In July, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the "FDIC") proposed a change (discussed here) to certain provisions of its securitization safe harbor rule (the "Rule"), which relates to the treatment of financial assets transferred in connection with a securitization or participation transaction. The proposed change would eliminate the requirement under the Rule that disclosure documents for bank-sponsored securitizations not otherwise subject to Regulation AB's disclosure requirements (i.e. non-public transactions) comply with Regulation AB. This could significantly ease the compliance burden associated with non-public bank-sponsored ABS issuances, potentially resulting in a greater volume of such transactions.
More recently, the possibility of other changes with respect to the Rule has been the subject of new disclosure for certain credit card securitization transactions.
Several programmatic credit card securitization platforms rely on the safe harbor provided for by the Rule that applies to obligations of revolving trusts or master trusts that issued one or more obligations prior to September 27, 2010, and for which the transfers of securitized receivables meet the conditions for sale accounting treatment under generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") in effect for reporting periods prior to November 15, 2009 (the "Grandfathered Safe Harbor"). The Grandfathered Safe Harbor provides that, if the conditions for such safe harbor are satisfied, the FDIC will not use its repudiation power to reclaim, recover or recharacterize as property of an FDIC-insured depository institution any financial assets transferred by the depository institution in connection with a securitization transaction, notwithstanding that the transfer of such financial assets does not satisfy all conditions for sale accounting treatment under current GAAP .
Over the past few weeks, sponsors of a few credit card securitization programs have highlighted the possibility of a future transition away from reliance on the Grandfathered Safe Harbor, and towards reliance on one of the other safe harbors provided for by the Rule or future guidance to be provided by the FDIC (each, an "Other Safe Harbor"). Prospectus filings have included disclosure similar to the following:
"While the [sponsor's] transfers of receivables are presently intended to meet all the conditions for grandfathered safe harbor status, future transfers of receivables may not meet one or all of those conditions and instead may occur in reliance on safe harbor regulations promulgated by the FDIC other than grandfathered safe harbor status, or in reliance on other guidance provided by the FDIC with respect to securitization transactions generally or the [sponsor's] securitization transactions specifically."
Sponsors may have an interest in a transition to an Other Safe Harbor due, in part, to the difficulty of assuring that transfers of securitized receivables meet the conditions for sale treatment under accounting standards that have not been applicable under GAAP for nearly a decade. It is likely that any transition from the Grandfathered Safe Harbor to an Other Safe Harbor would require further guidance or rulemaking from the FDIC, and the FDIC has not announced any proposed changes to address this aspect of the Rule at this time.
Visit us at mayerbrown.com
Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.
© Copyright 2019. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.
This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.