Select regulatory documents by category:
Regulatory Document Type
Reminder Notice on Fair Practice Duties to Issuers of Municipal Securities
The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”) has recently provided guidance regarding the fair practice and related obligations of brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers (“dealers”) to investors. Specifically, MSRB Rule G-17, on conduct of municipal securities activities, states that, in the conduct of its municipal securities business, each dealer shall deal fairly with all persons and shall not engage in any deceptive, dishonest, or unfair practice. The MSRB is publishing this notice to remind dealers that the fair practice requirements of Rule G-17 also apply to their municipal securities activities with issuers of municipal securities.
As noted above, the fair practice requirements of Rule G-17 apply to all municipal securities activities of dealers with issuers. In particular, even where other MSRB rules provide for specific disclosures or other actions by, or establish specific standards of behavior for, dealers with respect to or on behalf of issuers, such disclosures, actions or behavior must also comport with the fair practice principles of Rule G-17. The MSRB will continue to review practices with respect to dealer activities with issuers.
 See MSRB Notice 2009-42 (July 14, 2009).
 See Rule G-17 Interpretive Letter – Purchase of new issue from issuer, MSRB interpretation of December 1, 1997, reprinted in MSRB Rule Book.
Notice Concerning Use of Electronic Confirmations Produced By a Clearing Agency or Qualified Vendor to Satisfy the Requirements of Rule G-15(a)
MSRB Rule G-15 provides confirmation, clearance, settlement and other uniform practice requirements with respect to transactions with customers. Rule G-15(a) requires that, at or before the completion of a transaction in municipal securities with or for the account of a customer, each broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer (collectively “dealer”) give or send to the customer “a written confirmation of the transaction” containing the information specified by the rule. Rule 15(d) provides additional uniform practice requirements for transactions executed with customers on a payment for securities received (“RVP”) or delivery against payment of securities sold (“DVP”) basis (collectively, “DVP/RVP”). In addition to the specific uniform practice requirements of this section, Rule G-15(d)(i)(c) expressly provides that dealers executing DVP/RVP transactions must comply with the requirements of section (a) of the rule pertaining to customer confirmations. Rule G-15(d) also requires dealers that transact with customers on a DVP/RVP basis to use the facilities of a Clearing Agency or Qualified Vendor, as defined in Rule G-15(d)(ii)(B), for automated confirmation and acknowledgement of the transaction.
Securities Exchange Act Rule 10b-10, on customer confirmations of non-municipal securities transactions, provides for confirmation requirements that are similar to Rule G-15(a). Several providers of automated confirmation and acknowledgement services have received no-action letters from the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) staff that allow their dealer clients to rely on the confirmations they produce to satisfy dealer confirmation delivery obligations to certain customers under SEC Rule 10b-10 where the disclosures customarily provided on the back of paper confirmations are provided electronically using a uniform resource locator (“URL”) link. One of the service providers that received a no-action letter, as described above, permitting it to use URL links for its dealer clients, has requested an interpretation of Rule G-15(a) to allow dealers to rely on confirmations produced by this service provider to the same extent as dealers are allowed to use the confirmations produced by the service providers to comply with SEC Rule 10b-10.
In a 1994 Interpretive Notice, the MSRB recognized that the speed and efficiencies offered by electronic confirmation delivery are of benefit to the municipal securities industry. Therefore, the MSRB has interpreted the requirement in Rule G-15(a) to provide a customer with a written confirmation to be satisfied by an electronic confirmation for DVP/RVP transactions sent by a Clearing Agency or Qualified Vendor, as defined in MSRB Rule G-15(d)(ii)(B), where disclosures customarily provided on the back of paper confirmations are provided electronically using a URL link when the following conditions are met: (i) the confirmation sent includes all of the information required by Rule G-15(a); and (ii) all of the requirements and conditions concerning the use of the electronic confirmation service expressed in applicable SEC no-action letters concerning SEC Rule 10b-10 continue to be met.
Build America Bonds: Reminder of Customer Confirmation Yield Disclosure Requirement
On April 24, 2009, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) published a notice clarifying that “Build America Bonds” and other tax credit bonds are municipal securities and, therefore, subject to MSRB rules. The MSRB understands that many of these securities contain certain redemption provisions, such as mandatory pro rata sinking funds, and that brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers (collectively “dealers”) frequently effect transactions on a basis of “yield to average life.” The MSRB reminds dealers that, for transactions effected on the basis of “yield to average life,” Rule G-15(a), on customer confirmations, requires the confirmation to display that yield as well as the yield computed to the lower of an “in whole” call or maturity.
Rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(5) states requirements for dealers to calculate and display yields and dollar prices on customer confirmations. For transactions effected on the basis of yield to maturity, call or put date, the yield at which the transaction was effected as well as a dollar price computed to the lower of an “in whole” call or maturity are required to be shown on a confirmation. Similarly, for transactions effected on the basis of a dollar price, the dollar price at which the transaction was effected along with a yield computed to the lower of an “in whole” call or maturity are required to be shown on a confirmation.
Sinking funds do not represent “in whole” call features. Accordingly, MSRB confirmation requirements do not require dealers to compute yield or dollar price to a sinking fund call date or to compute a “yield to average life” using multiple sinking fund dates. However, dealers should note that if the computed yield otherwise required by Rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(5) is different than the yield at which the transaction was effected, Rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(5)(vii) provides that both the computed yield and the yield at which the transaction was effected must be shown on the confirmation. Therefore, when a transaction is effected on the basis of “yield to average life,” such yield must be displayed on a customer confirmation.
MSRB Publishes Interpretive Letter Regarding Solicitation Activity on Behalf of an Affiliated Company Pursuant to Rules G-37 and G-38
MSRB PUBLISHES INTERPRETIVE LETTER REGARDING SOLICITATION ACTIVITY ON BEHALF OF AN AFFILIATED COMPANY PURSUANT TO RULES G-37 AND G-38
The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board has published an interpretive letter pursuant to Rule G-37, on political contributions and prohibitions on municipal securities business, and Rule G-38, on solicitation of municipal securities business, concerning the activities of a broker-dealer on behalf of an affiliated company. The text of the interpretive letter is included below. Questions regarding the interpretive letter may be directed to Leslie Carey, Associate General Counsel, or Ronald W. Smith, Senior Legal Associate.
July 2, 2009
* * * * *
TEXT OF INTERPRETIVE LETTER
Rules G-37 and G-38 Interpretive Letter – Solicitation activity on behalf of affiliated company. This is in response to your April 29, 2009 letter seeking guidance regarding Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”) Rule G-38, on solicitation of municipal securities business, and MSRB Rule G-37, on political contributions and prohibitions on municipal securities business. Your letter relates to the formation of a joint venture broker-dealer (“JV B-D”) by two existing broker-dealers (the “legacy firms”). You state that JV B-D will not engage in municipal securities business and that the employees of JV B-D will not retain their employment status with the legacy firms, but will be associated persons of both legacy firms.
Specifically, you request guidance on the following two issues: (i) whether the employees of the JV B-D may solicit municipal securities business, under Rule G-38, on behalf of the legacy firms; and (ii) whether an employee who solicits municipal securities business on behalf of one of the legacy firms will be considered a municipal finance professional (“MFP”)  solely of the legacy firm on whose behalf the MFP solicits municipal securities business under Rule G-37, rather than of both legacy firms. The Board has reviewed your letter and authorized this response.
JV B-D Employee Solicitation of Municipal Securities Business on Behalf of Legacy Firms: You ask whether employees of JV B-D, who are the prior employees of the legacy firms, may solicit municipal securities business on behalf of such firms under Rule G-38. Rule G-38(a) prohibits a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer (“dealer”) from providing, directly or indirectly, payment to any person who is not an affiliated person of the dealer for a solicitation of municipal securities business on behalf of such dealer.
You state that JV B-D will be controlled by the legacy firms and, as such, should be viewed as an affiliated company of the legacy firms. Under Rule G-38, if JV B-D is controlled by the legacy firms, JV B-D and its employees should be viewed as affiliates of the legacy firms. Based on the control relationships you describe, Rule G-38 will not be violated if employees of JV B-D are paid by a legacy firm for a solicitation of municipal securities business on behalf of such legacy firms.
JV B-D Employee Status as Municipal Finance Professional for Legacy Firm on Behalf of Which the Employee Has Solicited Municipal Securities Business: You also ask whether an employee of JV B-D who solicits municipal securities business on behalf of one of the legacy firms will be considered an MFP solely of the legacy firm on whose behalf the employee solicits municipal securities business, rather than of both legacy firms. Rule G-37(g)(iv)(B) defines MFP, in relevant part, as any associated person (including, but not limited to, any affiliated person of the dealer, as defined in Rule G-38) who solicits municipal securities business (a “solicitor MFP”). You note that this language does not expressly limit MFP status to the dealer on whose behalf the municipal securities business was solicited.
The MSRB is of the view that implicit in the concept of a solicitor MFP, as set forth in Rule G-37(g)(iv)(B), is the notion that an associated person who solicits municipal securities business on behalf of a dealer becomes an MFP of such dealer. Although an individual who solicits municipal securities business on behalf of one dealer with which he or she is associated thereby becomes an MFP of such dealer, the solicitation does not by itself result in the individual becoming an MFP of a different dealer with which such individual may be associated but for which he or she has not solicited municipal securities business. Rather, such individual would have to undertake a solicitation or another activity described in Rule G-37(g)(iv) on behalf of the second dealer in order to become an MFP of such second dealer.
The MSRB notes that Rule G-38(b)(i) defines solicitation broadly to mean, any direct or indirect communication with an issuer for the purpose of obtaining or retaining municipal securities business. The MSRB has previously provided guidance regarding the types of communications that are viewed as solicitations of municipal securities business. Depending upon specific facts and circumstances, a direct solicitation of municipal securities business by an individual on behalf of a dealer with which such individual is associated (the “directly-benefited dealer”) might also be considered an indirect solicitation of business on behalf of another dealer with which such individual is associated (the “indirectly-benefited dealer”). In conversations with issuers or other third parties, the individual must clearly indicate for which dealer he or she is soliciting business. For example, an individual who describes to issuer personnel two or more affiliated dealers as leading underwriting firms in that issuer’s state but only explicitly asks such personnel to hire one dealer (i.e., the directly-benefited dealer) would likely be considered to have indirectly solicited business on behalf of the other dealer as well (i.e., the indirectly-benefited dealer). An important factor in determining whether a direct solicitation on behalf of a directly-benefited dealer could also be considered an indirect solicitation on behalf of an indirectly-benefited dealer is whether the individual solely identifies his or her affiliation with the directly-benefited dealer or also identifies an affiliation with the other dealer. To the extent that multiple dealers are identified directly or indirectly, dealers would need to take extra precautions to ensure that the solicited issuer personnel understand that the solicitation is solely on behalf of the directly-benefited dealer and that the identification of the other firm is limited and does not serve to promote the other firm. In circumstances similar to those described in this letter, dealers should have in place effective procedures to ensure that the solicitations for municipal securities business are tracked in a way that will properly classify individuals making solicitations as MFPs of the appropriate dealer. MSRB Interpretation of June 23, 2009.
Build America Bonds and Other Tax Credit Bonds: Application of Rule G-37 to Solicitations of Issuers
On April 24, 2009, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the "MSRB") published Notice 2009-15 on Build America Bonds and Other Tax Credit Bonds (the "April 2009 Notice"). In the April 2009 Notice, the MSRB explained that Build America Bonds and the other tax credit bonds described in the April 2009 Notice are municipal securities and are, therefore, subject to MSRB rules, including Rule G-37 on political contributions.
The MSRB understands that, for the purpose of obtaining municipal securities business as defined in Rule G-37, personnel from the taxable desk of brokers, dealers, or municipal securities dealers ("dealers"), or personnel from other departments or divisions of dealers that do not traditionally engage in municipal securities business, may participate in presentations to potential issuers of Build America Bonds or other tax credit bonds in response to requests for proposals or in other pre-selection meetings with such potential issuers to discuss the structuring, pricing, sales, and distribution of taxable bonds. Dealers are reminded that such participation generally will make those personnel "municipal finance professionals" under Rule G-37(g)(iv)(B), because the personnel are considered to have solicited municipal securities business.
Pursuant to Rule G-37(b)(ii), political contributions made by such personnel to an official of the issuer solicited by such personnel within the two years prior to the solicitation would need to be examined by the dealer to determine whether the two-year ban on municipal securities business imposed by Rule G-37(b)(i) is triggered by the solicitation. By engaging in solicitation activities, such personnel would become municipal finance professionals and subsequent political contributions to issuer officials by such personnel would also be subject to Rule G-37.
 Rule G-37(g)(vii) defines municipal securities business as "(A) the purchase of a primary offering (as defined in rule A-13(f)) of municipal securities from the issuer on other than a competitive bid basis (e.g., negotiated underwritings); or (B) the offer or sale of a primary offering of municipal securities on behalf of any issuer (e.g., private placement); or (C) the provision of financial advisory or consultant services to or on behalf of an issuer with respect to a primary offering of municipal securities in which the dealer was chosen to provide such services on other than a competitive bid basis; or (D) the provision of remarketing agent services to or on behalf of an issuer with respect to a primary offering of municipal securities in which the dealer was chosen to provide such services on other than a competitive bid basis."
 Any associated person of a dealer who solicits municipal securities business is a municipal finance professional pursuant to Rule G-37(g)(iv)(B), regardless of whether such associated person engages in any other municipal securities activities for the dealer. Pursuant to Rule G-37(g)(ix) and Rule G-38(b)(i), solicitation of municipal securities business consists of any direct or indirect communication with an issuer for the purpose of obtaining or retaining municipal securities business.
Once a dealer has been selected to engage in the underwriting of the new issue, communications with the issuer necessary to undertake that engagement are not considered solicitations for purposes of Rule G-37. See Rule G-38 Interpretation - Interpretive Notice on the Definition of Solicitation Under Rules G-37 and G-38 (June 8, 2006).
 Thus, if a municipal finance professional has made a political contribution to an official of an issuer, other than a "de minimis" contribution under Rule G-37(b), during the preceding two years, the dealer would be banned from engaging in municipal securities business with such issuer if the municipal finance professional were to participate in the solicitation of such business. Political contributions made by a municipal finance professional to an issuer official for whom such municipal finance professional is entitled to vote are considered de minimis and would not result in a ban on municipal securities business if such contributions, in total, did not exceed $250 per election.
Build America Bonds and Other Tax Credit Bonds
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 added a provision to the Internal Revenue Code that authorizes state and local governments to issue two types of “Build America Bonds” as taxable governmental bonds with Federal subsidies for a portion of their borrowing costs.
The first type of Build America Bond provides a Federal subsidy through Federal tax credits to investors in the bonds. The tax credits may also be “stripped” and sold to other investors, pursuant to regulations to be issued by the Treasury Department. In its Notice 2009-26, the Treasury Department refers to this type of Build America Bond as “Build America Bonds (Tax Credit).”
The second type of Build America Bond provides a Federal subsidy through a refundable tax credit paid to state or local governmental issuers by the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service. The Treasury Department refers to this type of Build America Bond as “Build America Bonds (Direct Payment).” This Notice refers to both Build America Bonds (Tax Credit) and Build America Bonds (Direct Payment) as “Build America Bonds.”
Some municipal market participants have requested guidance on whether Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board rules are applicable to Build America Bonds. Build America Bonds are municipal securities, because they are issued by States and their political subdivisions and instrumentalities. Accordingly, all of the MSRB’s rules apply to transactions effected by brokers, dealers, and municipal securities dealers (“dealers”) in Build America Bonds, including rules regarding uniform and fair practice, political contributions, automated clearance and settlement, the payment of MSRB underwriting and transaction assessment fees, and the professional qualifications of registered representatives and principals.
For example, dealers in the primary market should note that current Rule G-36 requires underwriters to submit official statements to the MSRB, accompanied by completed Form G-36 (OS), for most primary offerings of municipal securities. Dealers also have official statement delivery responsibilities to customers under Rule G-32. Once final, recently proposed revisions to Rule G-32 will require underwriters to satisfy their official statement submission obligations electronically through use of the MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market Access system (“EMMA”) and will allow dealers to satisfy their official statement delivery obligations by means of appropriate notice to customers.
The MSRB understands that many Build America Bonds may be sold by dealers’ taxable desks and reminds dealers that Rule G-27 requires that municipal securities principals must supervise all municipal securities activities, including such sales.
Dealers in the secondary market should note that Rule G-14 requires that all transactions in municipal securities must be reported to the MSRB within certain prescribed time periods.
The following additional types of tax credit bonds are also municipal securities subject to MSRB rules: Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds, Qualified School Construction Bonds, Clean Renewable Energy Bonds, New Clean Renewable Energy Bonds, Midwestern Tax Credit Bonds, Energy Conservation Bonds, and Qualified Zone Academy Bonds.
This Notice does not address the securities law characterization of the tax credit component of Build America Bonds (Tax Credit) or other tax credit bonds, whether the credits are used by investors in the bonds or stripped and sold to other investors.