflict to become a material conflict of interest during the dual representation is great enough that the municipal advisor will have an obligation to make an initial disclosure pursuant to Rule G-42(b)(i)(F), of the facts and circumstances of the dual representation, how such dual representation is a potential material conflict of interest and the risk that such conflict could reasonably be anticipated to impair the municipal advisor’s ability to dually represent both clients in accordance with the standards of conduct under Rule G-42(a).[20] Further, for each client, the municipal advisor must include an explanation of how the municipal advisor addresses or intends to manage or mitigate each conflict, as provided in SM .05.

 

However, because the municipal advisor owes a fiduciary duty to one client but not the other, if any material conflict of interest is identified that the municipal advisor cannot manage or mitigate in a manner that will permit the municipal advisor to act in the issuer’s best interests, the municipal advisor must not engage in, or must cease engaging in, the municipal advisory activities for the issuer. Practically, this would require the municipal advisor to terminate the relationship with the issuer, or act to eliminate the material conflict of interest. For example, if such conflicts derive from the municipal advisor’s relationship with the conduit borrower, as an alternative to terminating its relationship with the issuer, the municipal advisor may be able to eliminate such material conflicts by amending or terminating its relationship with the conduit borrower. The MSRB notes that, in either scenario, the municipal advisor’s elimination of its conflicts of interest, by terminating its relationship with the issuer, or by amending or terminating its municipal advisory relationship with the conduit borrower, may create both legal and related business issues. If termination of the municipal advisory relationship with the issuer or the conduit borrower is required, among other things, the termination may have a detrimental impact on the schedule or costs of completing the issuance, or impair the terminated client’s ability to obtain informed advice. For these reasons, municipal advisors are cautioned to determine before or upon beginning a dual representation how either municipal advisory relationship would be modified or terminated if the municipal advisor is no longer able to comply with its Rule G-42 obligations in a dual representation. Among other things, a municipal advisor may wish to consider if, prior to finalizing the initial documentation of the municipal advisory relationship as required in Rule G-42(c), the municipal advisor should negotiate the specific terms and conditions that would apply to a future termination of a municipal advisory relationship with either of the clients. As required by Rule G-42(c), if specific terms regarding termination are agreed upon, such terms must be incorporated in the writing(s) that document the municipal advisory relationship.[21]

 

An example of a difficult circumstance for the municipal advisor to resolve arises when, for example, a major university or hospital chain is engaged in multiple conduit financings in different jurisdictions around the country. The conduit borrower may have developed a certain type of financing to fit within its own broader financing plan, such as consistently structured variable rate securities. One state education authority, which is approached by the university conduit borrower, may, however, have a strong policy against the issuance of variable rate debt. The municipal advisor should bring the conflict to both parties at the earliest possible stage in the financing and make a determination whether it can advise both parties and fulfill its obligations under Rule G-42.

 

The MSRB also cautions municipal advisors that neither the facts and circumstances characterizing an issuance involving an issuer and a conduit borrower, nor the duties and obligations under Rule G-42 as applied to a relationship, are static or fixed. The requirements of Rule G-42 apply at any time during which municipal advisory activities are engaged in for or on behalf of an issuer or a conduit borrower, and with equal rigor throughout the representation. For example, although the standards of conduct do not change, as facts and circumstances change, a municipal advisor must assess if, under such changed circumstances, there are specific acts, duties or obligations that are not enumerated under Rule G-42 that must be performed or attended to arising from the broad duty of care and, if applicable, duty of loyalty.[22] Rule G-42 also incorporates protections for municipal advisory clients in certain key provisions, which are based on the recognition that key facts and circumstances may change (i.e., the continuing obligation to provide promptly to a client amended or supplemental information in writing, regarding any changes and additions in the relationship documentation, such as amendments or supplements needed regarding the material conflicts of interest disclosures, or the disclosures regarding certain legal and disciplinary events).

 

Changes in the facts and circumstances regarding the municipal securities issuance, or in the municipal advisory relationships with an issuer, a conduit borrower or both may require the municipal advisor to review if such changes may affect its ability to continue the dual representation and fully comply with Rule G-42. Even if an issuer, a conduit borrower and a municipal advisor believe at the beginning of the dual representation that the issuer and conduit borrower will be in agreement on all major issues that may arise during the course of the issuance, the interests and goals of each client may diverge later. Either the issuer, the conduit borrower, or both, may develop substantially divergent views on issues material to the issuance. Municipal advisors considering dual representation should assess initially the extent to which the interests and goals of the issuer and the conduit borrower are the same or substantially similar and make reassessments periodically thereafter.

 

Although challenging, in certain circumstances, the MSRB believes that it may be possible for a municipal advisor to provide municipal advisory services to an issuer and, in the manner described in the Second Scenario, indirectly, to engage in municipal advisory activities for or on behalf of a conduit borrower and remain in compliance with Rule G-42. Specifically, the circumstances where dual representation as described in the Second Scenario may be most feasible are those where the interests of the issuer and the conduit borrower are aligned. This may occur when the issuer is created to finance a specific project for the benefit of a metropolitan area, or in instances where the issuer applies a policy-neutral or hands-off approach to proposed projects, provided that such projects and the related financings comply with fundamental legal requirements for issuance. In such circumstances where an issuer and a conduit borrower have a complete or substantially complete convergence of interests and goals, or where the issuer’s concerns are somewhat limited and related for the most part to determining that an issuance will fully comply with the applicable legal and regulatory requirements, it may be possible for the municipal advisor to deal honestly and with the utmost good faith and act in the best interests of the issuer without regard to the financial or other interests of the municipal advisor (including the municipal advisor’s financial or other interest arising from its relationship with the conduit borrower) as required under the duty of loyalty, and also meet its obligations to both clients under the duty of care. It also may be possible for the municipal advisor, which by the very status of its dual representation creates a potential material conflict of interest that must be disclosed in the initial disclosures made pursuant to Rule G-42(b), to manage or mitigate this and any other of “its conflicts of interest in a manner that will permit it to act in the municipal entity’s best interests,” as required under SM .02.

 

Conversely, where there is not a substantially complete convergence of interests and goals of the issuer and the conduit borrower, or when the shared interests and goals of the issuer and the conduit borrower at the beginning of the issuance process diverge during the course of the issuance, it may not be possible for a municipal advisor to fulfill its duties of loyalty and care to its municipal entity client, and also provide, under the duty of care, the appropriate expert professional advice to the conduit borrower and otherwise fulfill its obligations to the conduit borrower that arise under the duty of care. Although dual representation is possible, for every action taken during an issuance, it is incumbent upon a municipal advisor to assess and determine, as to each client, if such actions comply with the standards of conduct and other requirements under Rule G-42.

 

Given the broad scope of the duty of care and the broader and more strict obligations arising in a fiduciary relationship, the MSRB concludes that it may be possible for a municipal advisor in the Second Scenario to engage in dual representations for or on behalf of both an issuer and a conduit borrower, but the municipal advisor will face a number of challenges in such situations. Moreover, the challenges to fully and completely comply with its obligations to each client will be heightened in lengthier and more complex engagements.

 

Section 3: Third, Fourth and Fifth Scenarios

 

The Third, Fourth and Fifth Scenarios raise the same compliance issues and concerns under Rule G-42 as discussed in the First and Second Scenarios. In the Third Scenario, the municipal advisor, an issuer and a conduit borrower expressly recognize that the municipal advisor is retained by and provides municipal advisory services for the conduit borrower and, also, as a practical matter, provides advice to the issuer, on which the issuer relies.[23] Although in the Third Scenario, the conduit borrower, rather than the issuer compensates the municipal advisor, all the compliance and regulatory issues arising regarding Rule G-42 are the same as those discussed above regarding the Second Scenario.

 

In relation to the Third Scenario, municipal advisors also have requested guidance regarding the municipal advisor’s responsibilities to the issuer when the municipal advisor is retained and compensated by the conduit borrower. For example, does the municipal advisor have a fiduciary responsibility to the issuer to whom advice is being provided, and is the municipal advisor required to provide disclosures of conflicts of interest to the issuer? If the provision of such advice to the issuer means, under SEC rules, that the provider is a municipal advisor to the issuer, then the municipal advisor would be a fiduciary to the issuer and subject to all the duties and obligations under Rule G-42. Thus, the municipal advisor would be required, among other things, to comply with the requirements to make disclosures of material conflicts of interest as provided in Rule G-42(b), and to provide such conflicts of interest disclosures as part of the relationship documentation as provided in Rule G-42(c).

 

The Fourth Scenario is another scenario in which a municipal advisor is engaged in a dual representation of an issuer and a conduit borrower. Rule G-42 would apply in the Fourth Scenario in the same manner as it applies in the Second Scenario.

 

The Fifth Scenario is also an example of dual representation by one municipal advisor of an issuer and a conduit borrower regarding the same issuance of municipal securities and, thus, raises the same issues regarding the municipal advisor’s compliance with Rule G-42 that are discussed for the Second Scenario. The duties and obligations of Rule G-42 run not only from a municipal advisor firm’s associated persons but also from the municipal advisor firm to the issuer and the conduit borrower. Although, in the Fifth Scenario, one employee is designated to act on behalf of the issuer and a second is designated to act on behalf of the conduit borrower, the employees are agents of their employer, a single municipal advisor firm. In the MSRB’s view, therefore, how Rule G-42 applies in the Fifth Scenario does not differ in any material respect from the Second, Third and Fourth Scenarios. In a dual representation, and, in particular, a dual representation purposefully established from the beginning of the issuance, a municipal advisor firm having the capacity to do so is likely to rely on the services of more than one of its associated persons, whether structured to work in coordination as one team, or separately.

 

Section 4: When a Conduit Borrower is also a Municipal Entity

 

In the discussion above regarding the five scenarios, the MSRB assumes that, in dual representations, the issuer client is a municipal entity, and the second client, the conduit borrower, is not. As discussed above, because under the Exchange Act and Rule G-42, a municipal advisor owes more rigorous obligations and duties to a municipal entity client – that is, a fiduciary duty – than are owed to a conduit borrower, in certain scenarios involving dual representation, a municipal advisor may find it difficult, or not possible, to fully comply with its obligations to both clients under Rule G-42.

 

The MSRB recognizes that, at times, both the issuer and the conduit borrower are municipal entities, and, in this discussion, a conduit borrower that is a municipal entity is referred to as a municipal entity conduit borrower. In such cases, a municipal advisor that provides advice to or on behalf of the issuer and the municipal entity conduit borrower would owe the more rigorous duties required of a fiduciary to both clients equally (e.g., the municipal advisor would be required, in all contexts, to deal honestly and with the utmost good faith with the issuer and the municipal entity conduit borrower, and, as to each, to act in the client’s best interests without regard to the financial or other interests of the municipal advisor).

 

Before undertaking such a dual engagement, the municipal advisor must assess its ability to comply with Rule G-42, including the proscription in Rule G-42, SM .02, which prohibits a municipal advisor from engaging in municipal advisory activities for a client if the municipal advisor could not manage or mitigate its conflicts of interest in a manner that would permit the municipal advisor to act in the best interests of the client. In addition, if the dual representation were undertaken, the municipal advisor’s assessment of its ability to fully comply with Rule G-42, including SM .02, should be carefully considered at the beginning of the dual representation and thoughtfully re-considered periodically during the course of the dual engagement. In the MSRB’s view, the facts and circumstances wherein a municipal advisor would be able to fully comply with Rule G-42, including all obligations as a fiduciary to each municipal entity, are not likely to occur frequently.

 

This interpretive guidance is intended for use only as a resource. It does not describe all provisions of Rule G-42. In addition, the MSRB has adopted other rules and interpretations that may be applicable to the conduct described in the five scenarios.

[1] This guidance is limited to persons that are municipal advisors as defined in Section 15B(e)(4) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), and the relevant rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Exchange Act (“Exchange Act rules”), but excludes municipal advisors engaged solely in the undertaking of a solicitation of a municipal entity or an obligated person, for compensation, on behalf of certain third parties (“solicitor municipal advisors”), because Rule G-42 does not apply to solicitor municipal advisors. See Exchange Act Release No. 70462 (September 20, 2013), 78 FR 67467 (November 12, 2013) (“Order Adopting SEC Final Rule”) (the Exchange Act rules and regulations referred to above include, but are not limited to, Exchange Act Rules 15Ba1-1 through 15Ba1-8. See also Section 15B(e)(4)(A)(ii); Exchange Act Rule 15Ba1-1(d)(1)(i) (the term “municipal advisor” includes solicitors of obligated persons); Section 15B(e)(9) of the Exchange Act (definition of “solicitation of a municipal entity or obligated person”); and Order Adopting SEC Final Rule, 78 FR 67467, at n. 138 and n. 408.

 

[2] In Exchange Act Rule 15Ba1-1(e), the term “municipal advisory activities” means “(1) [p]roviding advice to or on behalf of a municipal entity or obligated person with respect to municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal securities, including advice with respect to the structure, timing, terms, and other similar matters concerning such financial products or issues; or (2) [s]olicitation of a municipal entity or an obligated person.” Further, the Rule provides that, in the absence of an exclusion or an exemption, these activities would cause a person to be a municipal advisor.

 

[3] Although the term “conduit borrower” is not specifically defined in the Exchange Act, a conduit borrower in a municipal securities issuance, such as a private university, non-profit hospital, private corporation, or a public hospital or public university, is a type of “obligated person.” See Order Adopting SEC Final Rule, at 67483, n. 200 (the term obligated person can include entities acting as conduit borrowers, such as private universities and non-profit hospitals).

 

The term, “obligated person,” is defined in Exchange Act Section 15B(e)(10) to mean:

 

any person, including an issuer of municipal securities, who is either generally or through an enterprise, fund, or account of such person, committed by contract or other arrangement to support the payment of all or part of the obligations on the municipal securities to be sold in an offering of municipal securities.

 

Generally, for purposes of this guidance, the terms “obligated person” and “conduit borrower” have the same meaning. In addition, for this guidance, both terms exclude a municipal entity acting as an issuer of municipal securities.

 

[4] 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.

 

[5] 15 U.S.C. 77c(a)(4).

 

[6] 17 CFR 230.500 – 508.

 

[7] 15 U.S.C. 77c(a)(2).

 

[8] See Order Adopting SEC Final Rule, at 67477 (the SEC concluded that compensation should not factor into a determination of whether a person must register (or be registered) as a municipal advisor, except in connection with solicitor municipal advisors; in such cases, the person must becompensated for such solicitation activity to be required to register (or be registered) as a municipal advisor).

 

[9] These requirements include, but are not limited to: complying with the broad obligations under the duty of care under Rule G-42(a)(i) and Supplemental Material (“SM”) .01 under the rule in all aspects of the municipal advisor’s municipal advisory relationship with the conduit borrower; making the required disclosures to the conduit borrower regarding material conflicts of interest and material legal and disciplinary events (and updating them as necessary) as set forth in Rule G-42(b) and SM .05; providing relationship documentation to the conduit borrower (and updating the documentation as necessary) as provided in Rule G-42(c) and SM .05 and SM .06; if making a recommendation to the conduit borrower, or if reviewing a recommendation from the issuer or another party to the conduit borrower, following the requirements of Rule G-42(d) and SM .09 and SM .10; and not engaging in the specifically prohibited conduct as outlined in Rule G-42(e)(i) and SM .11.

 

[10] In the Order Adopting SEC Final Rule, the SEC provided guidance to interpret “advice” as that term is used in the definition of municipal advisor and related terms. See Order Adopting SEC Final Rule, at 67471 (providing examples of communications that are excluded from the term “advice”) and 67478 - 80 (SEC guidance regarding the meaning of “advice,” statement that the SEC does not believe that the term “advice” is susceptible to a bright-line definition).

 

Jurisdiction to resolve the interpretive issue of whether “advice” has been provided, based on the facts and circumstances, lies with the SEC.

 

[11] See Exchange Act Section 15B(e)(4)(A)(i).

 

[12] See Order Adopting SEC Final Rule, at 67479.

 

[13] SM .01 of Rule G-42 sets forth core principles regarding the duty of care a municipal advisor owes to all clients, whether issuers or conduit borrowers. The duty of care includes, but is not limited to, the specific duties enumerated in the rule. For example, to fulfill its obligations under the duty of care, the municipal advisor must, among other things: possess the degree of knowledge and expertise needed to provide the client with informed advice; make a reasonable inquiry as to the facts that are relevant to a client’s determination as to whether to proceed with a course of action or that form the basis for advice provided to the client; and undertake a reasonable investigation to determine that it is not basing any recommendation on materially inaccurate or incomplete information. Also, a municipal advisor must have a reasonable basis for any advice provided to or on behalf of a client; any representations made in a certificate that it signs that will be reasonably foreseeably relied upon by the client, any other party involved in the municipal securities transaction, or investors in the issuer’s securities or municipal securities secured by payments from the conduit borrower client; and any information provided to the client or other parties involved in the municipal securities transaction in connection with the preparation of an official statement for any issue of municipal securities as to which the municipal advisor is advising. For example, to make a recommendation that complies with the duty of care, prior to making a recommendation, a municipal advisor is required to determine if the recommended municipal securities transaction is suitable, based on numerous factors, as applicable to the particular type of client. Various factors are set forth in SM .09 and include, but are not limited to: the client’s financial situation and needs, objectives, tax status, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, the client’s experience with, in this scenario, the issuance of municipal securities and related municipal securities transactions, the client’s experience with municipal securities issuance and related municipal securities transactions of the type and complexity being recommended, the client’s financial capacity to withstand changes in market conditions during the period that the municipal securities to be issued are reasonably expected to be outstanding and any other material information known by the municipal advisor about the client and the municipal securities issuance, after reasonable inquiry.

 

[14] See Order Adopting SEC Final Rule, at 67479.

 

 

[15] See supra notes 10-12, and accompanying text.

 

[16] SM .02 of Rule G-42 sets forth core principles regarding the duty of loyalty owed to the issuer. Under SM .02, the duty of loyalty includes, but is not limited to, the duties and obligations to “deal honestly and with the utmost good faith with a municipal entity client and act in the client’s best interests without regard to the financial or other interests of the municipal advisor.” In addition, “[a] municipal advisor must not engage in municipal advisory activities for a municipal entity client if it cannot manage or mitigate its conflicts of interest in a manner that will permit it to act in the municipal entity’s best interests.”

 

[17] See n. 13, supra.

 

[18] Additional information and requirements regarding the specific prohibition in Rule G‑42(e)(ii) are set forth in SM .13, SM .14 and SM .15.

 

[19] More specifically, requestors asked if the MSRB would confirm that full and fair disclosure of any conflicts of interest or other issues would address any concerns under the Rule with the result that there would be no unmanageable conflict of interest or issue that would prevent a municipal advisor from advising both an issuer and a conduit borrower (or two advisors from the same firm from representing, separately, an issuer and the related conduit borrower) as required under SM .02.

 

 

[20] The MSRB believes that a conflict of interest arises in a dual representation described in the Second Scenario as it does in the First Scenario, when a municipal advisor provides municipal advisory services to a conduit borrower and the payment for such services is provided by a third-party, such as an issuer, in that such circumstances often can create or foster divided loyalties. In both cases, the MSRB believes that the potential that such conflicts of interest, which are present at the onset of such relationship(s), may later become material conflicts of interest requires, at a minimum, that such conflict(s) be disclosed initially to the client(s) pursuant to Rule G-42(b)(i)(F).

 

 

[21] Rule G-42(c)(vi) requires that the written documentation of the municipal advisory relationship include, in writing, “the date, triggering event, or means for the termination of the municipal advisory relationship, or, if none, a statement that there is none.” Rule G‑42(c)(vii) requires that the written documentation include “any terms relating to withdrawal from the municipal advisory relationship.”

 

 

[22] As noted above, all of the municipal advisor’s obligations and duties cannot be specifically enumerated or identified at the beginning of the dual representation. Instead, the duties and obligations under either standard of conduct will unfold during the dual representation.

 

 

[23] The Third Scenario is limited to situations where an issuer chooses not to retain a separate municipal advisor. However, changing the facts and circumstances of the Third Scenario to include the retention of another municipal advisor by the issuer is not conclusive in determining if Rule G-42 would apply to the municipal advisor retained by the conduit borrower in its conduct with the issuer. If the municipal advisor retained by the conduit borrower provides municipal advisory services indirectly or, as a practical matter, to the issuer, and if the SEC interprets such conduct as engaging in municipal advisory activity for or on behalf of the issuer, the provision of such advice makes Rule G-42 applicable to the provider, except where the provider is subject to an exclusion or an exemption (from the definition of municipal advisor), such as the Independent Registered Municipal Advisor exemption provided under Exchange Act Rule 15Ba1-1(d)(3)(vi).

 

The MSRB amended Rule G-17, regarding fair dealing, to require that, in the conduct of their municipal advisory activities, municipal advisors, including solicitor municipal advisors, and their associated persons must deal fairly with all persons and not engage in any deceptive, dishonest, or unfair practice. (Previously, the rule applied only to dealers and their associated persons.) Rule G-17 became applicable to all municipal advisors, including solicitor municipal advisors, and their associated persons, on December 22, 2010.

Rule G-17 contains an anti-fraud prohibition similar to the standard set forth in Rule 10b-5 adopted by the SEC under the Exchange Act. Thus, all municipal advisors must refrain from engaging in certain conduct and must not misrepresent or omit the facts, risks, or other material information about municipal advisory activities undertaken. However, Rule G-17 does not merely prohibit deceptive conduct on the part of a municipal advisor. The rule also establishes a general duty of a municipal advisor to deal fairly with all persons, even in the absence of fraud.

Rule G-17 imposes a duty of fair dealing on solicitor municipal advisors when they are soliciting business from municipal entities and obligated persons on behalf of third parties. Again, municipal advisors are reminded that the term “municipal entity” also includes certain entities that do not issue municipal securities. Thus, in addition to owing the specific obligations discussed below to issuers of municipal securities, solicitor municipal advisors also owe such obligations to, for example, state and local government sponsored public pension plans and local government investment pools.

The duty of fair dealing includes, but is not limited to, a duty to disclose to the municipal entity or obligated person being solicited material facts about the solicitation, such as the name of the solicitor’s client; the type of business being solicited; the amount and source of all of the solicitor’s compensation; payments (including in-kind) made by the solicitor to another solicitor municipal advisor (including an affiliate, but not an employee) to facilitate the solicitation regardless of characterization; and any relationships of the solicitor with any employees or board members of the municipal entity or obligated person being solicited or any other persons affiliated with the municipal entity or obligated person or its officials who may have influence over the selection of the solicitor’s client.

Additionally, if a solicitor municipal advisor is engaged by its client to present information about a product or service offered by the third-party client to the municipal entity or obligated person, the solicitor municipal advisor must disclose all material risks and characteristics of the product or service. The solicitor municipal advisor must also advise the municipal entity or obligated person of any incentives received by the solicitor (that are not already disclosed as part of the solicitor municipal advisor’s compensation from its client) to recommend the product or service, as well as any other conflicts of interest regarding the product or service, and must not make material misstatements or omissions when discussing the product or service.

Under the Exchange Act, municipal advisors and their associated persons are deemed to owe a fiduciary duty to their municipal entity clients.[*] Similarly, Rule G-42 (which applies only to non-solicitor municipal advisors) follows the Exchange Act in deeming municipal advisors to owe a fiduciary duty, for purposes of Rule G-42, to such municipal entity clients. However, because a solicitor municipal advisor’s clients are not the municipal entities that they solicit, but rather the third parties that retain or engage the solicitor municipal advisor to solicit such municipal entities, solicitor municipal advisors do not owe a fiduciary duty under the Exchange Act or MSRB rules to their clients (or the municipal entity) in connection with such activity. Nonetheless, as noted above, solicitor municipal advisors are subject to the fair dealing standards under Rule G-17 (including with respect to their clients and the entities that they solicit).

Municipal finance professional: supervisor.  This is in response to your inquiry seeking guidance regarding the possible classification as a municipal finance professional under rule G-37 of a Taxable Department Head at your firm. You stated that the Taxable Department Head is the direct supervisor of a Branch Manager and this Branch Manager manages a sales representative who has solicited municipal securities business from an issuer. You state that it is clear that the Branch Manager and the sales representative are both municipal finance professionals. However, you further state that the Taxable Department Head has delegated all Public Finance/Municipal oversight responsibilities to the Public Finance Department Head for the Taxable Department Head's personnel. You ask whether, under these circumstances, the Taxable Department Head would be considered a municipal finance professional under rule G-37 as a result of his or her supervisory position.

The term "municipal finance professional" is defined in rule G-37(g)(iv). Clauses (C) and (D) of the definition set forth the basis for considering an associated person of a dealer to be a municipal finance professional as a result of his or her supervisory position. Clause (C) includes any associated person who is both (i) either a municipal securities principal or municipal securities sales principal and (ii) a supervisor of any associated person either primarily engaged in municipal securities representative activities or who solicits municipal securities business (referred to herein as a "primary municipal securities supervisor"). Clause (D) includes any associated person who is a supervisor of a primary municipal securities supervisor up through and including (in the case of a non-bank dealer) the Chief Executive Officer or similarly situation official (referred to herein as a "secondary municipal securities supervisor").

Unlike in the case of a primary municipal securities supervisor, a secondary municipal securities supervisor is not required to be a municipal securities principal or municipal securities sales principal. The status of a secondary municipal securities supervisor as a municipal finance professional is not conditioned on the areas in which such supervisor has responsibility over a primary municipal securities supervisor, so long as such secondary municipal securities supervisor retains some degree of supervisory responsibility (whether or not relating to municipal securities activities) over the primary municipal securities supervisor.  MSRB interpretation of November 23, 1999.

Financial advisory relationship: private placements. This is in response to your letter in which you seek clarification on certain matters related to rules G-23, on activities of financial advisors, and G-37, on political contributions and prohibitions on municipal securities business.

You ask when it is "necessary in the process of commencing preliminary work with a potential financial advisory client to enter into a formal written financial advisory contract." Rule G-23(c) states that "[e]ach financial advisory relationship shall be evidenced by a writing entered into prior to, upon or promptly after the inception of the financial advisory relationship (or promptly after the creation or selection of the issuer if the issuer does not exist or has not been determined at the time the relationship commences)." Rule G-23(b) states that "...a financial advisory relationship shall be deemed to exist when a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer renders or enters into an agreement to render financial advisory or consultant services to or on behalf of an issuer with respect to a new issue or issues of municipal securities, including advice with respect to the structure, timing, terms and other similar matters concerning such issue or issues, for a fee or other compensation or in expectation of such compensation for the rendering of such services."

You ask whether you are to advise the Board by means of reporting on Form G-37/G-38 or by any other means when you commence work on subsequent financing transactions with an issuer with which your firm has an ongoing financial advisory contract. The Instructions for Completing and Filing Form G-37/G-38 provide a guideline to use in determining when to report financial advisory services on Form G-37/G-38.[1] Pursuant to these Instructions, dealers should indicate financial advisory services when an agreement is reached to provide the services. In addition, the Instructions note that dealers also should indicate financial advisory services during a reporting period when the settlement date for a new issue on which the dealer acted as financial advisor occurred during such period. There are no other requirements for reporting financial advisory services to the Board.

Finally, you ask whether rules G-23 or G-37 contain requirements concerning private placement activities. The term "municipal securities business" is defined in rule G-37 to include "the offer or sale of a primary offering of municipal securities on behalf of any issuer ( e.g. , private placement)..." The Instructions for Completing and Filing Form G-37/G-38 provide that private placements should be indicated at least by the settlement date if within the reporting period.

With respect to rule G-23, section (d) of the rule states that no dealer that has a financial advisory relationship with respect to a new issue of municipal securities shall acquire as principal either alone or as a participant in a syndicate or other similar account formed for the purpose of purchasing, directly or indirectly, from the issuer all or any portion of such issue, or act as agent for the issuer in arranging the placement of such issue, unless various actions are taken.[2] In addition, rule G-23(g) states that each dealer subject to the provisions of sections (d), (e) or (f) of rule G-23 shall maintain a copy of the written disclosures, acknowledgments and consents required by these sections in a separate file and in accordance with the provisions of rule G-9, on preservation of records. Finally, rule G-23(h) states that, if a dealer acquires new issue municipal securities or participates in a syndicate or other account that acquires new issue municipal securities in accordance with section (d) of rule G-23, such dealer shall disclose the existence of the financial advisory relationship in writing to each customer who purchases such securities from such dealer, at or before the completion of the transaction with the customer. MSRB interpretation of October 5, 1999.

[1] I have enclosed a copy of the Instructions for Completing and Filing Form G-37/G-38 as contained in the MSRB Rule Book. The instructions are also contained on the Board's web site (www.msrb.org) under the link for rule G-37.

[2] These actions are: (i) if such issue is to be sold by the issuer on a negotiated basis, (A) the financial advisory relationship with respect to such issue has been terminated in writing and at or after such termination the issuer has expressly consented in writing to such acquisition or participation, as principal or agent, in the purchase of the securities on a negotiated basis; (B) the dealer has expressly disclosed in writing to the issuer at or before such termination that there may be a conflict of interest in changing from the capacity of financial advisor to purchaser of or placement agent for the securities with respect to which the financial advisory relationship exists and the issuer has expressly acknowledged in writing to the dealer receipt of such disclosure; and (C) the dealer has expressly disclosed in writing to the issuer at or before such termination the source and anticipated amount of all remuneration to the dealer with respect to such issue in addition to the compensation referred to in section (c) of rule G-23, and the issuer has expressly acknowledged in writing to the dealer receipt of such disclosure; or (ii) if such issue is to be sold by the issuer at competitive bid, the issuer has expressly consented in writing prior to the bid to such acquisition or participation.

Solicitation of contributions.  This is in response to your letter in which you summarize your understanding of our telephone conversation relating to section (c) of rule G-37, on political contributions and prohibitions on municipal securities business. As I noted during our conversation, the Board’s rules, including rule G-37, apply solely to brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers (“dealers”). The Board’s rulemaking authority, granted under Section 15B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, does not extend to issuers of municipal securities. Thus, rule G-37 does not impose any obligations upon issuers or officials of issuers. Although the Board appreciates your interest in not placing dealers and their associated persons in a position to violate their obligations under the rule, it is ultimately the responsibility of such dealers and associated persons, in consultation with appropriate compliance personnel, to ensure compliance with Board rules.

As you know, rule G-37(c) provides that no dealer or municipal finance professional shall solicit any person or political action committee to make any contribution, or shall coordinate any contributions, to an official of an issuer with which the dealer is engaging or is seeking to engage in municipal securities business. The Board has previously stated that this provision would:

prohibit a dealer and any municipal finance professional from soliciting . . . any other person or entity, to make contributions to an official of an issuer with which the dealer engages or is seeking to engage in municipal securities business or to coordinate (i.e., bundle) contributions. . .[*] [M]unicipal finance professionals may volunteer their personal services in other ways to political campaigns.[1]

You had sought guidance regarding what activities would be covered by this provision of the rule. As you noted in your letter, I had indicated that the term “solicit” is not explicitly defined for purposes of section (c) of the rule. I had stated that whether a particular activity can be characterized as a solicitation of a contribution for purposes of section (c) is dependent upon the facts and circumstances surrounding such activity. I had noted, however, that the rule does not prohibit or restrict municipal finance professionals from engaging in personal volunteer work, unless such work constituted solicitation or bundling of contributions for an official of an issuer with which the municipal finance professional’s dealer is engaging or seeking to engage in municipal securities business[2] Municipal finance professionals are therefore free to, among other things, solicit votes or other assistance for such an issuer official so long as the solicitation does not constitute a solicitation or coordination of contributions for the official. [3]

 

Whether a municipal finance professional is permitted by section (c) of the rule to indicate to third parties that someone is a “great candidate” or to provide a list of third parties for the candidate to call would be dependent upon all the facts and circumstances surrounding such action. The facts and circumstances that may be relevant for this purpose may include, among any number of other factors, whether the municipal finance professional has made an explicit or implicit reference to campaign contributions in his or her conversations with third parties whom the candidate may contact and whether the candidate contacts such third parties seeking campaign contributions. However, the totality of the facts and circumstances surrounding any particular activity must be considered in determining whether such activity may constitute a solicitation of contributions for purposes of section (c) of the rule. Therefore, the Board cannot prescribe an exhaustive list of precautions that would assure that no violation of this section would occur as a result of such activity.  MSRB interpretation of May 21, 1999.
__________

[1] MSRB Reports, Vol. 14, No. 3 (June 1994) at 5. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 33868 (April 7, 1994), 59 FR 17621 (April 13, 1994). See also Questions and Answers Concerning Political Contributions and Prohibitions on Municipal Securities Business: Rule G-37, May 24, 1994, reprinted in MSRB Rule Book; MSRB Interpretation of November 7, 1994, reprinted in MSRB Rule Book; MSRB Interpretation of May 31, 1995, reprinted in MSRB Rule Book. Furthermore, the Board stated in its filing of the rule with the Securities and Exchange Commission that the rule’s “anti-solicitation and anti-bundling proscriptions are intended to prohibit covered parties from: (i) soliciting others, including spouses and family members, to make contributions to issuer officials; and (ii) coordinating, or soliciting others to coordinate, contributions to issuer officials in order to influence the awarding of municipal securities business.” SEC File No. SR-MSRB-94-2.

[2] See Question and Answer No. 24, May 24, 1994, reprinted in MSRB Rule Book; Question and Answer No. 3, August 18, 1994, reprinted in MSRB Rule Book. In addition, if the municipal finance professional used dealer resources or incurred expenses that could be considered contributions in the course of undertaking such volunteer work, the ban on municipal securities business under section (b) of the rule could be triggered.

 

[3] In upholding the constitutionality of rule G-37, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit observed that “municipal finance professionals are not in any way restricted from engaging in the vast majority of political activities, including making direct expenditures for the expression of their views, giving speeches, soliciting votes, writing books, or appearing at fundraising events.” Blount v. SEC, 61 F.3d 938, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1351 (1996). However, the Board has stated that hosting or paying to attend a fundraising event may constitute a contribution subject to section (b) of the rule. See Questions and Answers Nos. 24 and 29, May 24, 1994, reprinted in MSRB Rule Book.

[*][sentence deleted to reflect current rule provisions.]

Amendment Filed to Proposed Rule Change on Rule G-15(d)(ii) on Automated Confirmation/Acknowledgement

On April 16, 1999, the Board filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") an amendment to its proposed rule change on Board rule G-15(d)(ii) on automated confirmation/acknowledgment of customer transactions.¹ The proposed rule change was initially filed with the Commission on April 1, 1998.² If approved by the Commission, it would allow dealers to comply with rule G-15 (d)(ii) by using the services of "qualified vendors" for confirmation/acknowledgment of Delivery Versus Payment/Receipt Versus Payment (DVP/RVP) customer transactions. Currently, without the proposed rule change, only clearing agencies that are registered with the Commission may be used to obtain the required confirmation/acknowledgment.

The amendment is comprised of two minor changes to the language of the proposed rule change. These modifications were requested by the Commission to make the Board’s proposed rule change more consistent with similar proposed rule changes on the same subject that have been filed with the Commission by other Self-Regulatory Organizations. One change concerns proposed subparagraph G-15(d)(ii)(B)(2)(C), which requires that, in order to maintain status as a qualified vendor, the vendor must file certain Auditor’s Reports annually with the Commission staff. The original requirement states that to remain qualified the vendor must obtain a statement from the Commission staff that the Commission staff does not object to the Auditor’s Report. The amendment states that the Auditor’s Report must be one "which is not deemed unacceptable" by the Commission staff.

The second language change relates to subparagraph G-15(d)(ii)(B)(2)(B), which contains the requirement that a Qualified Vendor certify that its confirmation/acknowledgement system meets certain qualifications. The amendment clarifies that this certification is to be made to the customers of the Qualified Vendor and removes the previous requirement that the certification be done annually.

April 20, 1999

Text of Proposed Rule Change (as amended)³

G-15. Confirmation, Clearance and Settlement of Transactions with Customers

(a) - (c) No change

(d) Delivery/Receipt vs. Payment Transactions.

        (i) No change.

        (ii) Requirement for Confirmation/Acknowledgment.

(A) Use of Registered Clearing Agency or Qualified Vendor. Except as provided in this paragraph (ii) of rule G-15(d), no broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer shall effect a customer transaction for settlement on a delivery vs. payment or receipt vs. payment (DVP/RVP) basis unless the facilities of a Cclearing Aagency registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (registered clearing agency) or Qualified Vendor are used for automated confirmation and acknowledgment of the transaction. Each broker, dealer and municipal securities dealer executing a customer transaction on a DVP/RVP basis shall: (A) ensure that the customer has the capability, either directly or through its clearing agent, to acknowledge transactions in an automated confirmation/acknowledgment system operated by a registered Cclearing Aagency or Qualified Vendor; (B) submit or cause to be submitted to a registered Cclearing Aagency or Qualified Vendor all information and instructions required by the registered Cclearing Aagency or Qualified Vendor for the production of a confirmation that can be acknowledged by the customer or the customer’s clearing agent; and (C) submit such transaction information to the automated confirmation/acknowledgment system on the date of execution of such transaction; provided that a transaction that is not eligible for automated confirmation and acknowledgment through the facilities of a registered Cclearing Aagency shall not be subject to this paragraph (ii).

(B) Definitions for Rule G-15(d)(ii).

(1) "Clearing Agency" shall mean a clearing agency as defined in Section 3(a)(23) of the Act that is registered with the Commission pursuant to Section 17A(b)(2) of the Act or has obtained from the Commission an exemption from registration granted specifically to allow the clearing agency to provide confirmation/acknowledgment services.

(2) "Qualified Vendor" shall mean a vendor of electronic confirmation and acknowledgment services that:

(A) for each transaction subject to this rule: (i) delivers a trade record to a Clearing Agency in the Clearing Agency’s format; (ii) obtains a control number for the trade record from the Clearing Agency; (iii) cross-references the control number to the confirmation and subsequent acknowledgment of the trade; and (iv) electronically delivers any acknowledgment received on the trade to the Clearing Agency and includes the control number when delivering the acknowledgment of the trade to the Clearing Agency;
(B) certifies to its customers: (i) with respect to its electronic trade confirmation/acknowledgment system, that it has a capacity requirements evaluation and monitoring process that allows the vendor to formulate current and anticipated estimated capacity requirements; (ii) that its electronic trade confirmation/acknowledgment system has sufficient capacity to process the volume of data that it reasonably anticipates to be entered into its electronic trade confirmation/acknowledgment service during the upcoming year; (iii) that its electronic trade confirmation/acknowledgment system has formal contingency procedures, that the entity has followed a formal process for reviewing the likelihood of contingency occurrences, and that the contingency protocols are reviewed, tested, and updated on a regular basis; (iv) that its electronic confirmation/acknowledgment system has a process for preventing, detecting, and controlling any potential or actual systems or computer operations failures, including any failure to interface with a Clearing Agency as described in rule G-15(d)(ii)(B)(2)(A), above, and that its procedures designed to protect against security breaches are followed; and (v) that its current assets exceed its current liabilities by at least five hundred thousand dollars;
(C) when it begins providing such services, and annually thereafter, submits an Auditor’s Report to the Commission staff which is not deemed unacceptable by the Commission staff. (An Auditor’s Report will be deemed unacceptable if it contains any findings of material weakness.);
(D) notifies the Commission staff immediately in writing of any material change to its confirmation/affirmation systems. (For purposes of this subparagraph (D) "material change" means any changes to the vendor’s systems that significantly affect or have the potential to significantly affect its electronic trade confirmation/acknowledgment systems, including: changes that: (i) affect or potentially affect the capacity or security of its electronic trade confirmation/acknowledgment system; (ii) rely on new or substantially different technology; (iii) provide a new service as part of the Qualified Vendor’s electronic trade confirmation/acknowledgment system; or (iv) affect or have the potential to adversely affect the vendor’s confirmation/acknowledgment system’s interface with a Clearing Agency.);
(E) notifies the Commission staff in writing if it intends to cease providing services;
(F) provides the Board with copies of any submissions to the Commission staff made pursuant to subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) of this rule G-15(d)(ii)(B)(2) within ten business days.
(G) promptly supplies supplemental information regarding its confirmation/acknowledgment system when requested by the Commission staff or the Board.

(3) "Auditor’s Report" shall mean a written report which is prepared by competent, independent, external audit personnel in accordance with the standards of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the Information Systems Audit and Control Association and which: (A) verifies the certifications described in subparagraph (d)(ii)(B)(2)(B) of this rule G-15; (B) contains a risk analysis of all aspects of the entity’s information technology systems including, computer operations, telecommunications, data security, systems development, capacity planning and testing, and contingency planning and testing; and (C) contains the written response of the entity’s management to the information provided pursuant to (A) and (B) of this subparagraph (d)(ii)(B)(3) of rule G-15.

(C) Disqualification of Vendor. A broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer using a Qualified Vendor that ceases to be qualified under the definition in rule G-15(d)(ii)(B)(2) shall not be deemed in violation of this rule G-15(d)(ii) if it ceases using such vendor promptly upon receiving notice that the vendor is no longer qualified.

(iii) No change

(e) No change.

---

ENDNOTES

1. File No. SR-MSRB-98-6, Amendment No. 1.

2. See Securities Exchange Act No. 39833 (April 6, 1998).

3. Underlining indicates additions; strikethrough denotes deletions.

 

Copyright 2000 Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. All Rights Reserved. Terms and Conditions of Use.

In response to numerous calls on this subject, the Board wishes to reiterate its position on the application of rule G-37, on political contributions and prohibitions on municipal securities business, to Presidential campaigns of issuer officials. The Board directs persons interested in contributing to an issuer official's Presidential campaign to the MSRB Interpretation of May 31, 1995 (the “1995 Interpretive Letter”).[1]

Rule G-37, among other things, prohibits a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer (“dealer”) from engaging in municipal securities business with an issuer within two years after any contribution to an official of an issuer made by the dealer; any municipal finance professional associated with the dealer; or any political action committee controlled by the dealer or any municipal finance professional. In the 1995 Interpretive Letter, the Board noted that rule G-37 is applicable to contributions given to officials of issuers who seek election to federal office, such as the Presidency. The Board also explained that the only exception to rule G-37's absolute prohibition on business is for certain contributions made to issuer officials by municipal finance professionals.[2] Specifically, contributions by such persons to officials of issuers would not invoke application of the prohibition if the municipal finance professional is entitled to vote for such official, and provided that any contributions by such municipal finance professional do not exceed, in total, $250 to each official, per election. In the example of an issuer official running for President, any municipal finance professional in the country can contribute the de minimis amount to the official's Presidential campaign without causing a ban on municipal securities business with that issuer.

The Board previously has stated that, if an issuer official is involved in a primary election prior to the general election, a municipal finance professional who is entitled to vote for such official may contribute up to $250 for the primary election and $250 for the general election to each such official.[3] In the context of a Presidential campaign, the Board notes that the $250 de minimis amount applies to the entire primary process, up through and including the national party convention. While rule G-37 allows a municipal finance professional to then contribute another $250 to the party candidate's general election campaign fund, the Board understands that a Presidential candidate who has accepted public funding for the general election is prohibited under federal law from accepting any contributions to further his or her general election campaign.

Finally, the Board also notes that rule G-37(c) provides that no dealer or municipal finance professional shall solicit any person or political action committee to make any contributions, or shall coordinate any contributions, to an official of an issuer with which the dealer is engaging or is seeking to engage in municipal securities business.

---

 

 

[1] The 1995 Interpretive Letter is reprinted in MSRB Rule Book (January 1, 1999) at 201-203. It also is available from the MSRB Rules/Interpretive Letters section of the Board's Web site at www.msrb.org.

[2] The term “municipal finance professional” is a defined term in rule G-37(g)(iv). The Board wishes to remind dealers that the term is broader than persons directly involved in municipal securities activities and may include certain supervisors, including in the case of a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer other than a bank dealer, the Chief Executive Officer, and in the case of a bank dealer, the officer or officers designated by the board of directors of the bank as responsible for the day-to-day conduct of the bank's municipal securities dealer activities. It also may include members of the dealer's executive or management committee or similarly situated officials. See Question and Answer number 2 dated May 24, 1994, reprinted in MSRB Rule Book (January 1, 1999) at 192; MSRB Reports , Vol. 14, No. 3 (June 1994) at 13; Question and Answer number 3 dated September 9, 1997, reprinted in MSRB Rule Book (January 1, 1999) at 199. The Questions and Answers also are available from the MSRB Rules/Interpretive Notice section of the Board's Web site at www.msrb.org.

[3] See Question and Answer number 10 dated May 24, 1994, reprinted in MSRB Rule Book (January 1, 1999) at 192; MSRB Reports , Vol. 14, No. 3 (June 1994) at 13. The Question and Answer also is available from the MSRB Rules/Interpretive Notice section of the Board's Web site at www.msrb.org.