Beneficial Ownership Reporting Requirements and Security-Based Swaps, 15874-15887 [2011-6685]
Download as PDF
15874
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Subject
FAA AD Differences
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of
America Code 05.
Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI
and/or service information as follows:
(1) Although the applicability in the MCAI
also identifies Airbus Model A340–200 –300,
–500, and –600 series airplanes; this AD only
applies to Airbus Model A330–200 and –300
series airplanes. FAA AD 2011–04–06
addresses Model A340–200, –300, –500, and
–600 series airplanes.
(2) The applicability in the MCAI does not
specify Model A330–223F and –243F
airplanes. Those models are listed in the
applicability of this AD.
(3) The MCAI requires incorporating
Airbus A330 ALS Part 1, ‘‘Safe Life
Airworthiness Limitation Items,’’ Revision
04, dated January 28, 2010; however, this AD
requires incorporating Airbus A330 ALS Part
1, ‘‘Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items,’’
Revision 05, dated July 29, 2010, which adds
the airworthiness limitation items for Model
A330–223F and –243F airplanes.
Reason
(e) The mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
*
*
*
*
*
The airworthiness limitations applicable to
the Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items
(SL ALI) are given in Airbus A330 ALS Part
1 and A340 ALS Part 1, which are approved
by the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA).
The revision 05 of Airbus A340 ALS Part
1 introduces more restrictive maintenance
requirements and/or airworthiness
limitations. Failure to comply with this
revision constitutes an unsafe condition.
For A330 aeroplanes, this EASA AD retains
the requirements of EASA AD 2010–0131,
which it supersedes.
For A340 aeroplanes, this EASA AD
supersedes EASA AD 2009–0192, and
requires the implementation of the new or
more restrictive maintenance requirements
and/or airworthiness limitations as specified
in Airbus A340 ALS Part 1, revision 05.
The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking,
damage, and corrosion in certain structure,
which could result in reduced structural
integrity of the airplane.
Compliance
(f) You are responsible for having the
actions required by this AD performed within
the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
Restatement of Requirements of Paragraph
(f)(2) of AD 2006–09–07
Airworthiness Limitations Revision
(g) For Model A330–201, –202, –203, –223,
–243, –301, –302, –303, –321, –322, –323,
–341, –342, and –343 airplanes: Within 3
months after June 7, 2006 (the effective date
of AD 2006–09–07), revise the ALS of the
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by
incorporating Section 9–1 ‘‘Life limits
monitored parts’’ Revision 05, dated April 7,
2005, of the Airbus A330 Maintenance
Planning Document, into the ALS.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
New Requirements of This AD
Revise the Maintenance Program
(h) Within 3 months after the effective date
of this AD: Revise the maintenance program
by incorporating Airbus A330 ALS Part 1,
‘‘Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items,’’
Revision 05, dated July 29, 2010. Comply
with all Airbus Safe Life ALS Part 1, ‘‘A330
Airworthiness Limitation Items,’’ Revision
05, dated July 29, 2010, at the times specified
therein. Accomplishing the revision in this
paragraph ends the requirements in
paragraph (g) of this AD.
Alternative Intervals or Limits
(i) Except as provided by paragraph (j)(1)
of this AD, after accomplishing the actions
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, no
alternatives to the maintenance tasks,
intervals, or limitations specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD may be used.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Mar 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
Other FAA AD Provisions
(j) The following provisions also apply to
this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs): The Manager, International
Branch, ANM–116, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your
request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly
to the International Branch, send it to ATTN:
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM–116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057–
3356; telephone (425) 227–1138; fax (425)
227–1149. Information may be e-mailed to: 9ANM-116-AMOC-REQUESTS@faa.gov.
Before using any approved AMOC, notify
your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of
the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office. The AMOC
approval letter must specifically reference
this AD.
(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement
in this AD to obtain corrective actions from
a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective
actions are considered FAA-approved if they
are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required
to assure the product is airworthy before it
is returned to service.
Related Information
(k) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness
Directive 2010–0253, dated December 3,
2010; and Airbus A330 ALS Part 1, ‘‘Safe Life
Airworthiness Limitation Items,’’ Revision
05, dated July 29, 2010; for related
information.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March
14, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–6644 Filed 3–21–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
17 CFR Part 240
[Release No. 34–64087; File No. S7–10–11]
RIN 3235–AK98
Beneficial Ownership Reporting
Requirements and Security-Based
Swaps
Securities and Exchange
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
To preserve the application of
our existing beneficial ownership rules
to persons who purchase or sell
security-based swaps after the effective
date of new Section 13(o) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, we are
proposing to readopt without change the
relevant portions of Rules 13d–3 and
16a–1. The proposals are intended to
clarify that following the July 16, 2011
statutory effective date of Section 13(o),
which was added by Section 766 of the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act (‘‘Dodd-Frank
Act’’), persons who purchase or sell
security-based swaps will remain within
the scope of these rules to the same
extent as they are now.
DATES: Comments should be received on
or before April 15, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be
submitted by any of the following
methods:
SUMMARY:
Electronic Comments
• Use the Commission’s Internet
comment form (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/proposed.shtml);
• Send an e-mail to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File
Number S7–10–11 on the subject line;
or
• Use the Federal Rulemaking Portal
(https://www.regulations.gov). Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Paper Comments
• Send paper comments in triplicate
to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Securities and Exchange Commission,
100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to File
Number S7–10–11. This file number
should be included on the subject line
if e-mail is used. To help us process and
review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The
Commission will post all comments on
the Commission’s Internet website
(https://www.sec.gov/rules/
proposed.shtml). Comments are also
available for website viewing and
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules
printing in the Commission’s Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. All comments received
will be posted without change; we do
not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You
should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nicholas Panos, Senior Special Counsel,
at (202) 551–3440, or Anne Krauskopf,
Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 551–
3500, Division of Corporation Finance,
U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549–3628.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are
proposing to readopt without change
portions of Rules 13d–3 1 and 16a–1 2
under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (‘‘Exchange Act’’).3
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Table of Contents
I. Overview and Background
A. Overview
B. Sections 13(d) and 13(g) and Rule
13d–3
C. Application of the Section 13 Beneficial
Ownership Regulatory Provisions to
Persons Who Purchase or Sell SecurityBased Swaps
D. Section 16 and Rules 16a–1(a)(1) and
16a–1(a)(2)
E. Application of the Section 16 Beneficial
Ownership Regulatory Provisions to
Holdings and Transactions in SecurityBased Swaps
II. Discussion of the Rule Proposals
A. Beneficial Ownership Determinations
Under Section 13
1. Rule 13d–3(a)
2. Rule 13d–3(b)
3. Rule 13d–3(d)(1)
B. Section 16 Beneficial Ownership Rules
1. Rule 16a–1(a)(1)
2. Rule 16a–1(a)(2)
C. General Request for Comment
III. Paperwork Reduction Act
A. Background
B. Burden and Cost Estimates Related to
the Proposed Amendments
C. Request for Comment
IV. Economic Analysis
A. Introduction
B. Benefits, Including the Impact on
Efficiency, Competition and Capital
Formation
1. When the Rules We Propose To Readopt
Already Apply to Persons Who Purchase
or Sell Security-Based Swaps
2. If the Rules We Propose Did Not Already
Apply to Persons Who Purchase or Sell
Security-Based Swaps
a. Benefits, Including the Impact on
Efficiency
b. Benefits, Including the Impact on
Competition
1 17
CFR 240.13d–3.
CFR 240.16a–1.
3 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
2 17
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Mar 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
c. Benefits, Including the Impact on Capital
Formation
C. Costs, Including the Impact on
Efficiency, Competition and Capital
Formation
1. When the Rules We Propose Already
Apply to Persons Who Purchase or Sell
Security-Based Swaps
2. If the Rules We Propose Did Not Already
Apply to Persons Who Purchase or Sell
Security-Based Swaps
D. Request for Comment
V. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
VII. Statutory Authority
I. Overview and Background
A. Overview
Section 766 of the Dodd-Frank Act
amends the Exchange Act by adding
Section 13(o), which provides that ‘‘[f]or
purposes of this section and section 16,
a person shall be deemed to acquire
beneficial ownership of an equity
security based on the purchase or sale
of a security-based swap, only to the
extent that the Commission, by rule,
determines after consultation with the
prudential regulators and the Secretary
of the Treasury, that the purchase or
sale of the security-based swap, or class
of security-based swap, provides
incidents of ownership comparable to
direct ownership of the equity security,
and that it is necessary to achieve the
purposes of this section that the
purchase or sale of the security-based
swaps, or class of security-based swap,
be deemed the acquisition of beneficial
ownership of the equity security.’’
Section 766 and Section 13(o) 4 become
effective on July 16, 2011.5
The reason for this rulemaking, as
discussed in more detail below, is to
preserve the existing scope of our rules
relating to beneficial ownership after
Section 766 of the Dodd-Frank Act
becomes effective. Absent rulemaking
under Section 13(o), Section 766 may be
interpreted to render the beneficial
ownership determinations made under
Rule 13d–3 inapplicable to a person
who purchases or sells a security-based
swap.6 In that circumstance, it could
4 Pub.
L. 111–203, 124 Stat. 1797.
Section 774 of the Dodd-Frank Act, Pub. L.
111–203, 124 Stat 1376 (2010), which states that
Section 766 becomes effective ‘‘360 Days after the
date of enactment.’’
6 A ‘‘security-based swap’’ is defined in Section
3(a)(68) [15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(68), added by Section
761(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act]. Section 712(d) of the
Dodd-Frank Act provides that the Commission and
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(‘‘CFTC’’), in consultation with the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System (‘‘Federal
Reserve’’), shall jointly further define, among others,
the terms ‘‘swap,’’ ‘‘security-based swap,’’ and
‘‘security-based swap agreement.’’ These terms are
defined in Sections 721 and 761 of the Dodd-Frank
Act. The definitions of the terms ‘‘swap,’’ ‘‘security5 See
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15875
become possible for an investor to use
a security-based swap to accumulate an
influential or control position in a
public company without public
disclosure. Similarly, a person who
holds a security-based swap that confers
beneficial ownership of the referenced
equity securities under Section 13 and
existing Rule 13d–3, or otherwise
conveys such beneficial ownership
through an understanding or
relationship based upon the purchase or
sale of the security-based swap, may no
longer be considered a ten percent
holder subject to Section 16 of the
Exchange Act.7 Further, an insider may
no longer be subject to Section 16
reporting and short-swing profit
recovery through transactions in
security-based swaps that confer a right
to receive either the underlying equity
securities or cash. In addition, private
parties may have difficulty making, or
exercising private rights of action to
seek to have made, determinations of
beneficial ownership arising from the
purchase or sale of a security-based
swap.
To preserve the application of our
existing beneficial ownership rules to
persons who purchase or sell securitybased swaps after the effective date of
Section 13(o), we are proposing to
readopt without change the relevant
portions of Rules 13d–3 and 16a–1.
These proposals are limited to the
continued application of these rules by
the Commission on the same basis that
they currently apply to persons who use
security-based swaps.8 While these
proposals are only intended to preserve
the existing application of the beneficial
ownership rules as they relate to
security-based swaps, our staff is
engaged in a separate project to develop
proposals to modernize reporting under
based swap,’’ and ‘‘security-based swap agreement,’’
and regulations regarding mixed swaps also are
expected to be the subject of a separate rulemaking
by the Commission and the CFTC. In addition,
Section 721(c) and 761(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act
provide the CFTC and the Commission with the
authority to define the terms ‘‘swap’’ and ‘‘securitybased swap,’’ among other terms, to include
transactions that have been structured to evade the
requirements of subtitles A and B of Title VII,
respectively, of the Dodd-Frank Act. To assist the
Commission and CFTC in further defining the terms
specified above, the Commission and the CFTC
sought comment from interested parties. See
Definitions Contained in Title VII of Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,
Release No. 34–62717 (Aug. 13, 2010) [75 FR 51429]
(advance joint notice of proposed rulemaking
regarding definitions).
7 15 U.S.C. 78p.
8 In addition, the proposed readoption of the
relevant portions of existing Rules 13d–3 and 16a–
1(a) is neither intended nor expected to change any
existing administrative or judicial application or
interpretation of the rules.
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
15876
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Exchange Act Sections 13(d) 9 and
13(g).10
B. Sections 13(d) and 13(g) and Rule
13d–3
Sections 13(d) and 13(g) require a
person who is the beneficial owner of
more than five percent of certain equity
securities 11 to disclose information
relating to such beneficial ownership.
While these statutory sections do not
define the term ‘‘beneficial owner,’’ the
Commission has adopted rules that
determine the circumstances under
which a person is or may be deemed to
be a beneficial owner. In order to
provide objective standards for
determining when a person is or may be
deemed to be a beneficial owner subject
to Section 13(d), the Commission
adopted Exchange Act Rule 13d–3.12
Application of the standards within
Rule 13d–3 allows for case-by-case
determinations as to whether a person is
or becomes a beneficial owner,
including a person who uses a securitybased swap.
Under Rule 13d–3(a), a beneficial
owner includes any person who directly
or indirectly has or shares voting power
and/or investment power over an equity
security. Voting power includes ‘‘the
power to vote, or to direct the voting of,
such security’’ and investment power
includes ‘‘the power to dispose, or to
direct the disposition, of such security.’’
Identifying each person who possesses
voting or investment power requires an
analysis of all of the relevant facts and
circumstances. Rule 13d–3(a) provides
that a beneficial owner ‘‘includes any
person who, directly or indirectly,
through any contract, arrangement,
understanding, relationship or
otherwise, has or shares’’ voting power
and/or investment power over an equity
security. The rule, by its terms, provides
that a person may become a beneficial
9 15
U.S.C. 78m(d).
U.S.C. 78m(g).
11 Section 13(d)(1) applies to any equity security
of a class that is registered pursuant to Section 12
of the Exchange Act, any equity security issued by
a ‘‘native corporation’’ pursuant to Section 37(d)(6)
of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and
any equity security described in Exchange Act Rule
13d–1(i) [17 CFR 240.13d–1(i)]. Rule 13d–1(i)
explains that for purposes of Regulation 13D–G,
‘‘the term ‘equity security’ means any equity
security of a class which is registered pursuant to
section 12 of that Act, or any equity security of any
insurance company which would have been
required to be so registered except for the
exemption contained in section 12(g)(2)(G) of the
Act, or any equity security issued by a closed-end
investment company registered under the
Investment Company Act of 1940; Provided, Such
term shall not include securities of a class of nonvoting securities.’’
12 Adoption of Beneficial Ownership Disclosure
Requirements, Release No. 34–13291 (Feb. 24, 1977)
[42 FR 12342].
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10 15
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Mar 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
owner through means other than an
acquisition of securities or formal
agreement, and that a person may be a
beneficial owner even if that person
shares voting or investment power with
another person and is only able to
indirectly exercise such power by
directing the voting or disposition of the
subject security.13
Rule 13d–3(b) provides that ‘‘[a]ny
person who, directly or indirectly,
creates or uses a trust, proxy, power of
attorney, pooling arrangement or any
other contract, arrangement, or device
with the purpose [or] effect of divesting
such person of beneficial ownership of
a security or preventing the vesting of
such beneficial ownership as part of a
plan or scheme to evade the reporting
requirements of section 13(d) or (g) of
the Act shall be deemed for purposes of
such sections to be the beneficial owner
of such security.’’ In contrast to Rule
13d–3(a), application of Rule 13d–3(b)
may result in a beneficial ownership
determination even if a person does not
hold voting and/or investment power.14
Under Rule 13d–3(d)(1), a person is
deemed a beneficial owner if the person
has the right to acquire beneficial
ownership, as defined in Rule 13d–3(a),
at any time within 60 days. The right
includes, but is not limited to, any right
to acquire through the exercise of an
option, warrant or right, conversion of a
convertible security, or power to revoke
a trust or similar agreement. Rule 13d–
3(d)(1) further provides that if a person
acquires an option, warrant, right,
convertible security or power to revoke
with the purpose or with the effect of
changing or influencing control of the
issuer, or as a participant in a
transaction having such purpose or
effect, then the person is deemed to be
a beneficial owner immediately,
regardless of when the option, right,
convertible security or power to revoke
is exercisable or convertible.
If beneficial ownership, as determined
in accordance with Rules 13d–3(a),
13d–3(b) and 13d–3(d)(1), exceeds the
designated thresholds, beneficial
owners are required to provide specified
disclosures. The disclosures are
intended to be required of persons who
have the potential to influence or gain
control of the issuer.15 Specifically,
13 The Commission, in recognition of the breadth
of this provision, has emphasized its necessity in
order ‘‘to obtain disclosure from all those persons
who have the ability to change or influence
control.’’ Filing and Disclosure Requirements
Relating to Beneficial Ownership, Release No. 34–
14692 (Apr. 21, 1978) [43 FR 18484].
14 See Example 8 from Release No. 34–13291 for
an illustration of how Rule 13d–3(b) can apply to
a grant of an irrevocable proxy.
15 S. Rep. No. 550, at 7 (1967); H.R. Rep. No. 1711,
at 8 (1968); Full Disclosure of Corporate Equity
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Section 13(d) and the rules thereunder
require that a person file with the
Commission, within ten days after
acquiring, directly or indirectly,
beneficial ownership of more than five
percent of a class of equity securities, a
disclosure statement on Schedule
13D,16 subject to certain exceptions.17
Section 13(g) and the rules thereunder
enable certain persons who are the
beneficial owners of more than five
percent of a class of certain equity
securities to instead file a short form
Schedule 13G,18 assuming certain
conditions have been met.19 These
statutory provisions and corresponding
rules also impose obligations on
beneficial owners to report changes in
the information filed.
The beneficial ownership disclosure
requirements of Schedules 13D and 13G
were designed to provide disclosures to
security holders regarding persons
holding significant positions in public
companies, such as the identity of the
beneficial owners, the amount of
beneficial ownership, the existence of a
beneficial owner group, and in the case
of persons who file a Schedule 13D,
plans or proposals regarding the issuer.
The disclosures made in Schedules 13D
and 13G have been viewed as
contributing to the information available
to help investors make fully informed
investment decisions with respect to
their securities.20 An additional
Ownership and in Corporate Takeover Bids,
Hearings on S. 510 before the S. Banking and
Currency Comm., 90th Cong. 16 (1967) (‘‘The bill
now before you has a much closer relationship to
existing provisions of the Exchange Act regulating
solicitation of proxies, since acquisitions of blocks
of voting securities are typically alternatives to
proxy solicitations, as methods of capturing or
preserving control.’’); Takeover Bids, Hearings on
H.R. 14475 and S.510 before the Subcomm. on
Commerce and Fin. of the H. Comm. on Interstate
and Foreign Commerce, 90th Cong. (1968).
16 17 CFR 240.13d–101.
17 See Section 13(d)(6) and Rule 13d–1(b)–(d).
18 17 CFR 240.13d–102.
19 See Amendments to Beneficial Ownership
Reporting Requirements, Release No. 34–39538
(Jan. 12, 1998) [63 FR 2854] for a description of the
types of persons eligible to file a Schedule 13G. The
investors eligible to report beneficial ownership on
Schedule 13G are commonly referred to as qualified
institutional investors under Rule 13d–1(b), passive
investors under Rule 13d–1(c), and exempt
investors under Rule 13d–1(d). Unlike Section
13(d), Section 13(g) applies regardless of whether
beneficial ownership has been ‘‘acquir[ed]’’ within
the meaning of Section 13(d) or is viewed as not
having been acquired for purposes of Section 13(d).
For example, persons who obtain all their securities
before the issuer registers the subject securities
under the Exchange Act are not subject to Section
13(d) and persons who acquire not more than two
percent of a class of subject securities within a 12month period are exempt from Section 13(d) by
Section 13(d)(6)(B), but in both cases are subject to
Section 13(g).
20 See Computer Network Corp. v. Spohler [1982
Transfer Binder] Fed Sec. L. Rep (CCH) ¶ 98,623 at
93,087 (D.D.C. March 23, 1982). See also, San
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
regulatory objective served by these
disclosures is to provide management of
the issuer with information to
‘‘appropriately protect the interests of its
security holders.’’ 21 In enacting the
original Section 13(d) legislation,
Congress made clear that its new
regulatory initiative was intended to
avoid ‘‘tipping the balance of regulation
either in favor of management or in
favor of the person [potentially] making
the takeover bid.’’ 22 In addition to
providing information to issuers and
security holders, Section 13(d) was
adopted with a view toward alerting
‘‘the marketplace to every large, rapid
aggregation or accumulation of
securities, regardless of technique
employed, which might represent a
potential shift in corporate control.’’ 23
On the basis of the information
disclosed, the market would ‘‘value the
shares accordingly’’ 24 due to the
Francisco Real Estate Investors v. REIT of America,
[1982 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH)
¶ 98,874, at 94,557 (D. Mass. Nov. 19, 1982), aff’d
in part, rev’d in part 701 F.2d 1000 (1st Cir. 1983).
The Commission also has recognized that Section
13(d) was enacted primarily to provide ‘‘adequate
disclosure to stockholders in connection with any
substantial acquisition of securities within a
relatively short time.’’ Adoption of Beneficial
Ownership Disclosure Requirements, Release No.
34–13291, (Feb. 24, 1977) [42 FR 12342] citing S.
Rep. No. 550, at 7 (1967).
21 H.R. Rep. No. 1655, at 3 (1970); see, e.g.,
Additional Consumer Protection in Corporate
Takeovers and Increasing the Sec. Act Exemptions
for Small Businessmen, Hearing Before the Sec.
Subcomm. of the S. Banking and Currency Comm.
on S. 336 and S. 343, 91st Cong. (1970). See also
Bath Indus. v. Blot, 427 F.2d 97, 113 (7th Cir. 1970).
In addition, disclosures made in compliance with
Sections 13(d) and 13(g) also provide issuers that
file registration statements, annual reports, proxy
statements and other disclosure documents with the
information they use to disclose all beneficial
owners of more than five percent of certain classes
of the issuer’s equity securities as required by Item
403 of Regulation S–K. [17 CFR 229.403]. See
generally H.R. Rep. No. 1655.
22 H.R. Rep. No. 1711, at 4 (1968); S. Rep. No. 550,
at 3 (1968). Both the House and Senate reports
emphasized that Section 13(d) was enacted ‘‘to
require full and fair disclosure for the benefit of
investors while at the same time providing the
offeror and management equal opportunity to fairly
present their case.’’
23 GAF Corp. v. Milstein, 453 F.2d 709, 717 (2d.
Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 910 (1972), cited
by the Commission at footnote 16 in the following
administrative proceeding: In the Matter of Harvey
Katz, Release No. 34–20893 (April 25, 1984). A
measure of what Congress considered to be large
and rapid acquisitions is Section 13(d)(6)(B), which
exempts acquisitions of two percent or less in the
preceding twelve months.
24 General Aircraft Corp. v. Lampert, 556 F.2d 90,
94 (1st Cir. 1977); see also S. Rep. No. 550, at 3
(‘‘But where no information is available about the
persons seeking control, or their plans, the
shareholder is forced to make a decision on the
basis of a market price which reflects an evaluation
of the company based on the assumption that the
present management and its policies will continue.
The persons seeking control, however, have
information about themselves and about their plans
which, if known to investors, might substantially
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Mar 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
increased prospects for price
discovery.25
C. Application of the Section 13
Beneficial Ownership Regulatory
Provisions to Persons Who Purchase or
Sell Security-Based Swaps
As noted above, the term ‘‘securitybased swap’’ is defined in Section
3(a)(68) of the Exchange Act.26 Under
our existing rules, holders of securitybased swaps may be subject to
beneficial ownership reporting. As
explained in more detail below, in cases
where a security-based swap confers
voting and/or investment power (or a
person otherwise acquires such power
based on the purchase or sale of a
security-based swap), grants a right to
acquire an equity security, or is used
with the purpose or effect of divesting
or preventing the vesting of beneficial
ownership as part of a plan or scheme
to evade the reporting requirements, our
existing regulatory regime may require
the reporting of beneficial ownership.27
First, under existing Rule 13d–3(a), to
the extent a security-based swap
provides a person, directly or indirectly,
with exclusive or shared voting and/or
investment power over the equity
security through a contractual term of
change the assumptions on which the market price
is based.’’).
25 Takeover Bids, Hearings on 14475 and S. 510
before the Subcomm. on Commerce and Fin. of the
H. Comm. on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
90th Cong. 12 (1968) (statement of Hon. Manuel F.
Cohen, Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, ‘‘But I might ask, how can an investor
evaluate the adequacy of the price if he cannot
assess the possible impact of a change in control?
Certainly without such information he cannot judge
its adequacy by the current or recent market price.
That price presumably reflects the assumption that
the company’s present business, control and
management will continue. If that assumption is
changed, is it not likely that the market price might
change?’’).
26 See note 6 above.
27 Except as provided below regarding Section 16,
this release does not address whether, or under
what circumstances, an agreement, contract, or
transaction that is labeled a security-based swap
(including one which confers voting and/or
investment power, grants a right to acquire one or
more equity securities, or is used with the purpose
or effect of divesting or preventing the vesting of
beneficial ownership as part of a plan or scheme to
evade the beneficial ownership reporting
requirements) would be a purchase or sale of the
underlying securit(ies) and treated as such for
purposes of the federal securities laws, instead of
a security-based swap. In this regard, among other
things, the definition of ‘‘swap’’ (and therefore the
definition of ‘‘security-based swap’’) specifically
excludes the purchase or sale of one or more
securities on a fixed or contingent basis, unless the
agreement, contract, or transaction predicates the
purchase or sale on the occurrence of a bona fide
contingency that might reasonably be expected to
affect or be affected by the creditworthiness of a
party other than a party to the agreement, contract,
or transaction. See Sections 1a(47)(B)(v) and (vi) of
the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 1a(47)(B)(v)
and (vi).
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15877
the security-based swap or otherwise,
the person becomes a beneficial owner
of that equity security. Under Rule 13d–
3(a), a person may become a beneficial
owner even though the person has not
acquired the equity security.28
Second, existing Rule 13d–3(b)
generally provides that a person is
deemed to be a beneficial owner if that
person uses any contract, arrangement,
or device as part of a plan or scheme to
evade the beneficial ownership
reporting requirements. To the extent a
security-based swap is used with the
purpose or effect of divesting a person
of beneficial ownership or preventing
the vesting of beneficial ownership as
part of a plan or scheme to evade
Sections 13(d) or 13(g), the securitybased swap may be viewed as a
contract, arrangement or device within
the meaning of those terms as used in
Rule 13d–3(b). A person using a
security-based swap, therefore, may be
deemed a beneficial owner under Rule
13d–3(b) in this context.
Finally, under existing Rule 13d–
3(d)(1), a person is deemed a beneficial
owner of an equity security if the person
has a right to acquire the equity security
within 60 days or holds the right with
the purpose or effect of changing or
influencing control of the issuer of the
security for which the right is
exercisable, regardless of whether the
right to acquire originates in a securitybased swap or an understanding in
connection with a security-based swap.
This type of right to acquire an equity
security, if obtained through a securitybased swap, is treated the same as any
other right to acquire an equity security.
Acquisition of such a right, regardless of
its origin, results in a person being
deemed a beneficial owner under Rule
13d–3(d)(1).
D. Section 16 and Rules 16a–1(a)(1) and
16a–1(a)(2)
Section 16 was designed both to
provide the public with information
about securities transactions and
holdings of every person who is the
beneficial owner of more than ten
percent of a class of equity security
registered under Exchange Act Section
12 29 (‘‘ten percent holder’’), and each
officer and director (collectively,
‘‘insiders’’) of the issuer of such a
security, and to deter such insiders from
profiting from short-term trading in
issuer securities while in possession of
material, non-public information. Upon
becoming an insider, or upon Section 12
28 Exchange Act Section 13(d)(1) applies after a
person directly or indirectly acquires beneficial
ownership, regardless of whether the person has
made an acquisition of the equity securities.
29 15 U.S.C. 78l.
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
15878
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules
registration of the class of equity
security, Section 16(a) 30 requires an
insider to file an initial report with the
Commission disclosing his or her
beneficial ownership of all equity
securities of the issuer.31 Section 16(a)
also requires insiders to report
subsequent changes in such
ownership.32 To prevent misuse of
inside information by insiders, Section
16(b) 33 provides the issuer (or
shareholders suing on the issuer’s
behalf) a strict liability private right of
action to recover any profit realized by
an insider from any purchase and sale
(or sale and purchase) of any equity
security of the issuer within a period of
less than six months.34
As applied to ten percent holders,
Congress intended Section 16 to reach
persons presumed to have access to
information because they can influence
or control the issuer as a result of their
equity ownership.35 Because Section
13(d) specifically addresses these
relationships, the Commission adopted
Rule 16a–1(a)(1) to define ten percent
holders under Section 16 as persons
deemed ten percent beneficial owners
under Section 13(d) and the rules
thereunder.36 The Section 13(d)
analysis, such as counting beneficial
ownership of those derivative securities
exercisable or convertible within 60
days,37 is imported into the ten percent
holder determination for Section 16
purposes. The application of Rule 16a–
1(a)(1) is straightforward; if a person is
a ten percent beneficial owner as
determined pursuant to Section 13(d)
and the rules thereunder, the person is
deemed a ten percent holder under
Section 16.38
30 15
U.S.C. 78p(a).
file these reports on Form 3 [17 CFR
249.103].
32 Insiders file transaction reports on Form 4 [17
CFR 249.104] and Form 5 [17 CFR 249.105].
33 15 U.S.C. 78p(b).
34 In addition, insiders are subject to the short
sale prohibitions of Section 16(c) [15 U.S.C. 78p(c)].
35 See S. Rep. No. 1455, at 55, 68 (1934); See also
S. Rep. No. 792, at 20–1 (1934); S. Rep. No. 379,
at 21–2 (1963).
36 Ownership Reports and Trading By Officers,
Directors and Principal Security Holders, Release
No. 34–28869 (Feb. 21, 1991) [56 FR 7242].
37 Rule 13d–3(d).
38 For example, the Commission applied an
analysis derived from Rule 13d–3(d)(1) in
publishing its views regarding when equity
securities underlying a security future that requires
physical settlement should be counted for purposes
of determining whether the purchaser of the
security future is subject to Section 16 as a ten
percent holder by operation of Rule 16a–1(a)(1).
Commission Guidance on the Application Certain
Provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rules Thereunder to Trading in Security
Futures Products, Release No. 34–46101 (June 21,
2002) [67 FR 43234] (‘‘Futures Interpretive Release’’)
at Q 7.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
31 Insiders
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Mar 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
For purposes of Section 16(a)
reporting obligations and Section 16(b)
short-swing profit recovery, Rule 16a–
1(a)(2) uses a different definition of
‘‘beneficial owner.’’ Once a person is
subject to Section 16, for reporting and
profit recovery purposes, Rule 16a–
1(a)(2) defines ‘‘beneficial owner’’ based
on whether the person has or shares a
direct or indirect pecuniary interest in
the securities. A ‘‘pecuniary interest’’ in
any class of equity securities means ‘‘the
opportunity, directly or indirectly, to
profit or share in any profit derived
from a transaction in the subject
securities.’’ 39 An ‘‘indirect pecuniary
interest’’ in any class of equity securities
includes, but is not limited to ‘‘a
person’s right to acquire equity
securities through the exercise or
conversion of any derivative security,
whether or not presently exercisable.’’ 40
‘‘Derivative securities’’ are ‘‘any option,
warrant, convertible security, stock
appreciation right, or similar right with
an exercise or conversion privilege at a
price related to an equity security, or
similar securities with a value derived
from the value of an equity security, but
shall not include [* * *] rights with an
exercise or conversion privilege at a
price that is not fixed.’’ 41 Equity
securities of an issuer are ‘‘any equity
security or derivative security relating to
an issuer, whether or not issued by that
issuer.’’ 42
This framework recognizes that
holding derivative securities is
functionally equivalent to holding the
underlying equity securities for Section
16 purposes because the value of the
derivative securities is a function of or
related to the value of the underlying
equity security.43 Just as an insider’s
opportunity to profit begins upon
purchasing or selling issuer common
stock, the opportunity to profit begins
when an insider engages in transactions
in derivative securities that provide an
opportunity to obtain or dispose of the
stock at a fixed price.44 Establishing or
39 Rule
16a–1(a)(2)(i).
16a–1(a)(2)(ii)(F).
41 Rule 16a–1(c)(6).
42 Rule 16a–1(d). Further, Rule 16a–4(a) [17 CFR
240.16a–4(a)] provides that for purposes of Section
16, both derivative securities and the underlying
securities to which they relate are deemed to the be
the same class of equity securities, except that the
acquisition or disposition of any derivative security
must be separately reported.
43 For example, the Futures Interpretive Release,
at Q&A Nos. 8–13, explains the status of a security
future as a derivative security for purposes of
Section 16(a) reporting and Section 16(b) shortswing profit recovery.
44 Ownership Reports and Trading By Officers,
Directors and Principal Security Holders, Release
No. 34–28869, at Section III.A (Feb. 21, 1991) [56
FR 7242].
40 Rule
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
increasing a call equivalent position 45
(or liquidating or decreasing a put
equivalent position) 46 is deemed a
purchase of the underlying security, and
establishing or increasing a put
equivalent position (or liquidating or
decreasing a call equivalent position) is
deemed a sale of the underlying
security.47
Rule 16a–1(a)(2) and the related rules
described above recognize the
functional equivalence of derivative
securities and the underlying equity
securities by providing that transactions
in derivative securities are reportable,
and matchable with transactions in
other derivative securities and in the
underlying equity.48 For example, shortswing profits obtained by buying call
options and selling the underlying
stock, or buying the underlying stock
and buying put options, are recoverable.
This functional equivalence extends to
all fixed-price derivative securities,
whether issued by the issuer or a third
party, and whether the form of
settlement is cash or stock.49
45 Rule 16a–1(b) provides that a ‘‘call equivalent
position’’ is ‘‘a derivative security position that
increases in value as the value of the underlying
equity security increases, including, but not limited
to, a long convertible security, a long call option,
and a short put option position.’’
46 Rule 16a–1(h) provides that a ‘‘put equivalent
position’’ is ‘‘a derivative security position that
increases in value as the value of the underlying
equity decreases, including, but not limited to, a
long put option and a short call option.’’
47 Rule 16b–6(a).
48 Rule 16b–6(b) generally exempts from Section
16(b) short-swing profit recovery the exercise or
conversion of a fixed-price derivative security,
provided that it is not out-of-the-money. Rule 16b–
6(c) provides guidance for determining short-swing
profit recoverable from transactions involving the
purchase and sale or sale and purchase of derivative
and other securities.
49 Former Rule 16a–1(c)(3), adopted in Release
No. 34–28869, excluded from the definition of
‘‘derivative securities’’ ‘‘securities that may be
redeemed or exercised only for cash and do not
permit the receipt of equity securities in lieu of
cash, if the securities either: (i) Are awarded
pursuant to an employee benefit plan satisfying the
provisions of [former] § 240.16b–3(c); or (ii) may be
redeemed or exercised only upon a fixed date or
dates at least six months after award, or upon death,
retirement, disability or termination of
employment.’’ As a corollary to adopting a broader
Rule 16b–3 exemption, the Commission rescinded
former Rule 16a–1(c)(3) in 1996, stating that
‘‘because the opportunity for profit based on price
movement in the underlying stock embodied in a
cash-only instrument is the same as for an
instrument settled in stock, cash-only instruments
should be subject to Section 16 to the same extent
as other issuer equity securities.’’ Ownership
Reports and Trading by Officers, Directors and
Principal Security Holders, Release No. 34–37260,
at Section III.A (May 31, 1996) [61 FR 30376].
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules
E. Application of the Section 16
Beneficial Ownership Regulatory
Provisions to Holdings and Transactions
in Security-Based Swaps
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
As described above, solely for
purposes of determining who is subject
to Section 16 as a ten percent holder,
Rule 16a–1(a)(1) uses the beneficial
ownership tests applied under Section
13(d) and its implementing rules,
including Rules 13d–3(a), 13d–3(b), and
Rule 13d–3(d)(1). As a result, for
example, a person who has the right to
acquire securities that would cause the
person to own more than ten percent of
a class of equity securities through a
security-based swap that confers a right
to receive equity at settlement or
otherwise would be subject to Section
16 as a ten percent holder under
existing Rule 16a–1(a)(1). Once a person
is subject to Section 16, in order to
determine what securities are subject to
Section 16(a) reporting and Section
16(b) short-swing profit recovery for any
insider (whether an officer, director or
ten percent holder), existing Rule 16a–
1(a)(2) looks to the insider’s pecuniary
interest (i.e., opportunity to profit) in
the securities. Under existing rules, this
concept includes an indirect pecuniary
interest in securities underlying fixedprice derivative securities, including
security-based swaps, whether settled in
cash or stock. Consistent with the
derivative securities analysis, the
Commission has stated that Section 16
consequences would arise from an
equity swap transaction where either
party to the transaction is a Section 16
insider with respect to a security to
which the swap agreement relates.50
The Commission has provided
interpretive guidance regarding how
equity swap transactions should be
reported,51 and adopted transaction
code ‘‘K’’ to be used in addition to any
other applicable code in reporting
equity swap and similar transactions so
50 Ownership Reports and Trading by Officers,
Directors and Principal Security Holders, Release
No. 34–34514, at Section III.G (Aug. 10, 1994) [59
FR 42449]; Ownership Reports and Trading by
Officers, Directors and Principal Security Holders,
Release No. 34–37260, at Section IV.H (May 31,
1996) [61 FR 30376].
51 Each report must provide the following
information: (1) The date of the transaction; (2) the
term; (3) the number of underlying shares; (4) the
exercise price (i.e., the dollar value locked in); (5)
the non-exempt disposition (acquisition) of shares
at the outset of the term; (6) the non-exempt
acquisition (disposition) of shares at the end of the
term (and at such earlier dates, if any, where events
under the equity swap cause a change in a call or
put equivalent position); (7) the total number of
shares held after the transaction; and (8) any other
material terms. Release No. 34–37260, at Section
IV.H.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Mar 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
that they can be easily identified.52 An
equity swap involving a single security,
or a narrow-based security index, is a
security-based swap as defined in
Section 3(a)(68).
II. Discussion of the Rule Proposals
New Section 13(o) provides that a
person shall be deemed a beneficial
owner of an equity security based on the
purchase or sale of a security-based
swap only to the extent we adopt rules
after making certain determinations and
consulting with the prudential
regulators and the Secretary of the
Treasury. The regulatory provisions
under which beneficial ownership
determinations are currently made with
respect to security-based swaps were
enacted or adopted before Section 13(o).
Accordingly, we are proposing to
readopt the relevant portions of Rules
13d–3 and 16a–1 following consultation
with the prudential regulators and the
Secretary of Treasury to assure that
these provisions continue to apply to a
person who purchases or sells a
security-based swap upon effectiveness
of Section 13(o).
The purpose of the proposed
rulemaking is solely to preserve the
regulatory status quo and provide the
certainty and protection that market
participants have come to expect with
the existing disclosures required by the
rules promulgated under Sections 13(d),
13(g) and 16(a). While the use of
security-based swaps has not been
frequently disclosed in Schedule 13D
and 13G filings, we are proposing to
readopt Rules 13d–3(a), (b) and (d)(1)
and the relevant portions of Rules 16a–
1(a)(1) and (a)(2) to further the policy
objectives of and foster compliance with
these rules upon the effectiveness of
Section 13(o).
Given the language in Section 13(o),
as well as the newly amended Sections
13(d) and 13(g),53 we are proposing to
readopt these rules to remove any doubt
that they will continue to allow for the
same determinations of beneficial
ownership that they do today.
Readoption of these rule provisions is
intended to ensure that persons who use
security-based swaps remain subject to
the Section 13(d), Section 13(g) and
Section 16 regulatory regimes to the
same extent such persons are now.
Moreover, the proposed rulemaking is
52 General Instruction 8 to Form 4 [17 CFR
249.104] (U.S. SEC 1475 (08–07)) and Form 5 [17
CFR 249.105] (U.S. SEC 2270 (1–05)), as amended
in Release No. 34–37260, at Section IV.I.
53 See Section 766(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act,
which amends Sections 13(d) and 13(g) to provide
that a person ‘‘becomes or is deemed to become a
beneficial owner * * * upon the purchase or sale
of a security-based swap that the Commission may
define by rule * * *.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15879
designed to preserve the private right of
action provided by Section 16(b) and
not disturb any other existing right of
action.
Section 13(o) will not render the
existing beneficial ownership regulatory
provisions inapplicable to persons who
obtain beneficial ownership
independently from a security-based
swap. For example, Rule 13d–3(d)(1)
will continue to apply to persons who
obtain a right to acquire equity
securities if the right does not arise from
the purchase or sale of a security-based
swap. Rights, options, warrants, or
conversion or certain revocation
privileges, if acquired or held by
persons under circumstances that do not
arise from the purchase or sale of a
security-based swap, will remain subject
to Sections 13(d), 13(g) and 16 and may
continue to be treated under Rule 13d–
3(d)(1) as the acquisition of beneficial
ownership,54 and Rules 16a–1(a)(1) and
16a–1(a)(2) will continue to apply.
Furthermore, Schedule 13D will
continue to require certain disclosures
relating to the purchase or sale of
security-based swaps notwithstanding
Section 13(o).55
54 These rights to acquire beneficial ownership
are not security-based swaps within the meaning of
Section 13(o) because they are purchases and sales
of securities. In this regard, the definition of ‘‘swap’’
in Section 721 of the Dodd-Frank Act (and therefore
the definition of ‘‘security-based swap’’) excludes
purchases and sales of securities, whether on a
fixed or contingent basis. Under the Dodd-Frank
Act, the term ‘‘security’’ is as defined in the
Securities Act and the Exchange Act, which
includes options, warrants, and rights to subscribe
to or purchase a security and any convertible
securities as well as the securities issuable upon
exercise or conversion of such securities. In
addition, Section 721 of the Dodd-Frank Act
excludes from the definition of ‘‘swap’’ any put, call,
straddle, option or privilege on any security,
certificate of deposit, or group or index of
securities, including any interest therein or based
on the value thereof, that is subject to the Securities
Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act. Furthermore,
Section 13(o) does not affect the treatment of
‘‘security-based swap agreements’’ as defined in the
Dodd-Frank Act. For example, Section 762(d)(5) of
the Dodd-Frank Act clarifies that Section 16
continues to apply to security-based swap
agreements.
55 For example, beneficial owners who file a
Schedule 13D and use a security-based swap will
remain subject to the obligation to comply with
Items 6 (‘‘Contracts, Arrangements, Understandings
or Relationships With Respect to Securities of the
Issuer’’) and 7 (‘‘Material to be Filed as Exhibits’’)
and provide disclosures relating to the securitybased swap depending upon the security-based
swap’s terms. In addition, beneficial owners who
file a Schedule 13G pursuant to Rule 13d-1(b) or
otherwise rely upon Rule 13d-1(b) to govern a
future reporting obligation may be required to make
disclosures on Schedule 13D instead based upon
their purchase or sale of a security-based swap. See
In the Matter of Perry Corp., Release No. 34–60351
(July 21, 2009).
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
15880
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Beneficial Ownership Determinations
under Section 13
Section 13(o) provides that a person
shall be deemed to acquire beneficial
ownership of an equity security based
on the purchase or sale of a securitybased swap only to the extent that the
Commission meets certain conditions
and adopts a rule. Although the
proposal to readopt Rule 13d–3(a), Rule
13d–3(b), and Rule 13d–3(d)(1) is being
made in part pursuant to Section 13(o),
we are not proposing any revision to the
existing rule text. The proposed rules
are the same as the existing rules in all
respects.
1. Rule 13d–3(a)
We are proposing to readopt without
change Rule 13d–3(a) to address any
uncertainty with regard to the
application of Rule 13d–3(a) to a person
who purchases or sells a security-based
swap. If readopted, a determination
could continue to be made that a
beneficial owner of equity securities
includes any person who, directly or
indirectly, through any contract,
arrangement, understanding,
relationship or otherwise, has or shares
voting power and/or investment power
over the securities based on the
purchase or sale of a security-based
swap. Following initial consultation
with the prudential regulators 56 and the
Secretary of the Treasury, we
preliminarily believe that:
• A person’s possession of voting
and/or investment power in an equity
security based on the purchase or sale
of a security-based swap is no different
from voting or investment power in an
equity security that exists
independently from a security-based
swap when (1) a security-based swap
confers, or (2) an arrangement,
understanding or relationship based on
the purchase or sale of the securitybased swap conveys, voting and/or
investment power in an equity security.
Security-based swaps therefore can
provide incidents of ownership
comparable to direct ownership of the
underlying equity security within the
meaning of Section 13(o) to the extent
that the security-based swap confers, or
an arrangement, understanding or
relationship based upon the purchase or
sale of the security-based swap conveys,
voting and/or investment power in an
equity security; and
• Retaining the existing regulatory
treatment of security-based swaps in
56 Our staff has consulted with the Federal
Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency, the Farm Credit Administration, the
Federal Housing Finance Agency, and the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation. Our staff also
consulted with the CFTC.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Mar 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
Rule 13d–3(a) is necessary to achieve
the purpose of Section 13 so that
Sections 13(d) and 13(g) continue to
require the filing of beneficial
ownership reports that produce
disclosure by persons who have the
ability or potential to change or
influence control of the issuer. In
addition, these persons may have the
means to acquire significant amounts of
equity securities wholly or partly based
upon the purchase or sale of a securitybased swap. As a result, these persons
may have the potential to effect a
change of control transaction or
preserve or influence control of an
issuer. In the case of Schedule 13D
filers, these persons would be required
to disclose their plans or proposals.
Disclosures made in beneficial
ownership reports are in the public
interest and necessary for the protection
of investors because they provide
information about certain transactions
and related acquisitions of beneficial
ownership that: could disclose a
potential shift in corporate control;
impact the transparency and efficiency
of our capital markets; and contribute to
price discovery.
2. Rule 13d–3(b)
We are proposing to readopt without
change Rule 13d–3(b) to address any
uncertainty with regard to the continued
application of Rule 13d–3(b) to a person
who purchases or sells a security-based
swap. Rule 13d–3(b) provides that a
person is deemed to be a beneficial
owner if that person uses any contract,
arrangement, or device as a means to
divest or prevent the vesting of
beneficial ownership as part of a plan or
scheme to evade the beneficial
ownership reporting requirements. If
readopted, Rule 13d-3(b) would
continue to apply to any person that
uses a security-based swap as part of a
plan or scheme to evade reporting
beneficial ownership and thereby
accumulate influential or control
positions in public issuers without
disclosure.
Following initial consultation with
the prudential regulators and the
Secretary of the Treasury, we
preliminarily believe that:
• A person’s use of a security-based
swap to divest or prevent the vesting of
beneficial ownership as part of a plan or
scheme to evade the application of
Sections 13(d) or 13(g) is no different
from a plan or scheme that uses a
contract, arrangement or device that
exists independently from a securitybased swap. In this context, a person
would be deemed to have beneficial
ownership, and thus incidents of
ownership comparable to direct
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ownership, but for the plan or scheme
based in whole or in part upon the
purchase or sale of a security-based
swap; and
• Retaining the existing regulatory
treatment of security-based swaps in
Rule 13d–3(b) is necessary to achieve
the purpose of Section 13 so that
Sections 13(d) and 13(g) continue to
require the filing of beneficial
ownership reports that produce
disclosure by persons who have the
ability or potential to change or
influence control of the issuer. In
addition, these persons may have the
means to acquire significant amounts of
equity securities based in whole or in
part upon the purchase or sale of a
security-based swap, and therefore the
potential to effect a change of control
transaction or preserve or influence
control of an issuer. In the case of
Schedule 13D filers, these persons
would be required to disclose their
plans or proposals. Disclosures made in
beneficial ownership reports are in the
public interest and necessary for the
protection of investors because they
provide information about certain
transactions and related acquisitions of
beneficial ownership that: could
disclose a potential shift in corporate
control; impact the transparency and
efficiency of our capital markets; and
contribute to price discovery.
3. Rule 13d–3(d)(1)
We are proposing to readopt without
change Rule 13d–3(d)(1) to address any
uncertainty with regard to the continued
application of Rule 13d–3(d)(1) to a
person who purchases or sells a
security-based swap. Rule 13d–3(d)(1)
provides that a person will be deemed
to be a beneficial owner of equity
securities if the person has the right to
acquire beneficial ownership of the
securities within 60 days, or at any time
if the right is held for the purpose of
changing or influencing control. If
readopted, Rule 13d–3(d)(1) would
continue to apply to any person that
obtains such a right based on the
purchase or sale of a security-based
swap.
The Commission has long recognized
the importance of having the beneficial
ownership reporting regime account for
contingent interests in equity securities
arising from investor use of derivatives,
such as options, warrants or rights. The
Commission adopted Rule 13d–3, the
predecessor to Rule 13d–3(d)(1), on
August 30, 1968,57 approximately one
month after Congress enacted Section
57 Acquisitions, Tender Offers, and Solicitations,
Release No. 34–8392 (Aug. 30, 1968) [33 FR 14109].
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
13(d).58 The Commission also has
treated futures contracts for equity
securities the same as options, warrants,
or rights for purposes of determining
beneficial ownership.59 When 60 days
or less are left until the right to acquire
may be exercised, or if a right has been
acquired for the purpose or with the
effect of changing or influencing control
of the issuer of securities, we believe
that treating the holder of the right as if
the person is a beneficial owner under
Rule 13d–3(d)(1) is necessary to achieve
the purpose of Section 13 given the
person’s potential to influence or
change control of the issuer.60
Following initial consultation with
the prudential regulators and the
Secretary of the Treasury, we
preliminarily believe that:
• A person’s right to acquire an
equity security within 60 days based on
the purchase or sale of a security-based
swap is no different from a right to
acquire the underlying equity security
that exists independently from a
security-based swap. A right to acquire
an equity security within 60 days is
comparable to direct ownership of the
equity security because direct
ownership is contingent, in some cases,
only upon the exercise of that right and
may result in the potential to change or
influence control of the issuer upon
acquisition of the equity security for
which the right is exercisable. Securitybased swaps, therefore, can provide
incidents of ownership comparable to
direct ownership of the underlying
equity security within the meaning of
Section 13(o) to the extent that the
security-based swap confers a right to
acquire an equity security within 60
days;
• A person who acquires or holds,
with the purpose or effect of changing
or influencing control of an issuer, a
right to acquire an equity security based
on the purchase or sale of a securitybased swap is no different from a person
who acquires or holds a right to acquire
an equity security with the purpose of
changing or influencing control of the
issuer that exists independently from a
security-based swap. Rights acquired or
held in this context may be used in
furtherance of a plan or proposal to
change control of the issuer, and such
58 See Act of July 29, 1968, Pub. L. 90–439, 82
Stat. 454.
59 The Futures Interpretive Release provides two
examples at Q & A No. 17 that explain when equity
securities underlying a security future that requires
physical settlement should be counted for purposes
of determining whether the purchaser of the
security future is subject to Regulation 13D–G by
operation of Rule 13d–3(d)(1).
60 See Filing and Disclosure Requirements
Relating to Beneficial Ownership, Release No. 34–
14692 (Apr. 21, 1978) [43 FR 18484].
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Mar 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
rights to acquire equity securities may
otherwise influence an issuer if held by
a person intending to effect a change of
control transaction or preserve or
influence control of an issuer. Securitybased swaps, therefore, can provide
incidents of ownership comparable to
direct ownership of the underlying
equity security within the meaning of
Section 13(o) to the extent that the
security-based swap confers a right to
acquire an equity security to a person
that holds the right with the purpose or
with the effect of changing or
influencing control of the issuer or
otherwise in connection with or as a
participant in any transaction having
such purpose or effect; and
• Retaining the existing regulatory
treatment of security-based swaps under
Rule 13d–3(d)(1) is necessary to achieve
the purpose of Section 13 so that
Sections 13(d) and 13(g) continue to
require the filing of beneficial
ownership reports that disclose certain
transactions by persons who have the
ability or potential to change or
influence control of the issuer. These
persons may have the means to acquire
significant amounts of equity securities
based in whole or in part upon the
purchase or sale of a security-based
swap, and therefore the potential to
effect a change of control transaction or
preserve or influence control of an
issuer. In the case of Schedule 13D
filers, these persons would be required
to disclose their plans or proposals.
Disclosures made in beneficial
ownership reports are in the public
interest and necessary for the protection
of investors because they provide
information about certain transactions
and related acquisitions of beneficial
ownership that: could disclose a
potential shift in corporate control;
impact the transparency and efficiency
of our capital markets; and contribute to
price discovery.
Request for Comment
1. In lieu of readopting the existing
language of Rules 13d–3(a), 13d–3(b),
and 13d–3(d)(1), should we instead
adopt a new rule or amend the existing
rules to specify the circumstances in
which a purchase or sale of a securitybased swap may confer a contingent or
other interest in an equity security that,
if held, could result in a person being
deemed a beneficial owner for purposes
of Sections 13(d) and 13(g)?
2. Are there any other rules or
disclosure requirements that should be
readopted or amended, such as Item 403
of Regulation S–K,61 to preserve their
61 Item 403 of Regulation S–K requires an issuer
to disclose in certain filings the name and amount
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15881
existing application following
effectiveness of Section 13(o)?
3. Should the Commission and/or
staff provide interpretive guidance
regarding how to provide disclosure
with regard to security-based swaps in
Schedules 13D or 13G? If so, what type
of interpretive guidance would be
appropriate?
4. How common is the use of securitybased swaps to obtain incidents of
ownership, such as voting or investment
power, comparable to direct ownership
in an issuer?
5. Are there other factors or features
of security-based swaps we should
consider for purposes of making the
determinations required under Section
13(o) with regard to the relevant
provisions of Rule 13d–3?
6. Does voting or investment power, a
scheme to evade beneficial ownership
reporting, or a right to acquire an equity
security, when each arises from the
purchase or sale of a security-based
swap, differ materially from when each
exists independently from a securitybased swap?
B. Section 16 Beneficial Ownership
Rules
1. Rule 16a–1(a)(1)
We are proposing to readopt without
change a portion of Rule 16a–1(a)(1) 62
to preserve, solely for purposes of
determining whether a person is a ten
percent holder, the application of the
relevant provisions within Rule 13d–3
to a person who uses a security-based
swap. The proposed readoption of Rule
16a–1(a)(1) would not change the rule’s
provision that shares held by
institutions eligible to file beneficial
ownership reports on Schedule 13G that
are held for clients in a fiduciary
capacity in the ordinary course of
of beneficial ownership held by any person known
to be the beneficial owner of more than five percent
of a class of its voting securities. Item 403 also
requires the issuer to identify the name and amount
of beneficial ownership held by each of its
directors, director nominees and executive officers,
regardless of whether the person’s beneficial
ownership exceeds five percent. We have not
proposed to readopt Item 403 of Regulation S–K
because Item 403 provides that the disclosures
required are to be determined in accordance with
the beneficial ownership determinations made
under Rule 13d–3.
62 We propose to readopt the portion of Rule 16a–
1(a)(1) that precedes the proviso applicable to
qualified institutions. The relevant portion of Rule
16a–1(a)(1) proposed for readoption reads as
follows: ‘‘(a) The term beneficial owner shall have
the following applications: (1) Solely for purposes
of determining whether a person is a beneficial
owner of more than ten percent of any class of
equity securities registered pursuant to section 12
of the Act, the term ‘‘beneficial owner’’ shall mean
any person who is deemed a beneficial owner
pursuant to section 13(d) of the Act and the rules
thereunder * * *.’’
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
15882
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules
business are not counted for purposes of
determining ten percent holder status.63
Following initial consultation with
the prudential regulators and the
Secretary of the Treasury, we
preliminarily believe that:
• For the same reasons and in the
same circumstances as described above
for Rule 13d–3(a), Rule 13d–3(b) and
Rule 13d–3(d)(1), solely for purposes of
determining whether a person is a ten
percent holder subject to Section 16, the
purchase or sale of a security-based
swap, or class of security-based swap,
can provide incidents of ownership
comparable to direct ownership of the
equity security within the meaning of
Section 16; and
• The inclusion of equity securities
based on the purchase or sale of a
security-based swap, or class of
security-based swap, for purposes of
calculating ten percent holder status is
necessary to achieve the purpose of
Section 16, so that Section 16 continues
to reach all persons that, under the
Section 16 regime, are presumptively
deemed to have access to inside
information based on influence or
control of the issuer through ownership
of equity securities.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Rule 16a–1(a)(2)
The proposal to readopt without
change a portion of Rule 16a–1(a)(2) 64
is intended solely to preserve the
existing Section 16(a) reporting of
security-based swap holdings and
transactions and correspondingly to
prevent the potential use of securitybased swaps to engage in short-swing
trading outside the scope of Section
16(b) short-swing profit recovery. The
proposal to readopt would not change or
63 Securities not held in such a fiduciary capacity,
however, must be counted in determining whether
a Schedule 13G qualified institutional investor is a
ten percent holder. This exclusion applies only to
qualified institutions who acquire or hold securities
of the issuer in the ordinary course of business
without the purpose or effect of influencing or
changing control, and thereby qualify to use
Schedule 13G pursuant to Rule 13d–1(b)(1)(i). The
exclusion does not apply to persons who qualify to
use Schedule 13G as passive investors pursuant to
Rule 13d–1(c), or as exempt investors pursuant to
Rule 13d–1(d).
64 We propose to readopt the portion of Rule 16a–
1(a)(2) that precedes subparagraph (ii). The relevant
portion of Rule 16a–1(a)(2) proposed for readoption
reads as follows: ‘‘(2) Other than for purposes of
determining whether a person is a beneficial owner
of more than ten percent of any class of equity
securities registered under Section 12 of the Act,
the term beneficial owner shall mean any person
who, directly or indirectly, through any contract,
arrangement, understanding, relationship or
otherwise, has or shares a direct or indirect
pecuniary interest in the equity securities, subject
to the following: (i) The term pecuniary interest in
any class of equity securities shall mean the
opportunity, directly or indirectly, to profit or share
in any profit derived from a transaction in the
subject securities.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Mar 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
otherwise affect any aspect of the
pecuniary interest analysis and
treatment of derivative securities under
Section 16.
Following initial consultation with
the prudential regulators and the
Secretary of the Treasury, we
preliminarily believe that:
• Because an insider’s opportunity to
profit through a security-based swap is
no different from the opportunity to
profit through transactions in any other
fixed–price derivative security, and
hence no different from the opportunity
to profit through transactions in the
underlying equity security, holdings
and transactions in security-based
swaps that are fixed–price derivative
securities can provide incidents of
ownership comparable to direct
ownership of the underlying equity
security within the meaning of Section
13(o); and
• Retaining the existing treatment of
security-based swaps is necessary to
achieve the purpose of Section 16 so
that Section 16 continues to reach
holdings and transactions that insiders
can potentially use to profit based on
misuse of inside information.
Request for Comment
7. In lieu of readopting the existing
language of Rule 16a–1(a)(1), should the
rule instead be amended to specifically
reference security-based swaps? If so, in
what manner?
8. In lieu of readopting the existing
language of Rule 16a–1(a)(2), should the
rule or any related rule that governs the
treatment of derivative securities under
Section 16 instead be amended to
specifically reference security-based
swaps? If so, in what manner?
9. Are there other factors that we
should consider for purposes of making
the determinations required under
Section 13(o) with regard to Rule 16a–
1(a)(1)?
10. Are there other factors that we
should consider for purposes of making
the determinations required under
Section 13(o) with regard to Rule 16a–
1(a)(2)?
C. General Request for Comment
We request and encourage any
interested person to submit comments
on any aspect of our proposals, other
matters that might have an impact on
the proposals, and any other suggestions
for changes. We solicit comments
particularly from the point of view of
issuers, shareholders, prospective
investors, financial analysts, and market
participants. With respect to any
comments, we note that they are of
greatest assistance to our rulemaking
initiative if accompanied by supporting
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
data and analysis of the issues
addressed in those comments and by
alternatives to our proposals where
appropriate.
III. Paperwork Reduction Act
The rule proposals affect ‘‘collection
of information’’ requirements within the
meaning of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the PRA.65 An agency may
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is
not required to respond to, a collection
of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
We already have control numbers for
Schedules 13D (OMB Control No. 3235–
0145) and 13G (OMB Control No. 3235–
0145) and Forms 3 (OMB Control No.
3235–0104) and 4 (OMB Control No.
3235–0287) and 5 (OMB Control No.
3235–0362). These schedules and forms
contain item requirements that outline
the information a reporting person must
disclose.
A. Background
We are proposing to readopt without
change portions of the rules enabling
determinations of beneficial ownership
to be made for purposes of Sections
13(d), 13(g) and 16 of the Exchange Act.
The proposals are intended to clarify
that following the effective date of
Section 13(o), security-based swaps will
remain within the scope of these rules
to the same extent as they are now.
B. Burden and Cost Estimates Related to
the Proposed Amendments
Preparing and filing a report on any
of these schedules or forms is a
collection of information. The hours and
costs associated with preparing the
disclosure, filing the schedules or forms
and retaining records required by these
rules constitute reporting and cost
burdens imposed by each collection of
information. If the rules we propose are
readopted, reporting persons will
remain obligated to disclose the same
information that they were previously
required to report on these schedules or
forms. We therefore believe that if the
rules are readopted, the overall
information collection burden will
remain approximately the same because
beneficial ownership will remain
reportable on the same basis as it is
now.
C. Request for Comment
We request comment on this
Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis.
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), we
solicit comments to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
65 44
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
22MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
• Determine whether there are ways
to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Evaluate whether there are ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those persons who are to
respond, including through the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Persons submitting comments on the
collection of information requirements
should direct the comments to the
Office of Management and Budget,
Attention: Desk Officer for the
Securities and Exchange Commission,
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, and
should send a copy to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090, with
reference to File No. S7–10–11.
Requests for materials submitted to
OMB by the Commission with regard to
these collections of information should
be in writing, refer to File No. S7–10–
11, and be submitted to the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Office of
Investor Education and Advocacy, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–
0123.
IV. Economic Analysis
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Introduction
Section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act
requires us, when adopting rules under
the Exchange Act, to consider the
impact on competition that the rules we
adopt would have, and prohibits us
from adopting any rule that would
impose a burden on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of that Act.66 Further, Section 3(f) of the
Exchange Act 67 and Section 2(c) of the
Investment Company Act 68 require us,
when engaging in rulemaking where we
are required to consider or determine
whether an action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, to
consider, in addition to the protection of
investors, whether the action will
promote efficiency, competition and
capital formation. We have considered
and discussed below the effects of the
rules proposed for readoption on
efficiency, competition, and capital
formation, as well as the benefits and
costs associated with the proposed
rulemaking.
66 15
U.S.C. 78w(a)(2).
U.S.C. 78c(f).
68 15 U.S.C. 80a–2(c).
67 15
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Mar 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
In order to more fully analyze the
potential effects of readopting rules that
are designed to preserve the regulatory
status quo upon the effectiveness of
Section 13(o), we have performed the
analysis below in two separate ways.
First, we analyze the impact of the
proposed readoption compared to the
status quo, in which the rules already
apply to a person who purchases or sells
a security-based swap. Second, we
analyze the impact as if our rules did
not already apply to persons who
purchase or sell security-based swaps.
B. Benefits, Including the Impact on
Efficiency, Competition and Capital
Formation
1. When the Rules We Propose To
Readopt Already Apply to Persons Who
Purchase or Sell Security-Based Swaps
The proposal to readopt certain
provisions of Rule 13d–3 and Rule 16a–
1 would preserve the continued
administration of existing rules adopted
to improve the transparency of
information available to investors,
issuers and the marketplace. The
proposal is intended to preserve that
transparency regarding beneficial
ownership positions and the intentions
of persons who hold such positions, as
well as the holdings of and transactions
by Section 16 insiders. We are
proposing to readopt, without change,
rules that, when applied, may result in
disclosure of beneficial ownership and
insiders’ holdings and transactions in
equity securities. In addition, one of the
rules proposed for readoption, Rule
16a–1(a)(2), also identifies transactions
that may be subject to the private right
of action to recover short-swing profit
for the issuer provided by Section 16(b).
The proposal is being made solely to
preserve the regulatory status quo
regarding beneficial ownership
reporting under Sections 13(d) and (g),
Section 16 insider status as a ten
percent holder, insider holding and
transaction reporting under Section
16(a), and insider short-swing profit
liability under Section 16(b).
Application of the rules also will
provide certainty regarding the Section
16(b) private right of action to recover
insiders’ short-swing profits for the
issuer. Because the rules we propose are
already in place and will remain
unchanged, readoption and
effectiveness of these rules should have
minimal benefits, and little, if any, new
effect on efficiency, competition, or
capital formation or on the persons
required to make the disclosures as a
result of the application of the rules.
Beneficial owners who use securitybased swaps are already subject to these
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15883
rules and are required to make any
applicable disclosures. Because only a
limited number of beneficial ownership
reports contain disclosure that relates to
security-based swaps, the potential
effect of this rulemaking should be
minimal. Shareholders, issuers, market
participants and any other persons who
rely upon the disclosures being made as
a result of application of the rules
similarly will receive little, if any, new
benefit and are unlikely to experience
any new impact on efficiency,
competition or capital formation
because the regulatory environment will
remain the same as it is today.
2. If the Rules We Propose Did Not
Already Apply to Persons Who
Purchase or Sell Security-Based Swaps
If one were to analyze the effect of
readopting the rules we propose as if
they did not already apply to a person
who purchases or sells a security-based
swap, there would be new benefits, as
well as a beneficial effect on efficiency,
competition and capital formation.
These benefits could extend to
beneficial owners required to comply
with disclosure requirements as a result
of the application of the rules we
propose to readopt. These benefits also
may extend to persons relying upon
these disclosures, including prospective
investors, shareholders, issuers, and
other market participants. Any such
benefits, if realized, would be
attributable both to the removal of any
regulatory uncertainty and to the
resulting preservation of transparency.
a. Benefits, Including the Impact on
Efficiency
Applying the rules to a person who
purchases or sells a security-based swap
confers a benefit to market participants
by providing market transparency and
removing, in some cases, information
asymmetry. Prospective investors,
shareholders, issuers and other market
participants benefit from the
transparency provided through
disclosure made available by persons
subject to Sections 13 and 16. For
example, a Schedule 13D filing may
disclose a potential change of control
transaction and assist a shareholder in
making an investment decision that
would maximize the return on an
investment. Disclosures made on
Schedule 13G may identify for the
marketplace important investment
decisions made by institutional
investors and other large shareholders
or may provide notice to investors,
issuers and the market regarding voting
blocks of securities that have the
potential to affect or influence control of
an issuer.
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
15884
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Applying the rules to a person who
purchases or sells a security-based swap
assures that Section 16 will reach a
person that, under the Section 16
regime, is presumptively deemed to
have access to inside information based
on influence or control of the issuer
through equity ownership. In addition,
applying the rules to a person who
purchases or sells a security-based swap
means that an insider (whether an
officer, director, or ten percent holder)
is required to report beneficial
ownership with respect to transactions
and holdings in a security-based swap
that confers an indirect pecuniary
interest in issuer equity securities.
These reports, like other Section 16(a)
reports, may provide shareholders and
other market participants with useful
information regarding insiders’ views of
the performance or prospects of the
issuer.
Transparency of trading by persons
covered by Sections 13 and 16, and
transparency of accumulations of
material ownership blocks or voting
power based on the purchase or sale of
a security-based swap, would increase
informational efficiency in securities
markets in particularly important areas,
especially where a Schedule 13D filing
may be the first required disclosure of
an intended change of control of an
issuer. Transparency confers a benefit
by assuring the availability of
information upon which investors may
rely to make informed investment and
voting decisions. The level of
transparency provided by Rules 13d–
1(a) and 16a–1 also may contribute to
market efficiency because it could help
facilitate the accurate pricing of
securities. If the rules did not apply to
a person who purchases or sells a
security-based swap, investors and
market participants, such as financial
analysts and broker dealers, would not
have information regarding the use of
security-based swaps by persons subject
to Sections 13 and 16, including major
investors. The transparency provided by
the application of our rules should help
the market accurately price securities
and may enable purchasers and sellers
of securities to receive a benefit by
avoiding costs, if any, associated with
participation in transactions based on
mispriced securities. For example,
market efficiency should increase
because the market will have readily
available information about acquisitions
of securities that involve the potential to
change or influence control of an issuer
in connection with the purchase or sale
of a security-based swap. If persons who
purchase or sell security-based swaps
were excluded from this regulatory
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Mar 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
scheme, an incentive could arise to use
security-based swaps to effect or
influence the outcome of a change of
control transaction. In addition, the
pricing of a security would not readily
reflect, if at all, ownership interests in
the issuer derived from security-based
swaps. In such circumstances, the
application of the rules we propose for
readoption would have the benefit of
eliminating this incentive while
increasing the quality of information
available to price securities.
b. Benefits, Including the Impact on
Competition
Public availability of information
about the existence of persons who use
security-based swaps and have the
potential to change or influence control
of the issuer affects competition in the
market for corporate control. If bidders
that use securities-based swaps comply
with the beneficial ownership
disclosure requirements, the balance
Congress sought to strike between
issuers and prospective bidders will not
tip away from issuers.69 Providing equal
access to information regarding persons
who use security-based swaps and have
the ability to change or influence
control of an issuer reinforces a
legislative objective of Section 13(d) by
assuring that a person will not be able
to implement a change of control
transaction by means of a large,
undisclosed position. Applying our
rules to persons who purchase or sell
security-based swaps enables issuers to
consider information about competitors
in the market for corporate control,
including those who may be able to
offer a new or competing strategic
alternative. Schedule 13D and 13G
filings also may deliver greater certainty
to market participants who make
strategic, voting, or investment
decisions wholly or partly based upon
the information disclosed, and could
reduce speculation about future plans or
proposals relating to an issuer. For
example, market participants may not
be discouraged from introducing
strategic plans or proposals to an issuer
out of concern that an undisclosed
interest in the issuer derived from a
security-based swap could interrupt
execution of their plan or proposal.
Section 16 is intended to provide the
public with information about the
securities transactions and holdings of
officers, directors, and ten percent
holders, and to mitigate informational
advantages they may have in trading
issuer securities. Applying Rule 16a–
1(a)(1) to beneficial ownership based on
the purchase or sale of a security-based
69 See
PO 00000
note 22 above.
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
swap discourages persons from unfairly
profiting in trades based on the ability
to become a ten percent holder partly or
wholly based on the use of securitybased swaps without becoming subject
to Section 16. Applying Rule 16a–
1(a)(2), which defines ‘‘beneficial
ownership’’ based on pecuniary interest
in issuer equity securities, to persons
who purchase or sell security-based
swaps prevents the development of a
trading market potentially favoring any
insider (whether an officer, director, or
ten percent holder) to the extent that:
• Holdings and transactions involving
security-based swaps may not be
reported, thereby depriving investors of
potentially useful information; and
• Insiders have the opportunity to
misuse their potential informational
advantages in trading without regard to
potential short-swing profit liability.
c. Benefits, Including the Impact on
Capital Formation
Making information publicly available
generally lowers an issuer’s cost of
capital and facilitates capital formation,
in comparison to what the cost of
capital otherwise might be if the rules
did not already apply to a person who
purchases or sells a security-based
swap. If the rules apply to a person who
purchases or sells a security-based
swap, the resulting transparency could
favorably affect investor confidence in
the capital markets and thereby not
compromise capital formation.70 If our
rules require persons who use securitybased swaps to provide disclosures in
Schedules 13D and 13G and Forms 3, 4
and 5, investors will not insist on a
higher risk premium in publicly-traded
equity securities and consequently
reduce capital formation. Informed
investor decisions generally promote
capital formation.71
In addition, market participants
would benefit from the predictability
associated with a regulatory
environment in which all persons who
have the potential to influence or
change control of an issuer are
definitively subject to the same
beneficial ownership reporting rules. If
there were questions as to whether our
70 See Luigi Guiso et al., Trusting the Stock
Market, 63 J. Fin. 2557 (2008) (finding that trust in
the fairness of the financial system is correlated
with higher levels of stock market participation).
71 See Merritt B. Fox, Randall Morck, Bernard
Yeung & Artyom Durnev, Law, Share Price
Accuracy, and Economic Performance: the New
Evidence, 102 Mich L. Rev. 331 (2003) (empirical
study of the value of disclosure requirements in
enhancing investment efficiency); see also Studies
in Resource Allocation Processes at p. 413 (Kenneth
J. Arrow & Leonid Hurwicz eds., 2007) (explaining
the relationship between informational efficiency
and Pareto efficiency of resource allocation).
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules
rules applied to persons who purchase
or sell security-based swaps, market
participants would have to accept more
operational and legal risk because of the
potentially unregulated treatment of
persons who use security-based swaps
with incidents of ownership comparable
to direct ownership, as well as persons
who have arrangements,
understandings, or relationships
concerning voting and/or investment
power, the opportunity to acquire equity
securities, or a plan or scheme to evade
Sections 13(d) and 13(g) in connection
with the purchase or sale of a securitybased swap. By applying our rules to all
persons who have the potential to
influence or change control of the
issuer, market participants would have
assurance that securities pricing may
reflect information derived from
security-based swaps when Sections
13(d), 13(g), and 16 require reporting.
The certainty provided by this
consistent regulatory treatment could
foster investor confidence and
participation in the capital markets
generally, and should not impair capital
formation.
The rules we propose for readoption
also would provide the SEC access to
ownership and transaction information
that would not be available if the rules
did not already apply to a person who
purchases or sells a security-based
swap. The availability of this data
should enhance the ability of the
Commission and its staff to study and
address issues that relate to this
information. Ready access to this
information also will continue to enable
the Commission to exercise efficiently
its enforcement mandate in this market
segment, and thereby confer a benefit to
all market participants by offering
assurance that the integrity of security
pricing is protected, and is otherwise
consistent with the legislative purpose
of Sections 13(d), 13(g), 13(o), and 16.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Costs, Including the Impact on
Efficiency, Competition and Capital
Formation
1. When the Rules We Propose Already
Apply to Persons Who Purchase or Sell
Security-Based Swaps
We preliminarily believe that the
rules we propose would not, as a
practical matter, impose any new costs
on market participants, given that the
proposed rulemaking is intended only
to preserve the regulatory status quo.
Although it is difficult to determine the
number of entities and the costs to
entities that are required to comply with
the rules we propose to readopt, we
believe that readoption of the rules
would result in minimal, if any, costs to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Mar 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
any person or entity (either small or
large) and would have little, if any,
burden on efficiency, competition or
capital formation because the regulatory
environment will remain the same as it
is today.
Regulation 13D–G currently applies to
any person that acquires or is deemed
to acquire or hold beneficial ownership
of more than five percent of certain
classes of equity securities. The
proposed readoption of the relevant
provisions of Rule 13d–3 would not
result in any change to the beneficial
ownership reporting obligations of the
persons now subject to the beneficial
ownership regulatory provisions.
Similarly, Section 16 applies to any
person that acquires or is deemed to
acquire more than ten percent of certain
classes of equity securities, and the
proposed readoption of Rule 16a–1(a)(1)
would not result in any change in
determining whether a person is subject
to Section 16 as a ten percent holder.
Further, for all insiders, the
requirements for Section 16(a) reporting
and Section 16(b) liability are based on
whether the insider has a pecuniary
interest in the securities, including
indirectly through ownership of and
transactions in fixed-price derivative
securities, such as security-based swaps,
whether settled in cash or stock.
Accordingly, the proposed readoption of
Rule 16a–1(a)(2) would not result in any
change in determining reportable
holdings and transactions, or
transactions subject to short-swing
profit recovery.
Because the rules proposed for
readoption are applied today in
determining whether a person is
required to report beneficial ownership
and insiders’ holdings and transactions
on Schedules 13D and 13G and Forms
3, 4 and 5, we do not believe the
proposed rules will alter the costs
associated with compliance. These
schedules and forms already prescribe
beneficial ownership information that a
reporting person must disclose, and the
proposed rulemaking does not broaden
the scope of the information required to
be reported on the respective schedules
and forms. The compliance burden
associated with completion of the
relevant schedule or form may be
greater or lesser depending on the
relative simplicity of the beneficial
ownership interest. We recognize that
the cost of complying with the
beneficial ownership reporting regime
can include the cost of analyzing
whether the particular interest requires
reporting. If it is determined that the
interest held constitutes beneficial
ownership, and the amount of the
beneficial ownership interest exceeds
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15885
the relevant threshold, the owner must
complete and file a schedule and/or
form. The compliance burden associated
with the readopted rules, however,
including costs associated with legal
and other professional fees, may
decrease because of the regulatory
certainty that this rulemaking is
providing. Furthermore, the persons
incurring this compliance burden may
already be subject to a reporting
obligation based on an earlier
application of these rules, and may not
be reporting beneficial ownership for
the first time as a direct result of the
purchase or sale of security-based
swaps.
If the rules we propose are readopted,
reporting persons will remain obligated
to disclose the information currently
required to be reported on these
schedules or forms. We therefore believe
that the overall compliance burden of
the rules we propose to readopt will
remain the same. In addition, we do not
believe that compliance costs, or the
disclosure provided to effect
compliance, will affect competition
among filers.
We also believe that shareholders,
issuers, market participants and any
other persons who rely upon the
disclosures being made as a result of
application of the rules we propose
similarly will not be subjected to any
new cost, or experience any new impact
on efficiency, competition or capital
formation because the rules we propose
to readopt are already in place and will
remain unchanged.
2. If the Rules We Propose Did Not
Already Apply to Persons Who
Purchase or Sell Security-Based Swaps
Costs could increase for a person who
purchases or sells a security-based swap
and immediately or eventually incurs
the cost of filing or amending a
beneficial ownership report if the
person did not already determine that a
reporting obligation existed based on his
or her purchase or sale of a securitybased swap. Further, an insider could
incur costs from potential short-swing
profit recovery arising out of a
transaction in a security-based swap.
Application of our rules to a person
who purchases or sells a security-based
swap may affect competition. For
example, a person who becomes a ten
percent holder partly or wholly based
on the use of a security-based swap
would not be in a position to profit in
trades prompted by a statutorily
presumed informational advantage
accentuated by the absence of a
reporting requirement. In addition,
beneficial owners who compete in the
market for corporate control would lose
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
15886
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules
a competitive advantage upon the
required disclosure of their beneficial
ownership positions and any plans or
proposals.
Upon application of the rules we
propose to readopt, beneficial owners
may accomplish their objectives with
less efficiency, and the completion of
change of control transactions may be
delayed, due to potential interruptions
that may arise or alternatives that might
emerge as a result of public disclosures.
If our rules did not already apply to a
person who purchases or sells a
security-based swap, that person could
accumulate a large beneficial ownership
position through the use of a securitybased swap without public disclosure.
This beneficial ownership position
otherwise could have been used to
implement or influence the outcome of
a change of control transaction without
alerting an issuer or the marketplace of
these intentions. We believe, however,
that the benefits of our rules would
justify these costs.
The impact, if any, of the readoption
of the rules we propose on capital
formation should be insignificant.
Compliance costs arising under the
beneficial ownership reporting regime
based on the purchase or sale of a
security-based swap are not expected to
redirect capital that otherwise could
have been allocated to capital formation.
Capital formation should not be affected
by a possible decline in the use of
security-based swaps resulting from the
application of our rules to a person who
purchases or sells a security-based
swap, given that capital formation
ordinarily is not dependent upon the
proceeds from transactions in securitybased swaps.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
D. Request for Comment
We request comment on the costs and
benefits associated with the individual
rules, including identification and
assessments of any costs and benefits
not discussed in this analysis. In
addition to the specific inquiries made
throughout this release, we solicit
comments on the usefulness of the rule
proposals to reporting persons,
registrants, and the marketplace at large.
We encourage commentators to identify,
discuss, analyze, and supply relevant
data, information, or statistics regarding
any such costs or benefits, as well as
any costs and benefits not already
defined. We also request qualitative
feedback on the nature of the benefits
and costs described above. Finally, we
also request comment on the following:
• Would readoption of the rules
promote efficiency, competition and
capital formation?
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Mar 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
• Would the proposed rules, if
readopted, have an adverse effect on
competition or impose a burden on
competition that is neither necessary
nor appropriate in furthering the
purposes of the Exchange Act?
Commentators are requested to provide
empirical data and other factual support
for their views if possible.
V. Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act
For purposes of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996,72 a rule is ‘‘major’’ if it has
resulted, or is likely to result in:
• An annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more;
• A major increase in costs or prices
for consumers or individual industries;
or
• Significant adverse effects on
competition, investment or innovation.
We request that commentators
provide empirical data on (a) the annual
effect on the economy; (b) any increase
in costs or prices for consumers or
individual industries; and (c) any effect
on competition, investment or
innovation.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Certification
We hereby certify pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this proposal, if adopted,
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This proposal relates to
beneficial ownership reporting and
reporting by insiders of their
transactions and holdings. The proposal
would not amend existing rules or
introduce new rules, and relates only to
the readoption of existing rules. For this
reason, it would not change the
regulatory status quo and therefore the
proposal should not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
In proposing to readopt these rules,
we have considered their potential
impact on the small entities that might
be required to complete the schedules
and forms. We do not collect
information to estimate the number of
small entities that would be subject to
the rules we propose, if readopted,
because the beneficial ownership
schedules and forms do not capture
specific information about the size of
the reporting entity. We also do not
collect information about small entities
that might obtain beneficial ownership
based on the purchase or sale of a
security-based swap, or whether such
beneficial ownership is directly
72 Pub.
PO 00000
L. 104–121, Title II, 110 Stat. 847, 873.
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
responsible for triggering a reporting
obligation.
Nevertheless, the staff has not noted
that there are a significant number of
entities of any size making beneficial
ownership reports based on the
purchase or sale of security based
swaps. The incidence of small entities
who report beneficial ownership based
on the purchase or sale of a securitybased swap appears to be rare.
Moreover, due to their size, small
businesses or small organizations would
not ordinarily be expected to make
beneficial ownership reports because
they are less likely to have funds to
make purchases exceeding the sizable
thresholds that trigger a reporting
obligation.
Finally, in most cases, the existing
disclosure obligations are generally not
likely to be burdensome for small
entities. To the extent a small entity
would be required to report beneficial
ownership based on the purchase or sale
of a security-based swap, it is likely that
it could fulfill its reporting obligation by
filing an abbreviated Schedule 13G so
long as it does not hold beneficial
ownership with the purpose or with the
effect of changing or influencing control
of an issuer. Schedule 13G is commonly
referred to as a ‘‘short form’’ because less
detailed disclosure is required by
comparison to Schedule 13D.
Accordingly, we do not believe the
proposals, if adopted, would have a
significant economic impact on small
entities.
We encourage written comments
regarding this certification. We request
in particular that commenters describe
the nature of any impact on small
entities and provide empirical data to
support the extent of the impact.
VII. Statutory Authority
The proposed readoptions contained
in this release are made under the
authority set forth in Sections 3(a)(11),
3(b), 13, 16, 23(a) of the Exchange Act,
Sections 30 and 38 of the Investment
Company Act of 1940.
List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 240
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Securities.
Text of the Proposed Amendments
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, the Commission proposes to
amend Title 17, chapter II, of the Code
of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 240—GENERAL RULES AND
REGULATIONS, SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
1. The general authority citation for
Part 240 is revised and the following
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules
public hearing is under section 1273(b)
of the Internal Revenue Code.
The public comment period for the
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j,
proposed rulemaking expired on March
77s, 77z–2, 77z–3, 77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn,
8, 2011. The notice of proposed
77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78d, 78e, 78f, 78g, 78i, 78j,
78j–1, 78k, 78k–1, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78n–1, 78o, rulemaking and notice of public hearing
78o–4, 78p, 78q, 78s, 78u–5, 78w, 78x, 78ll,
instructed those interested in testifying
78mm, 80a–20, 80a–23, 80a–29, 80a–37, 80b– at the public hearing to submit an
3, 80b–4, 80b–11, and 7201 et seq.; 18 U.S.C.
outline of the topics to be addressed. As
1350; and 12 U.S.C. 5221(e)(3), unless
of Tuesday, March 15, 2011, no one has
otherwise noted.
requested to speak. Therefore, the
*
*
*
*
*
public hearing scheduled for April 13,
Section 240.13d–3 is also issued under
2011, is cancelled.
citations are added in numerical order
to read as follows:
Pub. L. 111–203 § 766, 124 Stat. 1799 (2010).
Section 240.16a–1(a) is also issued under
Pub. L. 111–203 § 766, 124 Stat. 1799 (2010).
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: March 17, 2011.
By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
LaNita VanDyke,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch,
Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief
Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. 2011–6603 Filed 3–21–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
[FR Doc. 2011–6685 Filed 3–21–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
26 CFR Part 1
[REG–149335–08]
Internal Revenue Service
RIN 1545–BI57
26 CFR Part 1
[REG–131947–10]
Sales-Based Royalties and Vendor
Allowances; Hearing
RIN 1545–BJ71
AGENCY:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of public hearing on
proposed rulemaking.
Property Traded on an Established
Market; Hearing Cancellation
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public
hearing on proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
This document cancels a
public hearing on a proposed
rulemaking relating to determining
when property is traded on an
established market (that is, publicly
traded) for purposes of determining the
issue price of a debt instrument.
DATES: The public hearing originally
scheduled for April 13, 2011 at 10 a.m.
is cancelled.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Funmi Taylor of the Publications and
Regulations Branch, Legal Processing
Division, Associate Chief Counsel
(Procedure and Administration) at (202)
622–7180 (not a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice
of proposed rulemaking and a notice of
public hearing that appeared in the
Federal Register on Friday, January 7,
2011 (76 FR 1101) announced that a
public hearing was scheduled for April
13, 2011, at 10 a.m. in the IRS
Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building,
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC. The subject of the
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Mar 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
This document provides
notice of public hearing on a notice of
proposed rulemaking relating to the
capitalization and allocation of royalties
that are incurred only upon the sale of
property produced or property acquired
for resale (sales-based royalties) and
adjusting the cost of merchandise
inventory for an allowance, discount, or
price rebated based on merchandise
sales (sales-based vendor allowances).
The regulations modify the simplified
production method and the simplified
resale method of allocating capitalized
costs between ending inventory and cost
of goods sold. The regulations affect
taxpayers that incur capitalizable salesbased royalties and earn sales-based
vendor allowances.
DATES: The public hearing is being held
on Wednesday, April 13, 2011, at 10
a.m. The IRS must receive outlines of
the topics to be discussed at the hearing
by Monday, March 28, 2011.
ADDRESSES: The public hearing is being
held in the auditorium, Internal
Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Send
submissions to: CC: PA: LPD: PR (REG–
149335–08), room 5203, Internal
Revenue Service, P. O. Box 7604, Ben
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
Franklin Station, Washington, DC
20044. Submissions may be handdelivered Monday through Friday
between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.
to CC: PA: LPD: PR (REG–149335–08),
Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue
Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC. Alternatively,
taxpayers may submit electronic
outlines of oral comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Concerning the proposed regulations,
John Roman Faron at (202) 622–4930;
concerning submissions of comments,
the hearing, and/or to be placed on the
building access list to attend the
hearing, Richard A. Hurst at
Richard.A.Hurst@irscounsel.treas.gov or
(202) 622–7180 (not toll-free numbers).
The
subject of the public hearing is the
notice of proposed rulemaking (REG–
149335–08) that was published in the
Federal Register on Friday, December
17, 2010 (75 FR 78940).
Persons, who wish to present oral
comments at the hearing that submitted
written comments, must submit an
outline of the topics to be discussed and
the amount of time to be devoted to
each topic (signed original and eight (8)
copies) by Monday, March 28, 2011.
A period of 10 minutes is allotted to
each person for presenting oral
comments. After the deadline for
receiving outlines has passed, the IRS
will prepare an agenda containing the
schedule of speakers. Copies of the
agenda will be made available, free of
charge, at the hearing or in the Freedom
of Information Reading Room (FOIA RR)
(Room 1621) which is located at the
11th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
entrance, 1111 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC.
Because of access restrictions, the IRS
will not admit visitors beyond the
immediate entrance area more than
30 minutes before the hearing starts. For
information about having your name
placed on the building access list to
attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Internal Revenue Service
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
15887
LaNita Van Dyke,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch,
Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief
Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. 2011–6601 Filed 3–21–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM
22MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15874-15887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6685]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
17 CFR Part 240
[Release No. 34-64087; File No. S7-10-11]
RIN 3235-AK98
Beneficial Ownership Reporting Requirements and Security-Based
Swaps
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To preserve the application of our existing beneficial
ownership rules to persons who purchase or sell security-based swaps
after the effective date of new Section 13(o) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, we are proposing to readopt without change the
relevant portions of Rules 13d-3 and 16a-1. The proposals are intended
to clarify that following the July 16, 2011 statutory effective date of
Section 13(o), which was added by Section 766 of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (``Dodd-Frank Act''), persons
who purchase or sell security-based swaps will remain within the scope
of these rules to the same extent as they are now.
DATES: Comments should be received on or before April 15, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
Electronic Comments
Use the Commission's Internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml);
Send an e-mail to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include
File Number S7-10-11 on the subject line; or
Use the Federal Rulemaking Portal (https://www.regulations.gov). Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Paper Comments
Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number S7-10-11. This file number
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us
process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one
method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's
Internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml). Comments
are also available for website viewing and
[[Page 15875]]
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. All comments received will be posted without change; we
do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Panos, Senior Special
Counsel, at (202) 551-3440, or Anne Krauskopf, Senior Special Counsel,
at (202) 551-3500, Division of Corporation Finance, U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-3628.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are proposing to readopt without change
portions of Rules 13d-3 \1\ and 16a-1 \2\ under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 17 CFR 240.13d-3.
\2\ 17 CFR 240.16a-1.
\3\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents
I. Overview and Background
A. Overview
B. Sections 13(d) and 13(g) and Rule 13d-3
C. Application of the Section 13 Beneficial Ownership Regulatory
Provisions to Persons Who Purchase or Sell Security-Based Swaps
D. Section 16 and Rules 16a-1(a)(1) and 16a-1(a)(2)
E. Application of the Section 16 Beneficial Ownership Regulatory
Provisions to Holdings and Transactions in Security-Based Swaps
II. Discussion of the Rule Proposals
A. Beneficial Ownership Determinations Under Section 13
1. Rule 13d-3(a)
2. Rule 13d-3(b)
3. Rule 13d-3(d)(1)
B. Section 16 Beneficial Ownership Rules
1. Rule 16a-1(a)(1)
2. Rule 16a-1(a)(2)
C. General Request for Comment
III. Paperwork Reduction Act
A. Background
B. Burden and Cost Estimates Related to the Proposed Amendments
C. Request for Comment
IV. Economic Analysis
A. Introduction
B. Benefits, Including the Impact on Efficiency, Competition and
Capital Formation
1. When the Rules We Propose To Readopt Already Apply to Persons
Who Purchase or Sell Security-Based Swaps
2. If the Rules We Propose Did Not Already Apply to Persons Who
Purchase or Sell Security-Based Swaps
a. Benefits, Including the Impact on Efficiency
b. Benefits, Including the Impact on Competition
c. Benefits, Including the Impact on Capital Formation
C. Costs, Including the Impact on Efficiency, Competition and
Capital Formation
1. When the Rules We Propose Already Apply to Persons Who
Purchase or Sell Security-Based Swaps
2. If the Rules We Propose Did Not Already Apply to Persons Who
Purchase or Sell Security-Based Swaps
D. Request for Comment
V. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
VII. Statutory Authority
I. Overview and Background
A. Overview
Section 766 of the Dodd-Frank Act amends the Exchange Act by adding
Section 13(o), which provides that ``[f]or purposes of this section and
section 16, a person shall be deemed to acquire beneficial ownership of
an equity security based on the purchase or sale of a security-based
swap, only to the extent that the Commission, by rule, determines after
consultation with the prudential regulators and the Secretary of the
Treasury, that the purchase or sale of the security-based swap, or
class of security-based swap, provides incidents of ownership
comparable to direct ownership of the equity security, and that it is
necessary to achieve the purposes of this section that the purchase or
sale of the security-based swaps, or class of security-based swap, be
deemed the acquisition of beneficial ownership of the equity
security.'' Section 766 and Section 13(o) \4\ become effective on July
16, 2011.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1797.
\5\ See Section 774 of the Dodd-Frank Act, Pub. L. 111-203, 124
Stat 1376 (2010), which states that Section 766 becomes effective
``360 Days after the date of enactment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason for this rulemaking, as discussed in more detail below,
is to preserve the existing scope of our rules relating to beneficial
ownership after Section 766 of the Dodd-Frank Act becomes effective.
Absent rulemaking under Section 13(o), Section 766 may be interpreted
to render the beneficial ownership determinations made under Rule 13d-3
inapplicable to a person who purchases or sells a security-based
swap.\6\ In that circumstance, it could become possible for an investor
to use a security-based swap to accumulate an influential or control
position in a public company without public disclosure. Similarly, a
person who holds a security-based swap that confers beneficial
ownership of the referenced equity securities under Section 13 and
existing Rule 13d-3, or otherwise conveys such beneficial ownership
through an understanding or relationship based upon the purchase or
sale of the security-based swap, may no longer be considered a ten
percent holder subject to Section 16 of the Exchange Act.\7\ Further,
an insider may no longer be subject to Section 16 reporting and short-
swing profit recovery through transactions in security-based swaps that
confer a right to receive either the underlying equity securities or
cash. In addition, private parties may have difficulty making, or
exercising private rights of action to seek to have made,
determinations of beneficial ownership arising from the purchase or
sale of a security-based swap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A ``security-based swap'' is defined in Section 3(a)(68) [15
U.S.C. 78c(a)(68), added by Section 761(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act].
Section 712(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that the Commission
and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC''), in
consultation with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System (``Federal Reserve''), shall jointly further define, among
others, the terms ``swap,'' ``security-based swap,'' and ``security-
based swap agreement.'' These terms are defined in Sections 721 and
761 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The definitions of the terms ``swap,''
``security-based swap,'' and ``security-based swap agreement,'' and
regulations regarding mixed swaps also are expected to be the
subject of a separate rulemaking by the Commission and the CFTC. In
addition, Section 721(c) and 761(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act provide
the CFTC and the Commission with the authority to define the terms
``swap'' and ``security-based swap,'' among other terms, to include
transactions that have been structured to evade the requirements of
subtitles A and B of Title VII, respectively, of the Dodd-Frank Act.
To assist the Commission and CFTC in further defining the terms
specified above, the Commission and the CFTC sought comment from
interested parties. See Definitions Contained in Title VII of Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Release No.
34-62717 (Aug. 13, 2010) [75 FR 51429] (advance joint notice of
proposed rulemaking regarding definitions).
\7\ 15 U.S.C. 78p.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To preserve the application of our existing beneficial ownership
rules to persons who purchase or sell security-based swaps after the
effective date of Section 13(o), we are proposing to readopt without
change the relevant portions of Rules 13d-3 and 16a-1. These proposals
are limited to the continued application of these rules by the
Commission on the same basis that they currently apply to persons who
use security-based swaps.\8\ While these proposals are only intended to
preserve the existing application of the beneficial ownership rules as
they relate to security-based swaps, our staff is engaged in a separate
project to develop proposals to modernize reporting under
[[Page 15876]]
Exchange Act Sections 13(d) \9\ and 13(g).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In addition, the proposed readoption of the relevant
portions of existing Rules 13d-3 and 16a-1(a) is neither intended
nor expected to change any existing administrative or judicial
application or interpretation of the rules.
\9\ 15 U.S.C. 78m(d).
\10\ 15 U.S.C. 78m(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Sections 13(d) and 13(g) and Rule 13d-3
Sections 13(d) and 13(g) require a person who is the beneficial
owner of more than five percent of certain equity securities \11\ to
disclose information relating to such beneficial ownership. While these
statutory sections do not define the term ``beneficial owner,'' the
Commission has adopted rules that determine the circumstances under
which a person is or may be deemed to be a beneficial owner. In order
to provide objective standards for determining when a person is or may
be deemed to be a beneficial owner subject to Section 13(d), the
Commission adopted Exchange Act Rule 13d-3.\12\ Application of the
standards within Rule 13d-3 allows for case-by-case determinations as
to whether a person is or becomes a beneficial owner, including a
person who uses a security-based swap.
Under Rule 13d-3(a), a beneficial owner includes any person who
directly or indirectly has or shares voting power and/or investment
power over an equity security. Voting power includes ``the power to
vote, or to direct the voting of, such security'' and investment power
includes ``the power to dispose, or to direct the disposition, of such
security.'' Identifying each person who possesses voting or investment
power requires an analysis of all of the relevant facts and
circumstances. Rule 13d-3(a) provides that a beneficial owner
``includes any person who, directly or indirectly, through any
contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship or otherwise, has or
shares'' voting power and/or investment power over an equity security.
The rule, by its terms, provides that a person may become a beneficial
owner through means other than an acquisition of securities or formal
agreement, and that a person may be a beneficial owner even if that
person shares voting or investment power with another person and is
only able to indirectly exercise such power by directing the voting or
disposition of the subject security.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Section 13(d)(1) applies to any equity security of a class
that is registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act, any
equity security issued by a ``native corporation'' pursuant to
Section 37(d)(6) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and any
equity security described in Exchange Act Rule 13d-1(i) [17 CFR
240.13d-1(i)]. Rule 13d-1(i) explains that for purposes of
Regulation 13D-G, ``the term `equity security' means any equity
security of a class which is registered pursuant to section 12 of
that Act, or any equity security of any insurance company which
would have been required to be so registered except for the
exemption contained in section 12(g)(2)(G) of the Act, or any equity
security issued by a closed-end investment company registered under
the Investment Company Act of 1940; Provided, Such term shall not
include securities of a class of non-voting securities.''
\12\ Adoption of Beneficial Ownership Disclosure Requirements,
Release No. 34-13291 (Feb. 24, 1977) [42 FR 12342].
\13\ The Commission, in recognition of the breadth of this
provision, has emphasized its necessity in order ``to obtain
disclosure from all those persons who have the ability to change or
influence control.'' Filing and Disclosure Requirements Relating to
Beneficial Ownership, Release No. 34-14692 (Apr. 21, 1978) [43 FR
18484].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 13d-3(b) provides that ``[a]ny person who, directly or
indirectly, creates or uses a trust, proxy, power of attorney, pooling
arrangement or any other contract, arrangement, or device with the
purpose [or] effect of divesting such person of beneficial ownership of
a security or preventing the vesting of such beneficial ownership as
part of a plan or scheme to evade the reporting requirements of section
13(d) or (g) of the Act shall be deemed for purposes of such sections
to be the beneficial owner of such security.'' In contrast to Rule 13d-
3(a), application of Rule 13d-3(b) may result in a beneficial ownership
determination even if a person does not hold voting and/or investment
power.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Example 8 from Release No. 34-13291 for an illustration
of how Rule 13d-3(b) can apply to a grant of an irrevocable proxy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Rule 13d-3(d)(1), a person is deemed a beneficial owner if
the person has the right to acquire beneficial ownership, as defined in
Rule 13d-3(a), at any time within 60 days. The right includes, but is
not limited to, any right to acquire through the exercise of an option,
warrant or right, conversion of a convertible security, or power to
revoke a trust or similar agreement. Rule 13d-3(d)(1) further provides
that if a person acquires an option, warrant, right, convertible
security or power to revoke with the purpose or with the effect of
changing or influencing control of the issuer, or as a participant in a
transaction having such purpose or effect, then the person is deemed to
be a beneficial owner immediately, regardless of when the option,
right, convertible security or power to revoke is exercisable or
convertible.
If beneficial ownership, as determined in accordance with Rules
13d-3(a), 13d-3(b) and 13d-3(d)(1), exceeds the designated thresholds,
beneficial owners are required to provide specified disclosures. The
disclosures are intended to be required of persons who have the
potential to influence or gain control of the issuer.\15\ Specifically,
Section 13(d) and the rules thereunder require that a person file with
the Commission, within ten days after acquiring, directly or
indirectly, beneficial ownership of more than five percent of a class
of equity securities, a disclosure statement on Schedule 13D,\16\
subject to certain exceptions.\17\ Section 13(g) and the rules
thereunder enable certain persons who are the beneficial owners of more
than five percent of a class of certain equity securities to instead
file a short form Schedule 13G,\18\ assuming certain conditions have
been met.\19\ These statutory provisions and corresponding rules also
impose obligations on beneficial owners to report changes in the
information filed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ S. Rep. No. 550, at 7 (1967); H.R. Rep. No. 1711, at 8
(1968); Full Disclosure of Corporate Equity Ownership and in
Corporate Takeover Bids, Hearings on S. 510 before the S. Banking
and Currency Comm., 90th Cong. 16 (1967) (``The bill now before you
has a much closer relationship to existing provisions of the
Exchange Act regulating solicitation of proxies, since acquisitions
of blocks of voting securities are typically alternatives to proxy
solicitations, as methods of capturing or preserving control.'');
Takeover Bids, Hearings on H.R. 14475 and S.510 before the Subcomm.
on Commerce and Fin. of the H. Comm. on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, 90th Cong. (1968).
\16\ 17 CFR 240.13d-101.
\17\ See Section 13(d)(6) and Rule 13d-1(b)-(d).
\18\ 17 CFR 240.13d-102.
\19\ See Amendments to Beneficial Ownership Reporting
Requirements, Release No. 34-39538 (Jan. 12, 1998) [63 FR 2854] for
a description of the types of persons eligible to file a Schedule
13G. The investors eligible to report beneficial ownership on
Schedule 13G are commonly referred to as qualified institutional
investors under Rule 13d-1(b), passive investors under Rule 13d-
1(c), and exempt investors under Rule 13d-1(d). Unlike Section
13(d), Section 13(g) applies regardless of whether beneficial
ownership has been ``acquir[ed]'' within the meaning of Section
13(d) or is viewed as not having been acquired for purposes of
Section 13(d). For example, persons who obtain all their securities
before the issuer registers the subject securities under the
Exchange Act are not subject to Section 13(d) and persons who
acquire not more than two percent of a class of subject securities
within a 12-month period are exempt from Section 13(d) by Section
13(d)(6)(B), but in both cases are subject to Section 13(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The beneficial ownership disclosure requirements of Schedules 13D
and 13G were designed to provide disclosures to security holders
regarding persons holding significant positions in public companies,
such as the identity of the beneficial owners, the amount of beneficial
ownership, the existence of a beneficial owner group, and in the case
of persons who file a Schedule 13D, plans or proposals regarding the
issuer. The disclosures made in Schedules 13D and 13G have been viewed
as contributing to the information available to help investors make
fully informed investment decisions with respect to their
securities.\20\ An additional
[[Page 15877]]
regulatory objective served by these disclosures is to provide
management of the issuer with information to ``appropriately protect
the interests of its security holders.'' \21\ In enacting the original
Section 13(d) legislation, Congress made clear that its new regulatory
initiative was intended to avoid ``tipping the balance of regulation
either in favor of management or in favor of the person [potentially]
making the takeover bid.'' \22\ In addition to providing information to
issuers and security holders, Section 13(d) was adopted with a view
toward alerting ``the marketplace to every large, rapid aggregation or
accumulation of securities, regardless of technique employed, which
might represent a potential shift in corporate control.'' \23\ On the
basis of the information disclosed, the market would ``value the shares
accordingly'' \24\ due to the increased prospects for price
discovery.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Computer Network Corp. v. Spohler [1982 Transfer
Binder] Fed Sec. L. Rep (CCH) ] 98,623 at 93,087 (D.D.C. March 23,
1982). See also, San Francisco Real Estate Investors v. REIT of
America, [1982 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ] 98,874, at
94,557 (D. Mass. Nov. 19, 1982), aff'd in part, rev'd in part 701
F.2d 1000 (1st Cir. 1983). The Commission also has recognized that
Section 13(d) was enacted primarily to provide ``adequate disclosure
to stockholders in connection with any substantial acquisition of
securities within a relatively short time.'' Adoption of Beneficial
Ownership Disclosure Requirements, Release No. 34-13291, (Feb. 24,
1977) [42 FR 12342] citing S. Rep. No. 550, at 7 (1967).
\21\ H.R. Rep. No. 1655, at 3 (1970); see, e.g., Additional
Consumer Protection in Corporate Takeovers and Increasing the Sec.
Act Exemptions for Small Businessmen, Hearing Before the Sec.
Subcomm. of the S. Banking and Currency Comm. on S. 336 and S. 343,
91st Cong. (1970). See also Bath Indus. v. Blot, 427 F.2d 97, 113
(7th Cir. 1970). In addition, disclosures made in compliance with
Sections 13(d) and 13(g) also provide issuers that file registration
statements, annual reports, proxy statements and other disclosure
documents with the information they use to disclose all beneficial
owners of more than five percent of certain classes of the issuer's
equity securities as required by Item 403 of Regulation S-K. [17 CFR
229.403]. See generally H.R. Rep. No. 1655.
\22\ H.R. Rep. No. 1711, at 4 (1968); S. Rep. No. 550, at 3
(1968). Both the House and Senate reports emphasized that Section
13(d) was enacted ``to require full and fair disclosure for the
benefit of investors while at the same time providing the offeror
and management equal opportunity to fairly present their case.''
\23\ GAF Corp. v. Milstein, 453 F.2d 709, 717 (2d. Cir. 1971),
cert. denied, 406 U.S. 910 (1972), cited by the Commission at
footnote 16 in the following administrative proceeding: In the
Matter of Harvey Katz, Release No. 34-20893 (April 25, 1984). A
measure of what Congress considered to be large and rapid
acquisitions is Section 13(d)(6)(B), which exempts acquisitions of
two percent or less in the preceding twelve months.
\24\ General Aircraft Corp. v. Lampert, 556 F.2d 90, 94 (1st
Cir. 1977); see also S. Rep. No. 550, at 3 (``But where no
information is available about the persons seeking control, or their
plans, the shareholder is forced to make a decision on the basis of
a market price which reflects an evaluation of the company based on
the assumption that the present management and its policies will
continue. The persons seeking control, however, have information
about themselves and about their plans which, if known to investors,
might substantially change the assumptions on which the market price
is based.'').
\25\ Takeover Bids, Hearings on 14475 and S. 510 before the
Subcomm. on Commerce and Fin. of the H. Comm. on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce, 90th Cong. 12 (1968) (statement of Hon. Manuel F.
Cohen, Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, ``But I
might ask, how can an investor evaluate the adequacy of the price if
he cannot assess the possible impact of a change in control?
Certainly without such information he cannot judge its adequacy by
the current or recent market price. That price presumably reflects
the assumption that the company's present business, control and
management will continue. If that assumption is changed, is it not
likely that the market price might change?'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Application of the Section 13 Beneficial Ownership Regulatory
Provisions to Persons Who Purchase or Sell Security-Based Swaps
As noted above, the term ``security-based swap'' is defined in
Section 3(a)(68) of the Exchange Act.\26\ Under our existing rules,
holders of security-based swaps may be subject to beneficial ownership
reporting. As explained in more detail below, in cases where a
security-based swap confers voting and/or investment power (or a person
otherwise acquires such power based on the purchase or sale of a
security-based swap), grants a right to acquire an equity security, or
is used with the purpose or effect of divesting or preventing the
vesting of beneficial ownership as part of a plan or scheme to evade
the reporting requirements, our existing regulatory regime may require
the reporting of beneficial ownership.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See note 6 above.
\27\ Except as provided below regarding Section 16, this release
does not address whether, or under what circumstances, an agreement,
contract, or transaction that is labeled a security-based swap
(including one which confers voting and/or investment power, grants
a right to acquire one or more equity securities, or is used with
the purpose or effect of divesting or preventing the vesting of
beneficial ownership as part of a plan or scheme to evade the
beneficial ownership reporting requirements) would be a purchase or
sale of the underlying securit(ies) and treated as such for purposes
of the federal securities laws, instead of a security-based swap. In
this regard, among other things, the definition of ``swap'' (and
therefore the definition of ``security-based swap'') specifically
excludes the purchase or sale of one or more securities on a fixed
or contingent basis, unless the agreement, contract, or transaction
predicates the purchase or sale on the occurrence of a bona fide
contingency that might reasonably be expected to affect or be
affected by the creditworthiness of a party other than a party to
the agreement, contract, or transaction. See Sections 1a(47)(B)(v)
and (vi) of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 1a(47)(B)(v) and
(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, under existing Rule 13d-3(a), to the extent a security-based
swap provides a person, directly or indirectly, with exclusive or
shared voting and/or investment power over the equity security through
a contractual term of the security-based swap or otherwise, the person
becomes a beneficial owner of that equity security. Under Rule 13d-
3(a), a person may become a beneficial owner even though the person has
not acquired the equity security.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Exchange Act Section 13(d)(1) applies after a person
directly or indirectly acquires beneficial ownership, regardless of
whether the person has made an acquisition of the equity securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, existing Rule 13d-3(b) generally provides that a person is
deemed to be a beneficial owner if that person uses any contract,
arrangement, or device as part of a plan or scheme to evade the
beneficial ownership reporting requirements. To the extent a security-
based swap is used with the purpose or effect of divesting a person of
beneficial ownership or preventing the vesting of beneficial ownership
as part of a plan or scheme to evade Sections 13(d) or 13(g), the
security-based swap may be viewed as a contract, arrangement or device
within the meaning of those terms as used in Rule 13d-3(b). A person
using a security-based swap, therefore, may be deemed a beneficial
owner under Rule 13d-3(b) in this context.
Finally, under existing Rule 13d-3(d)(1), a person is deemed a
beneficial owner of an equity security if the person has a right to
acquire the equity security within 60 days or holds the right with the
purpose or effect of changing or influencing control of the issuer of
the security for which the right is exercisable, regardless of whether
the right to acquire originates in a security-based swap or an
understanding in connection with a security-based swap. This type of
right to acquire an equity security, if obtained through a security-
based swap, is treated the same as any other right to acquire an equity
security. Acquisition of such a right, regardless of its origin,
results in a person being deemed a beneficial owner under Rule 13d-
3(d)(1).
D. Section 16 and Rules 16a-1(a)(1) and 16a-1(a)(2)
Section 16 was designed both to provide the public with information
about securities transactions and holdings of every person who is the
beneficial owner of more than ten percent of a class of equity security
registered under Exchange Act Section 12 \29\ (``ten percent holder''),
and each officer and director (collectively, ``insiders'') of the
issuer of such a security, and to deter such insiders from profiting
from short-term trading in issuer securities while in possession of
material, non-public information. Upon becoming an insider, or upon
Section 12
[[Page 15878]]
registration of the class of equity security, Section 16(a) \30\
requires an insider to file an initial report with the Commission
disclosing his or her beneficial ownership of all equity securities of
the issuer.\31\ Section 16(a) also requires insiders to report
subsequent changes in such ownership.\32\ To prevent misuse of inside
information by insiders, Section 16(b) \33\ provides the issuer (or
shareholders suing on the issuer's behalf) a strict liability private
right of action to recover any profit realized by an insider from any
purchase and sale (or sale and purchase) of any equity security of the
issuer within a period of less than six months.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 15 U.S.C. 78l.
\30\ 15 U.S.C. 78p(a).
\31\ Insiders file these reports on Form 3 [17 CFR 249.103].
\32\ Insiders file transaction reports on Form 4 [17 CFR
249.104] and Form 5 [17 CFR 249.105].
\33\ 15 U.S.C. 78p(b).
\34\ In addition, insiders are subject to the short sale
prohibitions of Section 16(c) [15 U.S.C. 78p(c)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As applied to ten percent holders, Congress intended Section 16 to
reach persons presumed to have access to information because they can
influence or control the issuer as a result of their equity
ownership.\35\ Because Section 13(d) specifically addresses these
relationships, the Commission adopted Rule 16a-1(a)(1) to define ten
percent holders under Section 16 as persons deemed ten percent
beneficial owners under Section 13(d) and the rules thereunder.\36\ The
Section 13(d) analysis, such as counting beneficial ownership of those
derivative securities exercisable or convertible within 60 days,\37\ is
imported into the ten percent holder determination for Section 16
purposes. The application of Rule 16a-1(a)(1) is straightforward; if a
person is a ten percent beneficial owner as determined pursuant to
Section 13(d) and the rules thereunder, the person is deemed a ten
percent holder under Section 16.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See S. Rep. No. 1455, at 55, 68 (1934); See also S. Rep.
No. 792, at 20-1 (1934); S. Rep. No. 379, at 21-2 (1963).
\36\ Ownership Reports and Trading By Officers, Directors and
Principal Security Holders, Release No. 34-28869 (Feb. 21, 1991) [56
FR 7242].
\37\ Rule 13d-3(d).
\38\ For example, the Commission applied an analysis derived
from Rule 13d-3(d)(1) in publishing its views regarding when equity
securities underlying a security future that requires physical
settlement should be counted for purposes of determining whether the
purchaser of the security future is subject to Section 16 as a ten
percent holder by operation of Rule 16a-1(a)(1). Commission Guidance
on the Application Certain Provisions of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and Rules Thereunder to Trading in Security Futures
Products, Release No. 34-46101 (June 21, 2002) [67 FR 43234]
(``Futures Interpretive Release'') at Q 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of Section 16(a) reporting obligations and Section
16(b) short-swing profit recovery, Rule 16a-1(a)(2) uses a different
definition of ``beneficial owner.'' Once a person is subject to Section
16, for reporting and profit recovery purposes, Rule 16a-1(a)(2)
defines ``beneficial owner'' based on whether the person has or shares
a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the securities. A
``pecuniary interest'' in any class of equity securities means ``the
opportunity, directly or indirectly, to profit or share in any profit
derived from a transaction in the subject securities.'' \39\ An
``indirect pecuniary interest'' in any class of equity securities
includes, but is not limited to ``a person's right to acquire equity
securities through the exercise or conversion of any derivative
security, whether or not presently exercisable.'' \40\ ``Derivative
securities'' are ``any option, warrant, convertible security, stock
appreciation right, or similar right with an exercise or conversion
privilege at a price related to an equity security, or similar
securities with a value derived from the value of an equity security,
but shall not include [* * *] rights with an exercise or conversion
privilege at a price that is not fixed.'' \41\ Equity securities of an
issuer are ``any equity security or derivative security relating to an
issuer, whether or not issued by that issuer.'' \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Rule 16a-1(a)(2)(i).
\40\ Rule 16a-1(a)(2)(ii)(F).
\41\ Rule 16a-1(c)(6).
\42\ Rule 16a-1(d). Further, Rule 16a-4(a) [17 CFR 240.16a-4(a)]
provides that for purposes of Section 16, both derivative securities
and the underlying securities to which they relate are deemed to the
be the same class of equity securities, except that the acquisition
or disposition of any derivative security must be separately
reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This framework recognizes that holding derivative securities is
functionally equivalent to holding the underlying equity securities for
Section 16 purposes because the value of the derivative securities is a
function of or related to the value of the underlying equity
security.\43\ Just as an insider's opportunity to profit begins upon
purchasing or selling issuer common stock, the opportunity to profit
begins when an insider engages in transactions in derivative securities
that provide an opportunity to obtain or dispose of the stock at a
fixed price.\44\ Establishing or increasing a call equivalent position
\45\ (or liquidating or decreasing a put equivalent position) \46\ is
deemed a purchase of the underlying security, and establishing or
increasing a put equivalent position (or liquidating or decreasing a
call equivalent position) is deemed a sale of the underlying
security.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ For example, the Futures Interpretive Release, at Q&A Nos.
8-13, explains the status of a security future as a derivative
security for purposes of Section 16(a) reporting and Section 16(b)
short-swing profit recovery.
\44\ Ownership Reports and Trading By Officers, Directors and
Principal Security Holders, Release No. 34-28869, at Section III.A
(Feb. 21, 1991) [56 FR 7242].
\45\ Rule 16a-1(b) provides that a ``call equivalent position''
is ``a derivative security position that increases in value as the
value of the underlying equity security increases, including, but
not limited to, a long convertible security, a long call option, and
a short put option position.''
\46\ Rule 16a-1(h) provides that a ``put equivalent position''
is ``a derivative security position that increases in value as the
value of the underlying equity decreases, including, but not limited
to, a long put option and a short call option.''
\47\ Rule 16b-6(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 16a-1(a)(2) and the related rules described above recognize
the functional equivalence of derivative securities and the underlying
equity securities by providing that transactions in derivative
securities are reportable, and matchable with transactions in other
derivative securities and in the underlying equity.\48\ For example,
short-swing profits obtained by buying call options and selling the
underlying stock, or buying the underlying stock and buying put
options, are recoverable. This functional equivalence extends to all
fixed-price derivative securities, whether issued by the issuer or a
third party, and whether the form of settlement is cash or stock.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Rule 16b-6(b) generally exempts from Section 16(b) short-
swing profit recovery the exercise or conversion of a fixed-price
derivative security, provided that it is not out-of-the-money. Rule
16b-6(c) provides guidance for determining short-swing profit
recoverable from transactions involving the purchase and sale or
sale and purchase of derivative and other securities.
\49\ Former Rule 16a-1(c)(3), adopted in Release No. 34-28869,
excluded from the definition of ``derivative securities''
``securities that may be redeemed or exercised only for cash and do
not permit the receipt of equity securities in lieu of cash, if the
securities either: (i) Are awarded pursuant to an employee benefit
plan satisfying the provisions of [former] Sec. 240.16b-3(c); or
(ii) may be redeemed or exercised only upon a fixed date or dates at
least six months after award, or upon death, retirement, disability
or termination of employment.'' As a corollary to adopting a broader
Rule 16b-3 exemption, the Commission rescinded former Rule 16a-
1(c)(3) in 1996, stating that ``because the opportunity for profit
based on price movement in the underlying stock embodied in a cash-
only instrument is the same as for an instrument settled in stock,
cash-only instruments should be subject to Section 16 to the same
extent as other issuer equity securities.'' Ownership Reports and
Trading by Officers, Directors and Principal Security Holders,
Release No. 34-37260, at Section III.A (May 31, 1996) [61 FR 30376].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15879]]
E. Application of the Section 16 Beneficial Ownership Regulatory
Provisions to Holdings and Transactions in Security-Based Swaps
As described above, solely for purposes of determining who is
subject to Section 16 as a ten percent holder, Rule 16a-1(a)(1) uses
the beneficial ownership tests applied under Section 13(d) and its
implementing rules, including Rules 13d-3(a), 13d-3(b), and Rule 13d-
3(d)(1). As a result, for example, a person who has the right to
acquire securities that would cause the person to own more than ten
percent of a class of equity securities through a security-based swap
that confers a right to receive equity at settlement or otherwise would
be subject to Section 16 as a ten percent holder under existing Rule
16a-1(a)(1). Once a person is subject to Section 16, in order to
determine what securities are subject to Section 16(a) reporting and
Section 16(b) short-swing profit recovery for any insider (whether an
officer, director or ten percent holder), existing Rule 16a-1(a)(2)
looks to the insider's pecuniary interest (i.e., opportunity to profit)
in the securities. Under existing rules, this concept includes an
indirect pecuniary interest in securities underlying fixed-price
derivative securities, including security-based swaps, whether settled
in cash or stock. Consistent with the derivative securities analysis,
the Commission has stated that Section 16 consequences would arise from
an equity swap transaction where either party to the transaction is a
Section 16 insider with respect to a security to which the swap
agreement relates.\50\ The Commission has provided interpretive
guidance regarding how equity swap transactions should be reported,\51\
and adopted transaction code ``K'' to be used in addition to any other
applicable code in reporting equity swap and similar transactions so
that they can be easily identified.\52\ An equity swap involving a
single security, or a narrow-based security index, is a security-based
swap as defined in Section 3(a)(68).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Ownership Reports and Trading by Officers, Directors and
Principal Security Holders, Release No. 34-34514, at Section III.G
(Aug. 10, 1994) [59 FR 42449]; Ownership Reports and Trading by
Officers, Directors and Principal Security Holders, Release No. 34-
37260, at Section IV.H (May 31, 1996) [61 FR 30376].
\51\ Each report must provide the following information: (1) The
date of the transaction; (2) the term; (3) the number of underlying
shares; (4) the exercise price (i.e., the dollar value locked in);
(5) the non-exempt disposition (acquisition) of shares at the outset
of the term; (6) the non-exempt acquisition (disposition) of shares
at the end of the term (and at such earlier dates, if any, where
events under the equity swap cause a change in a call or put
equivalent position); (7) the total number of shares held after the
transaction; and (8) any other material terms. Release No. 34-37260,
at Section IV.H.
\52\ General Instruction 8 to Form 4 [17 CFR 249.104] (U.S. SEC
1475 (08-07)) and Form 5 [17 CFR 249.105] (U.S. SEC 2270 (1-05)), as
amended in Release No. 34-37260, at Section IV.I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Discussion of the Rule Proposals
New Section 13(o) provides that a person shall be deemed a
beneficial owner of an equity security based on the purchase or sale of
a security-based swap only to the extent we adopt rules after making
certain determinations and consulting with the prudential regulators
and the Secretary of the Treasury. The regulatory provisions under
which beneficial ownership determinations are currently made with
respect to security-based swaps were enacted or adopted before Section
13(o). Accordingly, we are proposing to readopt the relevant portions
of Rules 13d-3 and 16a-1 following consultation with the prudential
regulators and the Secretary of Treasury to assure that these
provisions continue to apply to a person who purchases or sells a
security-based swap upon effectiveness of Section 13(o).
The purpose of the proposed rulemaking is solely to preserve the
regulatory status quo and provide the certainty and protection that
market participants have come to expect with the existing disclosures
required by the rules promulgated under Sections 13(d), 13(g) and
16(a). While the use of security-based swaps has not been frequently
disclosed in Schedule 13D and 13G filings, we are proposing to readopt
Rules 13d-3(a), (b) and (d)(1) and the relevant portions of Rules 16a-
1(a)(1) and (a)(2) to further the policy objectives of and foster
compliance with these rules upon the effectiveness of Section 13(o).
Given the language in Section 13(o), as well as the newly amended
Sections 13(d) and 13(g),\53\ we are proposing to readopt these rules
to remove any doubt that they will continue to allow for the same
determinations of beneficial ownership that they do today. Readoption
of these rule provisions is intended to ensure that persons who use
security-based swaps remain subject to the Section 13(d), Section 13(g)
and Section 16 regulatory regimes to the same extent such persons are
now. Moreover, the proposed rulemaking is designed to preserve the
private right of action provided by Section 16(b) and not disturb any
other existing right of action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See Section 766(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which amends
Sections 13(d) and 13(g) to provide that a person ``becomes or is
deemed to become a beneficial owner * * * upon the purchase or sale
of a security-based swap that the Commission may define by rule * *
*.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 13(o) will not render the existing beneficial ownership
regulatory provisions inapplicable to persons who obtain beneficial
ownership independently from a security-based swap. For example, Rule
13d-3(d)(1) will continue to apply to persons who obtain a right to
acquire equity securities if the right does not arise from the purchase
or sale of a security-based swap. Rights, options, warrants, or
conversion or certain revocation privileges, if acquired or held by
persons under circumstances that do not arise from the purchase or sale
of a security-based swap, will remain subject to Sections 13(d), 13(g)
and 16 and may continue to be treated under Rule 13d-3(d)(1) as the
acquisition of beneficial ownership,\54\ and Rules 16a-1(a)(1) and 16a-
1(a)(2) will continue to apply. Furthermore, Schedule 13D will continue
to require certain disclosures relating to the purchase or sale of
security-based swaps notwithstanding Section 13(o).\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ These rights to acquire beneficial ownership are not
security-based swaps within the meaning of Section 13(o) because
they are purchases and sales of securities. In this regard, the
definition of ``swap'' in Section 721 of the Dodd-Frank Act (and
therefore the definition of ``security-based swap'') excludes
purchases and sales of securities, whether on a fixed or contingent
basis. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the term ``security'' is as defined
in the Securities Act and the Exchange Act, which includes options,
warrants, and rights to subscribe to or purchase a security and any
convertible securities as well as the securities issuable upon
exercise or conversion of such securities. In addition, Section 721
of the Dodd-Frank Act excludes from the definition of ``swap'' any
put, call, straddle, option or privilege on any security,
certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities, including
any interest therein or based on the value thereof, that is subject
to the Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act. Furthermore,
Section 13(o) does not affect the treatment of ``security-based swap
agreements'' as defined in the Dodd-Frank Act. For example, Section
762(d)(5) of the Dodd-Frank Act clarifies that Section 16 continues
to apply to security-based swap agreements.
\55\ For example, beneficial owners who file a Schedule 13D and
use a security-based swap will remain subject to the obligation to
comply with Items 6 (``Contracts, Arrangements, Understandings or
Relationships With Respect to Securities of the Issuer'') and 7
(``Material to be Filed as Exhibits'') and provide disclosures
relating to the security-based swap depending upon the security-
based swap's terms. In addition, beneficial owners who file a
Schedule 13G pursuant to Rule 13d-1(b) or otherwise rely upon Rule
13d-1(b) to govern a future reporting obligation may be required to
make disclosures on Schedule 13D instead based upon their purchase
or sale of a security-based swap. See In the Matter of Perry Corp.,
Release No. 34-60351 (July 21, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15880]]
A. Beneficial Ownership Determinations under Section 13
Section 13(o) provides that a person shall be deemed to acquire
beneficial ownership of an equity security based on the purchase or
sale of a security-based swap only to the extent that the Commission
meets certain conditions and adopts a rule. Although the proposal to
readopt Rule 13d-3(a), Rule 13d-3(b), and Rule 13d-3(d)(1) is being
made in part pursuant to Section 13(o), we are not proposing any
revision to the existing rule text. The proposed rules are the same as
the existing rules in all respects.
1. Rule 13d-3(a)
We are proposing to readopt without change Rule 13d-3(a) to address
any uncertainty with regard to the application of Rule 13d-3(a) to a
person who purchases or sells a security-based swap. If readopted, a
determination could continue to be made that a beneficial owner of
equity securities includes any person who, directly or indirectly,
through any contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship or
otherwise, has or shares voting power and/or investment power over the
securities based on the purchase or sale of a security-based swap.
Following initial consultation with the prudential regulators \56\ and
the Secretary of the Treasury, we preliminarily believe that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Our staff has consulted with the Federal Reserve, the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Farm Credit
Administration, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation. Our staff also consulted with the
CFTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A person's possession of voting and/or investment power in
an equity security based on the purchase or sale of a security-based
swap is no different from voting or investment power in an equity
security that exists independently from a security-based swap when (1)
a security-based swap confers, or (2) an arrangement, understanding or
relationship based on the purchase or sale of the security-based swap
conveys, voting and/or investment power in an equity security.
Security-based swaps therefore can provide incidents of ownership
comparable to direct ownership of the underlying equity security within
the meaning of Section 13(o) to the extent that the security-based swap
confers, or an arrangement, understanding or relationship based upon
the purchase or sale of the security-based swap conveys, voting and/or
investment power in an equity security; and
Retaining the existing regulatory treatment of security-
based swaps in Rule 13d-3(a) is necessary to achieve the purpose of
Section 13 so that Sections 13(d) and 13(g) continue to require the
filing of beneficial ownership reports that produce disclosure by
persons who have the ability or potential to change or influence
control of the issuer. In addition, these persons may have the means to
acquire significant amounts of equity securities wholly or partly based
upon the purchase or sale of a security-based swap. As a result, these
persons may have the potential to effect a change of control
transaction or preserve or influence control of an issuer. In the case
of Schedule 13D filers, these persons would be required to disclose
their plans or proposals. Disclosures made in beneficial ownership
reports are in the public interest and necessary for the protection of
investors because they provide information about certain transactions
and related acquisitions of beneficial ownership that: could disclose a
potential shift in corporate control; impact the transparency and
efficiency of our capital markets; and contribute to price discovery.
2. Rule 13d-3(b)
We are proposing to readopt without change Rule 13d-3(b) to address
any uncertainty with regard to the continued application of Rule 13d-
3(b) to a person who purchases or sells a security-based swap. Rule
13d-3(b) provides that a person is deemed to be a beneficial owner if
that person uses any contract, arrangement, or device as a means to
divest or prevent the vesting of beneficial ownership as part of a plan
or scheme to evade the beneficial ownership reporting requirements. If
readopted, Rule 13d-3(b) would continue to apply to any person that
uses a security-based swap as part of a plan or scheme to evade
reporting beneficial ownership and thereby accumulate influential or
control positions in public issuers without disclosure.
Following initial consultation with the prudential regulators and
the Secretary of the Treasury, we preliminarily believe that:
A person's use of a security-based swap to divest or
prevent the vesting of beneficial ownership as part of a plan or scheme
to evade the application of Sections 13(d) or 13(g) is no different
from a plan or scheme that uses a contract, arrangement or device that
exists independently from a security-based swap. In this context, a
person would be deemed to have beneficial ownership, and thus incidents
of ownership comparable to direct ownership, but for the plan or scheme
based in whole or in part upon the purchase or sale of a security-based
swap; and
Retaining the existing regulatory treatment of security-
based swaps in Rule 13d-3(b) is necessary to achieve the purpose of
Section 13 so that Sections 13(d) and 13(g) continue to require the
filing of beneficial ownership reports that produce disclosure by
persons who have the ability or potential to change or influence
control of the issuer. In addition, these persons may have the means to
acquire significant amounts of equity securities based in whole or in
part upon the purchase or sale of a security-based swap, and therefore
the potential to effect a change of control transaction or preserve or
influence control of an issuer. In the case of Schedule 13D filers,
these persons would be required to disclose their plans or proposals.
Disclosures made in beneficial ownership reports are in the public
interest and necessary for the protection of investors because they
provide information about certain transactions and related acquisitions
of beneficial ownership that: could disclose a potential shift in
corporate control; impact the transparency and efficiency of our
capital markets; and contribute to price discovery.
3. Rule 13d-3(d)(1)
We are proposing to readopt without change Rule 13d-3(d)(1) to
address any uncertainty with regard to the continued application of
Rule 13d-3(d)(1) to a person who purchases or sells a security-based
swap. Rule 13d-3(d)(1) provides that a person will be deemed to be a
beneficial owner of equity securities if the person has the right to
acquire beneficial ownership of the securities within 60 days, or at
any time if the right is held for the purpose of changing or
influencing control. If readopted, Rule 13d-3(d)(1) would continue to
apply to any person that obtains such a right based on the purchase or
sale of a security-based swap.
The Commission has long recognized the importance of having the
beneficial ownership reporting regime account for contingent interests
in equity securities arising from investor use of derivatives, such as
options, warrants or rights. The Commission adopted Rule 13d-3, the
predecessor to Rule 13d-3(d)(1), on August 30, 1968,\57\ approximately
one month after Congress enacted Section
[[Page 15881]]
13(d).\58\ The Commission also has treated futures contracts for equity
securities the same as options, warrants, or rights for purposes of
determining beneficial ownership.\59\ When 60 days or less are left
until the right to acquire may be exercised, or if a right has been
acquired for the purpose or with the effect of changing or influencing
control of the issuer of securities, we believe that treating the
holder of the right as if the person is a beneficial owner under Rule
13d-3(d)(1) is necessary to achieve the purpose of Section 13 given the
person's potential to influence or change control of the issuer.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Acquisitions, Tender Offers, and Solicitations, Release No.
34-8392 (Aug. 30, 1968) [33 FR 14109].
\58\ See Act of July 29, 1968, Pub. L. 90-439, 82 Stat. 454.
\59\ The Futures Interpretive Release provides two examples at Q
& A No. 17 that explain when equity securities underlying a security
future that requires physical settlement should be counted for
purposes of determining whether the purchaser of the security future
is subject to Regulation 13D-G by operation of Rule 13d-3(d)(1).
\60\ See Filing and Disclosure Requirements Relating to
Beneficial Ownership, Release No. 34-14692 (Apr. 21, 1978) [43 FR
18484].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following initial consultation with the prudential regulators and
the Secretary of the Treasury, we preliminarily believe that:
A person's right to acquire an equity security within 60
days based on the purchase or sale of a security-based swap is no
different from a right to acquire the underlying equity security that
exists independently from a security-based swap. A right to acquire an
equity security within 60 days is comparable to direct ownership of the
equity security because direct ownership is contingent, in some cases,
only upon the exercise of that right and may result in the potential to
change or influence control of the issuer upon acquisition of the
equity security for which the right is exercisable. Security-based
swaps, therefore, can provide incidents of ownership comparable to
direct ownership of the underlying equity security within the meaning
of Section 13(o) to the extent that the security-based swap confers a
right to acquire an equity security within 60 days;
A person who acquires or holds, with the purpose or effect
of changing or influencing control of an issuer, a right to acquire an
equity security based on the purchase or sale of a security-based swap
is no different from a person who acquires or holds a right to acquire
an equity security with the purpose of changing or influencing control
of the issuer that exists independently from a security-based swap.
Rights acquired or held in this context may be used in furtherance of a
plan or proposal to change control of the issuer, and such rights to
acquire equity securities may otherwise influence an issuer if held by
a person intending to effect a change of control transaction or
preserve or influence control of an issuer. Security-based swaps,
therefore, can provide incidents of ownership comparable to direct
ownership of the underlying equity security within the meaning of
Section 13(o) to the extent that the security-based swap confers a
right to acquire an equity security to a person that holds the right
with the purpose or with the effect of changing or influencing control
of the issuer or otherwise in connection with or as a participant in
any transaction having such purpose or effect; and
Retaining the existing regulatory treatment of security-
based swaps under Rule 13d-3(d)(1) is necessary to achieve the purpose
of Section 13 so that Sections 13(d) and 13(g) continue to require the
filing of beneficial ownership reports that disclose certain
transactions by persons who have the ability or potential to change or
influence control of the issuer. These persons may have the means to
acquire significant amounts of equity securities based in whole or in
part upon the purchase or sale of a security-based swap, and therefore
the potential to effect a change of control transaction or preserve or
influence control of an issuer. In the case of Schedule 13D filers,
these persons would be required to disclose their plans or proposals.
Disclosures made in beneficial ownership reports are in the public
interest and necessary for the protection of investors because they
provide information about certain transactions and related acquisitions
of beneficial ownership that: could disclose a potential shift in
corporate control; impact the transparency and efficiency of our
capital markets; and contribute to price discovery.
Request for Comment
1. In lieu of readopting the existing language of Rules 13d-3(a),
13d-3(b), and 13d-3(d)(1), should we instead adopt a new rule or amend
the existing rules to specify the circumstances in which a purchase or
sale of a security-based swap may confer a contingent or other interest
in an equity security that, if held, could result in a person being
deemed a beneficial owner for purposes of Sections 13(d) and 13(g)?
2. Are there any other rules or disclosure requirements that should
be readopted or amended, such as Item 403 of Regulation S-K,\61\ to
preserve their existing application following effectiveness of Section
13(o)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Item 403 of Regulation S-K requires an issuer to disclose
in certain filings the name and amount of beneficial ownership held
by any person known to be the beneficial owner of more than five
percent of a class of its voting securities. Item 403 also requires
the issuer to identify the name and amount of beneficial ownership
held by each of its directors, director nominees and executive
officers, regardless of whether the person's beneficial ownership
exceeds five percent. We have not proposed to readopt Item 403 of
Regulation S-K because Item 403 provides that the disclosures
required are to be determined in accordance with the beneficial
ownership determinations made under Rule 13d-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Should the Commission and/or staff provide interpretive guidance
regarding how to provide disclosure with regard to security-based swaps
in Schedules 13D or 13G? If so, what type of interpretive guidance
would be appropriate?
4. How common is the use of security-based swaps to obtain
incidents of ownership, such as voting or investment power, comparable
to direct ownership in an issuer?
5. Are there other factors or features of security-based swaps we
should consider for purposes of making the determinations required
under Section 13(o) with regard to the relevant provisions of Rule 13d-
3?
6. Does voting or investment power, a scheme to evade beneficial
ownership reporting, or a right to acquire an equity security, when
each arises from the purchase or sale of a security-based swap, differ
materially from when each exists independently from a security-based
swap?
B. Section 16 Beneficial Ownership Rules
1. Rule 16a-1(a)(1)
We are proposing to readopt without change a portion of Rule 16a-
1(a)(1) \62\ to preserve, solely for purposes of determining whether a
person is a ten percent holder, the application of the relevant
provisions within Rule 13d-3 to a person who uses a security-based
swap. The proposed readoption of Rule 16a-1(a)(1) would not change the
rule's provision that shares held by institutions eligible to file
beneficial ownership reports on Schedule 13G that are held for clients
in a fiduciary capacity in the ordinary course of
[[Page 15882]]
business are not counted for purposes of determining ten percent holder
status.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ We propose to readopt the portion of Rule 16a-1(a)(1) that
precedes the proviso applicable to qualified institutions. The
relevant portion of Rule 16a-1(a)(1) proposed for readoption reads
as follows: ``(a) The term beneficial owner shall have the following
applications: (1) Solely for purposes of determining whether a
person is a beneficial owner of more than ten percent of any class
of equity securities registered pursuant to section 12 of the Act,
the term ``beneficial owner'' shall mean any person who is deemed a
beneficial owner pursuant to section 13(d) of the Act and the rules
thereunder