August 20, 2019

August 20, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

August 19, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

SEC Adds Two New Events to Rule 15c2-12: Could Have Far-Reaching Impact on Issuers and Obligors of Municipal Securities

On August 20, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued Release No. 34-83885 (the “Release”) adding two new events (the “New Events”) to the list of events that must be included in the continuing disclosure undertakings of municipal issuers or obligors of municipal bonds. A copy of the SEC’s adopting release may be found here.

Specifically, the amendments add two new events to the list included in Rule 15c2-12 (the “Rule”):

  • Incurrence of a financial obligation of the issuer or obligated person, if material, or agreement to covenants, events of default, remedies, priority rights, or other similar terms of a financial obligation of the issuer or obligated person, any of which affect security holders, if material; and

  • Default, event of acceleration, termination event, modification of terms, or other similar events under the terms of the financial obligation of the issuer or obligated person, any of which reflect financial difficulties.

Under the amendments, the term “financial obligation” means a (i) debt obligation; (ii) derivative instrument entered into in connection with, or pledged as security or a source of payment for, an existing or planned debt obligation; or (iii) guarantee of (i) or (ii). The term financial obligation shall not include municipal securities as to which a final official statement has been provided to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board consistent with the Rule.

The compliance date for the amendments is 180 days after the amendments are published in the Federal Register (the “Compliance Date”). The amendments will only affect those continuing disclosure agreements entered into on or after the Compliance Date. However, an event under the terms of a financial obligation that occurs on or after the Compliance Date must be disclosed regardless of whether such obligation was incurred before or after the Compliance Date.

This Client Alert will provide background concerning the Rule and describe the terms and scope of the New Events. It then will examine some of the issues that these amendments raise in the context of the municipal market. Lastly, it will suggest some strategies for participants in the municipal market to prepare for the Compliance Date.

Background

The SEC has indirectly regulated disclosure by issuers and obligors of municipal securities pursuant to the Rule by requiring that the broker-dealers underwriting an issue of bonds obtain a written undertaking from the issuer or obligor to provide certain annual financial data and timely notice of certain events that primarily relate to the offered securities to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s (“MSRB”) Electronic Municipal Market Access (“EMMA”) website. In addition, in connection with the issuance of the municipal securities, an underwriting broker-dealer must reasonably determine that the issuer or obligor has complied with its prior continuing disclosure undertakings, or accurately disclosed in its Official Statement relating to such securities any failures to comply with such undertakings, within the past five years.

Since 2009, issuers and obligors have increasingly used direct placements as substitutes for publicly offered municipal securities. Direct placements can be beneficial to issuers and obligors for several reasons, including the lack of a requirement to provide the purchaser or lender with an official statement and generally lower transaction costs. Although many such transactions are issued pursuant to the same underlying legal documents as the issuer’s or obligor’s outstanding bonds, many others include additional covenants or other provisions for the benefit of the purchaser or lender, often set forth in a separate continuing covenants agreement or a similar instrument. Currently, there is no regulation which requires either an issuer or obligor or a broker-dealer to post direct placement documentation on EMMA.

A number of market participants, particularly municipal analysts and rating agencies, have called for issuers and obligors to provide disclosure through EMMA regarding these direct placements, since the additional debt has the potential to materially alter the analysis of the issuer’s or obligor’s financial condition. Further, because in certain instances the additional terms and financial covenants agreed to by the issuer or obligor could have a material impact on the rights of the holders of outstanding publicly held bonds, these commentators have also sought to have these terms and financial covenants disclosed. A number of issues and obligors have voluntarily provided the requested information regarding such direct placements to EMMA. However, the SEC has noted that many other issuers and obligors have not made such information regarding direct placements available on EMMA, leading to a lack of information in the market regarding these securities or, in some cases, information “asymmetry” among various market participants.

In addition to information regarding direct placements, the SEC states that some market participants have called for issuers and obligors to provide information to EMMA regarding derivatives, such as interest rate swaps, and capital and operating leases, that is not currently required to be disclosed under the Rule.

The New Events

Accordingly, in order to address the lack of publicly available information regarding direct placements and other “financial obligations,” the SEC has amended the Rule to require timely disclosure of “financial obligations of the obligated person, if material” and of any agreement that includes “covenants, events of default, remedies, priority rights, or other similar terms of a financial obligation of the obligated person, any of which affect security holders, if material.” In addition, the amendments would require issuers and obligors to provide timely notice of a “default, event of acceleration, termination event, modification of terms or other similar events under the terms of a financial obligation of the obligated person, any of which reflect financial difficulties.” These amendments would apply to continuing disclosure undertakings for municipal securities issued after the effective date of the amendments, and would not be retroactive, in general. The amendment does not state which terms of the financial obligation would be material that would need to be included in a notice filed with EMMA.

Unpacking the New Events

Scope of “financial obligations” that must be disclosed. The clear focus of the Release and the amendments to the Rule is provision of continuing disclosure relating to direct placements, but the scope of the amendments is broader than direct placements. The term “financial obligation” is defined to include a “(i) debt obligation, (ii) derivative instrument, or (iii) guarantee of (i) or (ii).” Further, these terms are interpreted broadly in the Release. A debt obligation is intended to include a “lease” (financing leases), while a “guarantee” is intended to capture a contingent financial obligation of the issuer or obligor to secure the obligations of a third party or of the issuer or obligor itself. Thus, an extremely wide range of obligations, if material, will need to be disclosed to EMMA by issuers and obligors.

Impact of “materiality” qualifier. A second area of concern is the use of materiality to qualify those events that must be disclosed. This qualification ideally would limit the amount of disclosure that must be provided only to events where there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would consider such information important in making an investment decision, based on the Basic v. Levinson standard of materiality. However, as was evidenced by the SEC’s recent Municipal Securities Disclosure Cooperation (“MCDC”) initiative, there is a lack of clear guidance regarding what is material to an investor in the municipal market, leading to a conservative view of materiality and what one market participant has termed “hyper disclosure”.

Determining which events are “material” to a reasonable investor could be difficult and, if the SEC does not later concur with the issuer’s or obligor’s analysis, the consequences can be severe. Thus, use of the materiality standard (without further guidance) to qualify the events that must be disclosed gives rise to the concern that issuers and obligors will be required to provide detailed summaries of its direct placements, leases, swaps, for example, or to post in full redacted copies of the underlying documentation, in order to comply with the Rule.

Events “reflecting financial difficulties.” One of the themes of the Release is that, the timing of such financial difficulties disclosure under current law is often delayed because it is included in an annual filing, or such disclosure may not include the detail that would be required under the amendments. In the Release, the SEC also notes that certain events that would indicate that the issuer or obligor was experiencing financial difficulties are not currently required to be disclosed under the Rule. Thus, the second added event of the amendments would require an issuer or obligor to provide timely notice of any of the following events: “default, event of acceleration, termination event, modification of terms, or other similar events under the terms of a financial obligation of the obligated person, any of which reflect financial difficulties.”

In the Release, the SEC first notes that the qualifying trigger that any of the events must “reflect financial difficulties” should allow issuers and obligors to distinguish between events that do not reflect financial difficulties, such as failure to comply with a covenant to provide notice of a change of address, compared to the failure to replenish a debt service reserve fund. The former is unlikely to be evidence that the issuer’s or obligor’s ability to pay its obligations when due has been compromised, while the latter could indeed be indicative of financial distress. However, this qualifier, like materiality, has not been clearly defined nor has the SEC provided guidance on how this standard should be interpreted. Note, also, that this requirement will apply to a listed event relating to any of the issuer’s or obligor’s financial obligations, not solely those entered into after the Compliance Date.

Timing of disclosure of events. The use of certain terms in the amendments will require issuers and obligors carefully to maintain up-to-date data on the status of all of their “financial obligations,” as defined by the SEC. For example, use of the term “default,” rather than “event of default,” intentionally requires disclosure of an event at an earlier point in time than is generally required under the Rule currently, since an “event of default” typically accrues following some notice and cure period, while a “default” is the failure to act or the taking of a prohibited action. Thus, even if a default is cured before it amounts to an event of default, if the default itself reflected financial difficulties, it must be disclosed. This can be contrasted with an acceleration event or termination event, which are typically actions taken once an event of default has occurred, cure rights have been exhausted, and the counterparty has determined to exercise its remedies.

Similarly, a modification of terms is often a negotiated response to a situation which may or may not rise to the level of a default or which may result in the waiver of a default. For example, where an issuer or obligor fails to meet a financial covenant, such as a minimum debt service coverage ratio, but still has adequate financial resources to pay its operating expenses and debt service as and when due, it is not uncommon for the lender and issuer or obligor to agree to a temporary (or permanent) amendment of the covenant in exchange for certain actions, such as engaging a consultant to recommend methods to increase revenues or reduce expenses, or both. Under the amendments to the Rule, any such amendment would need to be disclosed, along with the surrounding terms and conditions relating to the amendment, if such modification of terms “reflects financial difficulties.”

A note about responsibilities of broker-dealers. Although most of the foregoing discussion relates to the potential impact on issuers and obligors of the amendments to the Rule, the Rule requires broker-dealers to have a reasonable basis for concluding that the issuer or obligor has met its obligations under its continuing disclosure undertakings and that any material failures have been disclosed. Under the current list of events that must be disclosed pursuant to the Rule, the scope of a broker-dealer’s inquiry is fairly limited and the due diligence necessary to comply with this requirement is relatively straight-forward (though not simple). Under the amendments, broker-dealers will have a far greater scope of events that require disclosure and, therefore, a far more complex due diligence process will be necessary. This is especially true because the SEC has indicated that simply relying on a certification of the borrower without additional inquiry is not sufficient to discharge the broker-dealer’s duties under the Rule. Thus, broker-dealers will need to develop a more robust due diligence process (or cause their counsel to review a wider array of documentation) in order to comply with the Rule and likely will, in fact, inquire about the New Events prior to the Compliance Date.

Steps to Prepare for Compliance

As described above, the New Events will have an impact on the municipal market, especially upon issuers and obligors, but also on broker-dealers. Set forth below are several actions that issuers, obligors and broker-dealers may wish to consider undertaking in response to the Release.

Review Current Arrangements and Disclosure Policies. Issuers and obligors should be prepared to gather and disseminate a considerably wider scope of information regarding their financial obligations than is currently the case. It would likely be prudent for issuers and obligors to review their existing disclosure undertakings and policies and consider what modifications may be necessary to comply with the Rule as amended. Further, because of the potentially broad scope of such requirements, the person or persons responsible for filing event notices with EMMA will need to develop processes and procedures for becoming aware of these additional events in a timely manner, evaluating whether they are material or reflect financial difficulties, and preparing and filing the required notices, generally within 10 business days of the occurrence of the event. It seems likely that the most important and difficult element of this new, wider inquiry will making a determination of what an issuer or obligor considers to be “material.”

Similarly, broker-dealers will need to revise their due diligence processes to devise methods of determining whether any of the new listed events have occurred and, if so, whether they were material or reflect financial difficulties and, if so, were adequately and timely reported to EMMA.

Consider Disclosure Standards Under Federal Securities Laws; and What Must Be Included in an Events Notice. Another critical element that must be borne in mind by borrowers is that the requirements of Rule 10b-5, which requires that disclosure be accurate and complete, will apply to each of the event filings. Thus, simply filing a notice with EMMA that a certain event has occurred may not be sufficient, even if such a notice meets the requirements of the applicable continuing disclosure undertaking. Because many, if not all, of the new events require a certain degree of analysis and context to determine whether they are material or reflect financial difficulties, additional disclosure necessary to provide the context of such a determination is likely to be necessary. Disclosure filed with EMMA is subject to the 10b-5 standard and therefore cannot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which it was made, misleading.

Toni M. Gilbert and David B. Ryan also contributed to this piece.

© 2019 Foley & Lardner LLP

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Michael G. Bailey, Foley Lardner, Tax Advantage Lawyer, State Income matters Attorney
Partner

Michael G. Bailey is a partner and business lawyer with Foley & Lardner LLP. Mr. Bailey’s practice focuses on tax-advantaged financing, including tax-exempt financing and tax credit transactions. He also focuses on development of tax compliance policies and procedures, energy tax issues, exempt organization tax issues and other federal and state income tax matters. His tax controversy practice focuses on tax-advantaged financing transactions and exempt organization matters. Mr. Bailey is chair of the firm’s Health Care Finance Practice and a member of the firm’s...

312-832-4504
Laura Bilas, Foley Lardner Law Firm, Business and Finance Attorney
Partner

Laura L. Bilas is a partner and business lawyer with Foley & Lardner LLP. She is the chair of the firm’s Public Finance Practice and her practice is concentrated on public finance and structured lending matters. Ms. Bilas’ experience includes serving as bond counsel, borrower’s counsel, underwriter’s counsel, and credit enhancement provider’s counsel for numerous public finance and other structured transactions, including general obligation, special service area, special assessment, tax increment, multi-family housing, health care and industrial development financings. She is a member of the firm’s Finance & Financial Institutions, Health Care Finance, and Public Finance Practices, as well as the Health Care Industry Team.

312-832-4533
Heidi H. Jeffery, Foley Lardner, Municipal Finance Transaction Lawyer, private activity bond Attorney
Partner

Heidi H. Jeffery is a partner and business lawyer with Foley & Lardner LLP. Ms. Jeffery has experience in general municipal, private activity bond, housing, student loan, health care and senior living finance. In such transactions, she has served as bond counsel and counsel to developers, underwriters, credit enhancers, issuers and borrowers. Ms. Jeffery is a member and former vice chair of the firm’s Senior Living Team. She is also a member of the firm’s Finance & Financial Institutions, Health Care Finance, and Public Finance Practices and the Health Care...

312-832-4518
Dana Lach, Foley Lardner Law Firm, Business and Healthcare Attorney
Of Counsel

Dana M. Lach is of counsel and a business lawyer with Foley & Lardner LLP, where she counsels health care and cultural and educational facilities in connection with financing transactions, including tax-exempt bonds, commercial loans and on traditional financing products such as commercial paper programs and securitizations, and derivative transactions. In addition, Ms. Lach routinely serves as counsel to investment banks, commercial banks, and other financial institutions in connection with tax-exempt financing transactions. Ms. Lach’s experience as bond counsel,...

414-297-5206
Chauncey W. Lever, Jr., Foley Lardner, Disclosures Lawyer, Credit Enhancers Attorney, Florida,
Partner

Chauncey W. Lever, Jr. is a partner with Foley & Lardner LLP. He practices in the area of public finance, serving as bond counsel, special tax counsel, disclosure counsel, and counsel to underwriters, purchasers, credit enhancers, issuers, trustees, and other parties in connection with governmental purpose and private activity financings. He has extensive experience with financings for governmental capital improvements and infrastructure, utilities, hospitals and other health care facilities, housing, senior living facilities, educational facilities, solid waste...

904-359-8774