Retired Interpretive Guidance - May 10, 2021
The following pieces of guidance were retired on May 10, 2021 as part of an MSRB effort to streamline the MSRB rule book. See MSRB Notice 2021-02 for additional information.
- Apprenticeship - February 17, 1978
- Syndicate Records: Sole Underwriter - May 12, 1989
- Settlement of Syndicate Accounts - November 1, 1978
- Reporting of Transactions Arising From Repurchase Agreements - June 18, 2004
- Reminder Notice on “List Offering Price” and Three-Hour Exception for Real-Time Transaction Reporting - December 10, 2004
- Blanket Consent - July 30, 1981
- Issuer Consent: Financial Advisor Participation in Underwriting - April 10, 1984
- Notice on Recently Effective Changes in Calculations Rule - May 31, 1984
- Multiple Underwriters - January 30, 1998
- Reminder Notice on Prohibited Payments to Non-Affiliated Persons for Solicitations of Municipal Securities Business Under Rule G-38 and Form G-38t Submission Requirements – June 12, 2007
- Notice Regarding Regulation of Taxable Municipal Securities – October 6, 1986
- Notice Concerning Executing Broker Symbols – December 16, 1996
- Periodic compliance examinations - February 17, 1978
- "Person" - March 19, 1980
- Reminder Regarding the Application of Rule G-37 to Federal Election Campaigns of Issuer Officials – September 28, 2011
1. Apprenticeship - February 17, 1978
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated January 30, 1978 and will confirm our recent telephone conversation.
In your letter you seek clarification of the applicability of the requirements of rule G-3(i) [*] relating to apprenticeship periods to a municipal securities representative who has previously qualified as a general securities representative. As I indicated in our conversation, an individual who was previously qualified as a general securities representative is not required to serve the 90-day apprenticeship period. MSRB interpretation of February 17, 1978.
[*] [Currently codified at rule G-3(a)(iii)]
2. Syndicate Records: Sole Underwriter - May 12, 1989
This is in response to your letter regarding rule G-8 on recordkeeping. You note that rule G-8(a)(viii) requires the managing underwriter of a syndicate to maintain certain records pertaining to syndicate transactions. You ask if this rule applies to an underwriter in a sole underwriting.
Rule G-11(a)(viii) defines a syndicate as an account formed by two or more persons for the purpose of purchasing, directly or indirectly, all or any part of a new issue of municipal securities from the issuer, and making a distribution thereof. Since a sole underwriting does not involve a syndicate, rule G-8(a)(viii) does not apply to sole underwritings. Of course, the sole underwriter must maintain other required records for transactions in the new issue. MSRB interpretation of May 12, 1989.
3. Settlement of Syndicate Accounts - November 1, 1978
Your letter dated September 25, 1978, regarding rule G-12 has been referred to me for reply. In your letter, you inquire as to whether the requirement in section (j) of rule G-12 to settle syndicate accounts within 60 days following the date all securities are delivered to syndicate members, applies in all circumstances. Specifically, you ask whether the time for settlement may be extended under the rule in the event that the syndicate has not received all expense bills prior to the expiration of that period.
There is no provision in rule G-12 for extending the 60-day period in the circumstances which you described. In adopting this requirement, the Board sought to achieve an equitable balance between the interests of syndicate members and syndicate managers in settling syndicate accounts. The Board believes that the 60-day period provides sufficient time to enable syndicate managers to settle on syndicate accounts and represents a reasonable time within which such accounts should be settled. It is therefore incumbent upon a syndicate manager to encourage persons to submit bills to the syndicate on a timely basis. The syndicate manager will otherwise have to settle the account within the prescribed time period and make adjustments subsequently when late bills are finally received. MSRB interpretation of November 1, 1978.
4. Reporting Transactions From Repurchase Agreements - June 18, 2001
The MSRB has received inquiries from dealers as to whether they must report purchase and sale transactions that arise from repurchase agreements as "transactions" under Rule G-14, on transaction reporting. Typically, a bona fide, properly documented repurchase agreement ("repo") is an agreement consisting of two transactions whereby one party purchases securities from a second party, and the second party agrees to repurchase the securities on a certain future date at a price that will produce an agreed-upon rate of return. The parties may be dealers, investors, or others. There is a repo program known to the MSRB in which one party to the repo transaction is a dealer and the other party is a customer, so this type of repo results in a sequence of two customer transactions.
The Transaction Reporting Program, which disseminates prices of municipal securities trades reported to the Board by dealers under Rule G-14, has an objective to provide price transparency about the current market. Repos, however, are not the type of transactions that were intended for reporting under Rule G-14. This is because the paired transactions of a repo function as a financing agreement and the underlying transactions, while technically purchase-sale agreements, are not necessarily effected at market prices. Since there is no way in today's batch Transaction Reporting System to suppress customer transaction reports from being portrayed as market prices, dealers should not report repos to the current Transaction Reporting Program. This approach is consistent with the practice for reporting of corporate bond transactions to the NASD's TRACE system, in that NASD advises dealers not to report corporate bond repo transactions. [1]
In January 2005, the MSRB plans to begin operation of the Real-Time Transaction Reporting System (RTRS) and to require reporting of transactions in real-time under a proposed change to Rule G-14. [2] In RTRS there is an indicator by which a dealer can report that a trade was done under special conditions, including trades done at other than the market price. [3] The MSRB plans to amend the RTRS specifications to add a value to this indicator by which a dealer would report that a transaction was done at a price away from the market because it was a customer transaction and was part of a repo. Such reporting will support the creation of a complete "audit trail" for market surveillance purposes. The indicator in this case will cause the trade to be suppressed from publication to avoid misleading transparency reports.
When the RTRS Specification is amended to add the value for "repo not at market price," an effective date will be stated for required reporting of such repos. Between January 2005 and the effective date of the amended Specification, dealers have the option to report such repos, or not, depending upon the configuration of their trade reporting systems. Before the effective date, if a dealer reports a repo that is a customer transaction away from the market, the report should include the value "R004" in the SPXR field, to indicate that it is a non-market price with "reason not listed" among currently used values.
[ 1 ] See, e.g., "TRACE Frequently Asked Questions (Reporting)" on www.nasd.com/mkt_sys/trace_faqs_reporting.asp.
[ 2 ] The proposed amendment was filed with the Commission on June 1, 2004. See "Real-Time Transaction Reporting: Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Rules G-14 and 12(f)," Notice 2004-13 , on www.msrb.org.
[ 3 ] See Specifications for Real-time Reporting of Municipal Securities Transactions, Version 1.2, section 4.3.2, field "SPXR."
The MSRB has received questions concerning the meaning of "list offering price" in Rule G-14 Real-Time Transaction Reporting Procedures. As used in this context, the term means the publicly announced "initial offering price" at which a new issue of municipal securities is to be offered to the public.
Real-time transaction reporting requires dealers to report most transactions within fifteen minutes of the time of trade execution. [1] Transactions effected at the "list offering price" by syndicate or selling group members [2] on the first day of trading in a new issue are eligible for an exception found in Rule G-14 RTRS Procedures section (a)(ii)(A). Such transactions instead are required to be reported by the end of the day. Note that syndicate and selling group members are not required to wait to report such transactions at the end of the day and may choose to report prior to the end of the day.
The exception from fifteen-minute transaction reporting for list-price syndicate trades is based on operational difficulties that otherwise might be presented for dealers when large numbers of transactions at the initial offering price must be reported by a dealer at one time. The MSRB viewed these operational considerations as sufficiently important to allow trades to be reported at the end of the day given that the price of such trades (the "list offering price") is public. Note that transactions by syndicate or selling group members at prices other than the "list offering price" on the first day of trading in a new issue are required to be reported within fifteen minutes of the time of trade execution. For example, transactions between the syndicate manager and syndicate members ("takedown" transactions) that are at prices other than the "list offering price" must be reported within fifteen minutes of the time of execution. Similarly, transactions done at offering prices that have not been publicly announced, e.g. "not reoffered" prices, also must be reported within fifteen minutes of the time of execution since these prices are not public.
Questions also have been asked about the availability of the three-hour trade reporting exception found in Rule G-14 RTRS Procedures section (a)(ii)(C). When a dealer effects a trade in an issue it has not traded in the past year and does not have CUSIP numbers and indicative data for the issue in its securities master file used to process trades for confirmations, clearance and settlement, it is allowed three hours to report. [3] This exception is designed to allow a dealer time to set-up a security it has not traded and is available for transactions on the first day of trading in a new issue. Note this exception is not available for syndicate and selling group members.
[1] Rule changes to MSRB Rules G-14, on transaction reporting, and G-12(f), on automated comparison of inter-dealer transactions, that will require dealers to report transactions in real-time become effective January 31, 2005. See MSRB Notice 2004-36 (November 17, 2004) on www.msrb.org.
[2] References to "syndicate and selling group members" in this context are meant to include managers of syndicates as well as sole underwriters or placement agents in non-syndicated offerings.
[3] The three-hour exception sunsets one year after real-time transaction reporting is implemented.
6. Blanket Consent - July 30, 1981
This is in response to your April 7, 1981, letter asking whether, consistent with rule G-23(d)(ii), a municipal securities dealer acting as a financial advisor to an issuer may obtain from the issuer prospective approval to participate in any and all new issues the issuer may sell on a competitive basis at some future date.
Rule G-23(d)(ii) provides that a municipal securities dealer which is acting as a financial advisor may not acquire or participate in the distribution of a new issue unless
if such issue is to be sold by the issuer at competitive bid the issuer has consented in writing to such acquisition or participation.
The rule is designed to minimize the "prima facie" conflict of interest that exists when a municipal securities professional acts as both financial advisor and underwriter with respect to the same issue. Rule G-23(d) speaks in terms of "a new issue" and the implication is that consent should be obtained on an issue-by-issue basis.
The Board believes that such a reading of the rule is consistent with the rule’s rationale—that an issuer should have an opportunity to consider whether, under the particular circumstances of an offering, the financial advisor’s potential conflict of interest is sufficient to warrant not consenting to its participation in the sale. The Board has concluded that an unrestricted consent would not afford an issuer such an opportunity and, accordingly, has determined that such a consent would not satisfy the requirements of rule G-23(d)(ii). MSRB interpretation of July 30, 1981.
7. Issuer Consent: Financial Advisor Participation in Underwriting - April 10, 1984
This responds to your letter of March 6, 1984, regarding the application of rule G-23, concerning the activities of financial advisors to the following activities of [name deleted] (the "Company").
Your letter states that the Company serves as a financial advisor to a number of municipal entities with respect to the issuance and delivery of bonds. In the majority of circumstances in which bonds are to be marketed through a competitive bidding process, the Company is requested by the issuer either to bid for the bonds independently for its own account or as a participant with others in a syndicate organized to submit a bid. You state that the Company’s customary financial advisory contract, in almost all instances, specifically reserves to the Company the right to bid independently or in a syndicate with others for any bonds marketed through a competitive bid.
However, to further accommodate these circumstances, you state that it is the Company’s practice to include in the official statement on any bond issue subject to competitive bids specific language, such as:
The Company is employed as Financial Advisor to the City in connection with the issuance of the Bonds. The Financial Advisor’s fee for services rendered with respect to the sale of the Bond is contingent upon the issuance and delivery of the Bonds. The Company may submit a bid for the Bonds, either independently or as a member of a syndicate organized to submit a bid for the Bonds.
In the notice of sale, the following language is included:
The Company, the City’s Financial Advisor, reserves the right to bid on the Bonds.
You add that these two documents, the official statement and the notice of sale, must be approved by formal resolution of the governing authority of the issuer, such as a city council or a board of directors, before bids are requested or on the date of sale. You ask whether the above language printed in the official statement and the notice of sale, which is approved by formal resolution of the governing authority of the issuer, constitutes compliance with rule G-23(d)(ii).
Rule G-23, concerning the activities of financial advisors, is designed to minimize the prima facie conflict of interest that exists when a municipal securities professional acts as both financial advisor and underwriter with respect to the same issue. Specifically, rule G-23(d)(ii) provides that a municipal securities dealer which is acting as a financial advisor may not acquire or participate in the distribution of a new issue unless,
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.
Compliance with the rule’s requirement that an issuer expressly consent in writing to the financial advisor’s participation in the underwriting cannot be inferred from its approval of the official statement and notice of sale. These documents are designed primarily to describe the new issue and a passing reference to the advisor’s possible participation in the underwriting of the bond issue cannot be construed as express approval of such activity since it is not clear that the issuer is provided with a sufficient opportunity to determine whether it is in its best interests to allow its financial advisor to participate in the competitive bidding.
While the Board does not mandate the form of the issuer’s consent, it understands that financial advisory contracts often may include consent language applicable to a specific new issue. Alternatively, financial advisors may obtain the consent of an issuer by means of a separate document. However, a financial advisory contract that reserves to the financial advisor the right to bid for any of the issuer’s bonds marketed through a competitive bid does not satisfy the requirements of rule G-23(d)(ii). The Board has stated that such "blanket consents" do not afford an issuer a sufficient opportunity to consider whether, under the particular circumstances of an offering, the financial advisor’s potential conflict of interest is sufficient to warrant not consenting to the financial advisor’s participation in the sale. MSRB interpretation of April 10, 1984.
8. Notice on Recently Effective Changes in Calculations Rule - May 31, 1984
The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board has recently received a number of inquiries from members of the municipal securities industry and others concerning certain of the provisions of rule G-33 on calculations. In particular, such persons have inquired concerning the acceptability under the rule of the practice of interpolation as a method of determining dollar price from yield. Such persons have also asked whether the rule permits a dealer effecting a transaction at a yield price equal to the interest rate on the securities to presume that the dollar price on the transaction is "100."
The Board wishes to remind members of the industry that both of these practices are no longer permissible. Board rule G-33 generally requires that yields and dollar prices on transactions effected by municipal securities brokers and dealers be computed in accordance with the formulas prescribed in the rule directly to the settlement date of the transaction. Subparagraph (b)(i)(C) of the rule permitted, until January 1, 1984, the use of the dollar price "100" as the presumed result on transactions in securities with a redemption value of par effected at a yield price equal to the interest rate on the securities. Subparagraph (b)(i)(D) of the rule permitted, until January 1, 1984, the use of interpolation as a method of deriving a dollar price. Since the effectiveness of both of these provisions lapsed as of January 1, 1984, therefore, these practices are no longer in compliance with the requirements of the rule; dollar prices on all transactions effected on a yield basis (including transactions effected on a yield basis equal to the interest rate) should therefore be computed directly to the settlement date of the transaction.
The Board notes that the rule continues to permit a municipal securities broker or dealer to effect a transaction in dollar price terms. Therefore, a dealer wishing to offer or sell a security at par may continue to effect the transaction on a direct dollar price basis at a price of "100."
9. Multiple Underwriters - January 30, 1998
This is in response to your letter in which you ask us whether a dealer that serves in the capacity as settlement agent for an issuer, as described in your letter, is obligated to file Form G-36(OS) in connection with a primary offering of municipal securities sold and delivered in the manner described in your letter.
Board rule G-36 obligates an underwriter in any primary offering of municipal securities that is subject to Rule 15c2-12 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission to send to the Board, within one business day after receipt of the final official statement from the issuer, but no later than 10 business days after any final agreement to purchase, offer or sell the municipal securities, two copies of the final official statement and two copies of completed Form G-36 (OS).[1] In the event a syndicate or similar account has been formed for the underwriting of a primary offering, the managing underwriter is obligated to undertake, on behalf of the syndicate or account, the duty of sending the official statement and Form G-36(OS) to the Board.[2]
The obligation to comply with the requirements of rule G-36 and the related recordkeeping requirements of rule G-8(a)(xv) attaches to all underwriters in a primary offering that is subject to rule G-36. The only circumstance in which these rules permit an underwriter to depend upon another party to fulfill such obligation is when another underwriter has taken on the duties of a managing underwriter for a syndicate or similar account formed for the particular underwriting, in which case the rules place responsibility for compliance on such managing underwriter. Thus, in any primary offering in which more than one dealer is serving as underwriter (within the meaning of federal securities laws) for the same municipal securities without having formed an underwriting syndicate or similar account, each such underwriter (regardless of its stated capacity as settlement agent or otherwise) is individually obligated to comply with the requirements of rule G-36 and the related recordkeeping requirements of rule G-8(a)(xv). MSRB interpretation of January 30, 1998.
_________
ENDNOTES
[1] Rule G-36 also obligates an underwriter in any primary offering of municipal securities that is not subject to SEC Rule 15c2-12 (other than a limited placement within the meaning of SEC Rule 15c2-12(d)(1)(i)) for which the issuer has prepared an official statement in final form to send to the Board, within one business day after delivery of the securities by the issuer to the underwriters, two copies of the official statement in final form and two copies of completed Form G-36(OS).
[2] The managing underwriter is also required to undertake all recordkeeping duties imposed under rule G-8(a)(xv) in connection with rule G-36.
Rule G-38, on solicitation of municipal securities business, prohibits any broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer ("dealer") from making a direct or indirect payment to any person who is not an affiliated person [1] of the dealer for a solicitation of municipal securities business. [2] The current version of Rule G-38 replaced a prior version of the rule, relating to the use of consultants, effective August 29, 2005. [3] Thus, with one narrowly defined exception discussed below, since August 29, 2005, dealers have been prohibited from making any payments to persons not affiliated with the dealer (including but not limited to any former consultant under the prior version of Rule G-38) for solicitations of municipal securities business.
A dealer is permitted to make a payment to a former consultant who is not an affiliated person of the dealer for a solicitation of municipal securities business if the payment is made solely for solicitation activities undertaken by such former consultant on or prior to August 29, 2005. A transitional payment is permitted only if (A) the former consultant has not solicited municipal securities business from any issuer on behalf of the dealer after August 29, 2005 and (B) the dealer submits Form G-38t to the MSRB for each calendar quarter during which such payment to the consultant is made or remains pending. The dealer must disclose on its initial and all subsequent Form G-38t submissions each item of municipal securities business for which a transitional payment remains pending and the amount of such pending payment, together with other required information, until such quarter in which the payment is finally made. [4]
Dealers are required to submit Form G-38t to the MSRB for a calendar quarter only if a transitional payment to a former consultant is paid during such quarter or remains pending (i.e., payable at a future date) as of such quarter. If no such payments are made or remain pending in any calendar quarter, Form G-38t is not required to be submitted and dealers should not make such submissions. Dealers should note that pending payments must continuously be disclosed on Form G-38t for every calendar quarter, beginning with the quarter ended on September 30, 2005 and each quarter thereafter, until paid. If a pending payment has not been disclosed on Form G-38t for any one or more prior calendar quarters, such payment may no longer be made under the transitional payment provision of Rule G-38 and the dealer would violate Rule G-38 if it subsequently makes such a payment.
The MSRB wishes to remind dealers that Rule G-38 strictly prohibits all payments by a dealer to a non-affiliated person for solicitation activities undertaken after August 29, 2005, even if such solicitation activities are undertaken pursuant to a contract entered into by the dealer with the non-affiliated person on or prior to August 29, 2005. In effect, all paid solicitation activities by non-affiliated persons on behalf of dealers were required to cease as of August 30, 2005, regardless of whether such activities arise from earlier contractual commitments, since any payments by dealers for such activities would violate Rule G-38. Further, as noted above, one of the conditions for permitting transitional payments for solicitations occurring on or prior to August 29, 2005 is that the former consultant does not solicit municipal securities business from any issuer on behalf of the dealer at any time after August 29, 2005. Thus, if a dealer has a pending payment to a former consultant for a solicitation made to an issuer on or prior to August 29, 2005, a subsequent solicitation on behalf of the dealer by such former consultant to the same or a different issuer after August 29, 2005 would disqualify such pending payment from being treated as a valid transitional payment under Rule G-38.
11. Notice Regarding Regulation of Taxable Municipal Securities – October 6, 1986
Because of recent federal tax law changes which place additional restrictions on the issuance of tax-exempt municipal securities, issuers of municipal securities are issuing, or considering issuing, debt securities that are subject to federal taxation. As a result, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board has received numerous inquiries concerning the application of its rules to dealers effecting transactions in taxable municipal securities. The Board wishes to emphasize that its rules apply to transactions effected by brokers, dealers, and municipal securities dealers in all municipal securities. Thus, transactions in taxable municipal securities are subject to the Board's rules, including rules regarding uniform and fair practice, automated clearance and settlement, the payment of the underwriting assessment fee, and the professional qualifications of registered representatives and principals.
12. Notice Concerning Executing Broker Symbols – December 16, 1996
MSRB Rule G-14 on Transaction Reporting requires that every dealer obtain an executing broker symbol, if one has not already been assigned, from National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations (NASDAQ). NASDAQ will assign executing broker symbols to all dealers including bank dealers. NASDAQ Subscriber Services can be reached at 212-231-5180, option 3. When calling NASDAQ Subscriber Services for an executing broker symbol, dealers should state that they need the symbol for use in reporting transactions in municipal securities to the MSRB. If dealers experience difficulties in obtaining executing broker symbols, then they can send an e-mail to subscriber@NASDAQ.com.
NOTE: This notice was revised to reflect updated information.
13. Periodic compliance examinations - February 17, 1978
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated February 2, 1978 in which you request a clarification of Board rule G-16 relating to periodic compliance examinations.
In your letter you express your understanding that rule G-16 does not apply to bank dealers. This understanding is incorrect. Rule G-16 applies to all municipal securities brokers and municipal securities dealers and requires that all such organizations be examined at least once each [two calendar years] to determine compliance with, among other things, rules of the Board. Under section 15B(c)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”), such examinations of bank dealers will be conducted by the appropriate federal bank regulatory agency. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is designated by the Act as the appropriate agency for national banks. MSRB interpretation of February 17, 1978.
NOTE: revised to reflect subsequent amendments.
Your letter regarding rule G-20 has been referred to me. Rule G-20 prohibits a municipal securities professional from giving gifts or providing services to a person in relation to the municipal securities activities of such person's employer, in excess of a specified amount.
In your letter, you inquire whether the term "person" in rule G-20 is intended to include "a ‘corporate’ person as well as a ‘real’ person."As used in the rule, the term "person" refers only to a natural person. The rule is intended to discourage municipal securities professionals from attempting to induce individual employees from acting in a manner inconsistent with their obligations to, or contrary to the interests of, their employers. MSRB interpretation of March 19, 1980.
In 1999, the MSRB published a notice on the application of Rule G-37, on political contributions and prohibitions on municipal securities business, to Presidential campaigns of issuer officials. [1] In general, the notice described a 1995 interpretive letter [2] in which the Board noted that Rule G-37 is applicable to contributions given to an official of an issuer [3] who seeks 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. Specifically, contributions by such persons to an official of an issuer 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. Finally, the Board noted 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. In these circumstances, federal law allows individuals to contribute to the candidate’s compliance fund, which uses the contributions solely for legal and accounting services to ensure compliance with federal law and not for campaign activities. Thus, any municipal finance professional in the country can contribute the de minimis amount to an issuer official’s compliance fund without causing a ban on municipal securities business with that issuer. This would apply if the issuer official runs for President or Vice President.
The MSRB wishes to remind dealers that these concepts also apply to an issuer official who campaigns for any federal office. For example, any municipal finance professional residing in a state in which an issuer official is campaigning for a state-wide federal office may contribute the de minimis amount to the official’s campaign without causing a ban on municipal securities business with that issuer. The MSRB does not opine whether any particular individual is or is not an issuer official.
The MSRB also wishes to remind dealers to be aware of the Rule G-37 issues involving indirect rule violations and contributions to non-dealer associated political action committees and payments to political parties, which issues have been the subjects of previous notices and interpretive Questions and Answers. [4]
September 28, 2011
[1] See Application of Rule G-37 to Presidential Campaigns of Issuer Officials reprinted in MSRB Rule Book (January 1, 2011) at 299-300. The notice is also available from the MSRB Rules/Interpretive Notices section of the MSRB’s website at www.msrb.org.
[2] See MSRB Interpretation of May 31, 1995, reprinted in MSRB Rule Book (January 1, 2011) at 309-311. The letter is also available from theMSRB Rules/Interpretive Letters section of the MSRB’s website at www.msrb.org.
[3] The term “official of an issuer” is defined in Rule G-37(g)(vi) as any person (including any election committee for such person) who was, at the time of the contribution, an incumbent, candidate or successful candidate: (A) for elective office of the issuer which office is directly or indirectly responsible for, or can influence the outcome of, the hiring of a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer for municipal securities business by the issuer; or (B) for any elective office of a state or of any political subdivision, which office has authority to appoint any person who is directly or indirectly responsible for, or can influence the outcome of, the hiring of a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer for municipal securities business by an issuer.
[4] See Notice Concerning Indirect Rule Violations: Rules G-37 and G-38, reprinted in MSRB Rule Book (January 1, 2011) at 302-303; Rule G-37 Questions and Answers Nos. III.4 and III.5 regarding contributions to a non-dealer associated PAC and payments to a state or local political party, reprinted in MSRB Rule Book (January 1, 2011) at 290; and Rule G-37 Question and Answer No. III.7 regarding supervisory procedures relating to indirect contributions, reprinted in MSRB Rule Book (January 1, 2011) at 291. The notice and Questions and Answers are also available on the MSRB’s website at www.msrb.org.
