Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Regarding Investment Losses and Non-Default Losses, 40805-40807 [2014-16361]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Notices
Internet Web site (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements
with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written
communications relating to the
proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the
public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission’s Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the
filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the NYSE’s
principal office and on its Internet Web
site at www.nyse.com. All comments
received will be posted without change;
the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR–
NYSEARCA–2014–72 and should be
submitted on or before August 4, 2014.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.28
Kevin M. O’Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014–16368 Filed 7–11–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–72551; File No. SR–ICEEU–
2014–06]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE
Clear Europe Limited; Order Approving
Proposed Rule Change Regarding
Investment Losses and Non-Default
Losses
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
July 8, 2014.
I. Introduction
On May 30, 2014, ICE Clear Europe
Limited (‘‘ICE Clear Europe’’) filed with
the Securities and Exchange
Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the
proposed rule change SR–ICEEU–2014–
06 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder.2
The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal
28 17
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
1 15
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Jul 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
Register on June 6, 2014.3 The
Commission received no comment
letters regarding the proposed change.
For the reasons discussed below, the
Commission is granting approval of the
proposed rule change.
II. Description
ICE Clear Europe is proposing to
update its Rules to address certain
investment losses on margin and
guaranty fund contributions provided
by clearing members (as defined more
fully below, ‘‘Investment Losses’’) as
well as other losses to the clearing
house arising other than from a clearing
member default (as defined more fully
below, ‘‘Non-Default Losses’’), including
losses from general business risk and
operational risk. According to ICE Clear
Europe, the change to its Rules would
(i) require ICE Clear Europe to apply a
specified amount of its own assets to
cover non-default losses and investment
losses (‘‘Loss Assets’’) and (ii) require
clearing members in all product
categories to make contributions
(referred to as ‘‘Collateral Offset
Obligations’’) to cover Investment
Losses (but not other Non-Default
Losses) that exceed the available
clearing house Loss Assets. ICE Clear
Europe has also stated that the proposed
change would also limit its liability for
losses arising from a failure of a bank or
similar custodian.
United Kingdom law requires ICE
Clear Europe to have rules addressing
the allocation of non-default losses that
threaten the clearing house’s solvency
and to have plans to maintain
continuity of services if such continuity
is threatened as a result of such losses.
Plans to address losses from general
business risk are also an element of the
CPSS–IOSCO Principles for Financial
Market Infrastructures.4
According to ICE Clear Europe, Part 1
of its Rules has been provisionally
revised to include new definitions for
‘‘Investment Losses’’ and ‘‘Non-Default
Losses,’’ which form the basis of the
new loss allocation provisions. ICE
Clear Europe has proposed creating a
new definition of ‘‘Investment Losses’’
to mean losses incurred or suffered by
3 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34–72297
(June 2, 2014), 79 FR 32792 (June 6, 2014) (SR–
ICEEU–2014–06).
4 ICE Clear Europe has also noted that the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission has
adopted a similar requirement for systemically
important derivatives clearing organizations and
‘‘subpart C’’ derivatives clearing organizations in
CFTC Rule 39.33(b)(2), and that the Commission
has proposed a similar requirement for certain
‘‘covered clearing agencies’’ in proposed Rule
17Ad–22(e)(15). See Standards for Covered Clearing
Agencies, Proposed rule, Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 34–71699 (Mar. 12, 2014), 79 FR 29507
(May 22, 2014).
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
40805
the clearing house arising in connection
with the default of the issuer of any
instrument and/or counterparty to any
repurchase or reverse repurchase
contract or similar transaction in respect
of investment or reinvestment by the
clearing house of margin (other than
variation margin) or guaranty fund
contributions other than a loss resulting
from the clearing house’s failure to
follow its own investment policies or a
loss resulting from custodial losses. ICE
Clear Europe has stated that Investment
Losses will be allocated separately from
losses arising from a default. ICE Clear
Europe has also stated that an
investment loss relating to margin or
guaranty fund contributions provided
by a defaulting clearing member will be
included in the calculation of
Investment Losses, and that the amount
of Investment Losses will thus not be
reduced by any amounts ICE Clear
Europe may use from its default
resources under Parts 9 and 11 of its
Rules (including guaranty fund
contributions or assessments) to address
losses from a default.
ICE Clear Europe has also proposed to
add a definition of ‘‘Non-Default
Losses’’ to mean losses suffered by the
clearing house (other than Investment
Losses) arising in connection with any
event other than an event of default and
which threaten the solvency of the
clearing house. In addition, ICE Clear
Europe has proposed a new definition
for ‘‘Collateral Offset Obligations,’’
which refers to obligations of a clearing
member arising pursuant to new Rule
919, as discussed below, to make
payments to the clearing house in
respect of Investment Losses, which
offset obligations of the clearing house
to pay the clearing member or return
assets in respect of margin provided to
the clearing house by the clearing
member. ICE Clear Europe has stated
that it has also proposed to add new
definitions for ‘‘Custodian’’ (which is
used in new Rule 919), and ‘‘Loss
Assets,’’ meaning assets of the clearing
house itself that are intended to be
applied to Investment Losses and NonDefault Losses under Rule 919 as
described below.
ICE Clear Europe also proposes
changes in Rules 111 and 905 to
conform and clarify the description of
various types of losses or liabilities that
may be borne by the clearing house,
through addition of references to
‘‘claims’’ and ‘‘shortfalls,’’ in order to
provide for consistent use of language
throughout its Rules where other
references are made to losses.
ICE Clear Europe has stated that the
proposed change would also adopt new
Rule 919, which includes the allocation
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
40806
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Notices
rules for Investment Losses and NonDefault Losses and procedures for
applying Collateral Offset Obligations.
ICE Clear Europe has also stated that
pursuant to proposed Rule 919(b), NonDefault Losses will be satisfied by
applying the available Loss Assets
designated by the clearing house and
then other available capital or assets of
the clearing house, whereas Investment
Losses will first be satisfied by applying
the available Loss Assets provided by
the clearing house, and thereafter by
Collateral Offset Obligations as
discussed herein. ICE Clear Europe has
stated that proposed Rule 919(p) would
provide that the amount of Loss Assets
provided by ICE Clear Europe will
initially be USD 90 million and subject
to adjustment by the clearing house by
circular from time to time. ICE Clear
Europe has also stated that it will not
have an obligation to replenish the
amount of Loss Assets, if applied to
Non-Default Losses or Investment
Losses under the proposed change.
According to ICE Clear Europe,
pursuant to proposed Rule 919(c), if
there is an Investment Loss in an
amount greater than the then-available
Loss Assets, all clearing members will
be required to indemnify the clearing
house and pay Collateral Offset
Obligations to the clearing house in
accordance with Rule 919(d). ICE Clear
Europe has stated that it will publish a
circular including certain required
details of any Investment Loss and the
amount of Collateral Offset Obligations
due, determined in accordance with the
terms of proposed Rule 919(d), based on
the proportion of a clearing member’s
aggregate initial margin and guaranty
fund contributions (for all product
categories) to the aggregate initial
margin and guaranty fund contributions
of all clearing members (for all product
categories) (in any case other than
margin and contributions of defaulting
clearing members that are applied or
included in the net sum calculation
under the Rules as a result of the
default). ICE Clear Europe has also
stated that pursuant to proposed Rule
919(e), the Collateral Offset Obligation
of a clearing member shall not exceed
the total of all initial margin and
guaranty fund contributions (across all
accounts and product categories) that it
has deposited with the clearing house at
the time of the event giving rise to the
Investment Loss and that to the extent
the Investment Losses exceed the
amount of available Loss Assets and the
capped Collateral Offset Obligations of
clearing members, clearing members
would not have further obligations to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Jul 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
make payments to the clearing house in
respect thereof.
ICE Clear Europe has stated that
Collateral Offset Obligations are due at
the time specified by the clearing house,
under proposed Rule 919(f), and will be
payable in accordance with the
procedures for collection of margin
under Rule 302 and its Finance
Procedures. Furthermore, ICE Clear
Europe has stated that Collateral Offset
Obligations may, at the election of the
clearing house, be offset against the
obligation of the clearing house to
return initial margin or guaranty fund
contributions, and will be collected
pursuant to a call for margin from a
proprietary account of the clearing
member. ICE Clear Europe has also
stated that in the case of a defaulting
clearing member, the clearing house
may include the Collateral Offset
Obligation in any net sum (to reduce
any net sum otherwise payable to the
defaulting clearing member) or offset it
against any other obligation of the
clearing house to return any remaining
margin or guaranty fund contributions
after application in respect of the
default. ICE Clear Europe has also stated
that collection of the Collateral Offset
Obligation from the proprietary account
of a clearing member is not intended to
preclude a clearing member from
passing the cost of the Collateral Offset
Obligation to its customer(s), to the
extent the obligation relates to customer
account margin or otherwise to a
customer and to the extent permitted by
applicable law.
According to ICE Clear Europe, if the
clearing house subsequently recovers
amounts in respect of an Investment
Loss, proposed Rule 919(h) provides for
allocating the recovery to clearing
members on a pro rata basis in
proportion to their Collateral Offset
Obligations satisfied (after repaying the
clearing house for any of its own assets
applied in excess of the Loss Assets or
any other persons for their assets
applied).
ICE Clear Europe has stated that
pursuant to proposed Rule 919(i), the
obligation of a clearing member to make
Collateral Offset Obligations is separate
from, and does not reduce, its obligation
to provide margin and to make guaranty
fund contributions or guaranty fund
assessment contributions under the
existing rules and pursuant to proposed
Rule 919(j), if the clearing house calls
for Collateral Offset Obligations in
excess of that actually required, it will
credit the excess to the relevant clearing
members’ proprietary accounts, from
which it may be withdrawn in
accordance with the usual procedure for
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
withdrawal of excess margin under Part
3 of the Rules.
ICE Clear Europe has stated that
proposed Rule 919(k) provides that the
obligation to provide Collateral Offset
Obligations under Rule 919 applies
independently from the powers of
assessment following clearing member
defaults in other parts of the Rules and
clarifies that the limits on assessment in
Rules 917 and 918 for the F&O and FX
product categories do not affect the
liability of clearing members for
Collateral Offset Obligations. ICE Clear
Europe has also stated that proposed
Rule 919(l) clarifies that the exercise of
rights under Rule 919 does not
constitute a Clearing House Event (i.e.,
a payment default or insolvency of the
clearing house). ICE Clear Europe has
also stated that proposed Rule 919(m)
provides for payments of Collateral
Offset Obligations to be made in
accordance with the general procedures
for payments under Part 3 of the Rules
and the Finance Procedures, subject to
the clearing house’s setoff and netting
rights under the Rules.
ICE Clear Europe has stated that
under proposed Rule 919(n), the
clearing house is not required to pursue
any litigation or other action against any
person in respect of unpaid amounts
(including those representing an
Investment Loss or Non-Default Loss).
Furthermore, ICE Clear Europe has
stated that, as discussed above, to the
extent the clearing house recovers
amounts in respect of an Investment
Loss, proposed Rule 919(h) provides for
allocating such recovery to clearing
members that have paid Collateral
Offset Obligations. ICE Clear Europe has
also stated that proposed Rule 919(o)
allows the clearing house to make
currency conversions in making
determinations under Rule 919.
ICE Clear Europe has stated that
pursuant to proposed Rule 919(q), it
must notify clearing members of the
amount of Loss Assets used from time
to time. ICE Clear Europe is not required
to replenish the amount of Loss Assets
if used, although it may elect to do so.
ICE Clear Europe has also stated that
proposed Rule 919(q) provides that the
clearing house may replenish any
regulatory capital as required to bring it
in compliance with applicable laws at
any time, including following an
Investment Loss or other Non-Default
Loss, and no such recapitalization will
result in a reduction of any obligation of
any clearing member to pay Collateral
Offset Obligations, or the size of any
Investment Loss. ICE Clear Europe has
also stated that the replenishment of
required regulatory capital does not in
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 134 / Monday, July 14, 2014 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
itself require, or result in, a
replenishment of Loss Assets.
ICE Clear Europe has stated that
under proposed Rule 919(r), the clearing
house is not liable to any clearing
member, customer or any other person
for losses arising from a failure of a
payment or security services provider,
including a Custodian such as a
payment or custody bank, securities
depository or securities settlement
system.
ICE Clear Europe has stated that it has
proposed other related changes to Parts
11, 12 and 16 of its Rules. First, ICE
Clear Europe has proposed a change to
Rule 1103(e) to allow the Loss Assets to
be held together with other clearing
house contributions to the guaranty
fund (without affecting the limitations
in the existing rules and Rule 919 on the
use of such assets) and that as a result
of this change, each clearing house
contribution is no longer required to be
held in a separate account, although the
three clearing house guaranty fund
contributions and the Loss Assets are
required to be held separately from
other clearing house assets. Second, ICE
Clear Europe has proposed conforming
changes to definitions relating to
custodians in Rule 1201.
ICE Clear Europe has proposed new
Rule 1606(b) to address certain matters
relating to the investment of customer
collateral in the form of cash provided
by FCM/BD Clearing Members under
applicable CFTC regulations. ICE Clear
Europe has stated that the revised rule
confirms that such cash can only be
invested in U.S. treasury securities in
accordance with applicable law and
further provides that FCM/BD Clearing
Members must direct the clearing house
whether to so invest such cash or to
leave it uninvested (and deems the
clearing member to have instructed the
clearing house to invest such collateral
if it does not provide direction).
III. Discussion and Commission
Findings
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act 5 directs
the Commission to approve a proposed
rule change of a self-regulatory
organization if the Commission finds
that such proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to such selfregulatory organization. Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act 6 requires, among
other things, that the rules of a clearing
agency are designed to promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions
5 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
6 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Jul 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
and, to the extent applicable, derivative
agreements, contracts, and transactions,
to assure the safeguarding of securities
and funds which are in the custody or
control of the clearing agency or for
which it is responsible and, in general,
to protect investors and the public
interest.
The Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 17A of the Act 7 and the rules
thereunder applicable to ICE Clear
Europe. Because the proposed rule
change specifies the procedures for
allocation and payment of Investment
Losses and Non-Default Losses, and
provide for pre-funded Loss Assets to
address Investment Losses and NonDefault Losses and the ability to call
Collateral Offset Obligations from
clearing members to address Investment
Losses exceeding the Loss Assets, the
Commission finds that the proposed
rule change will enhance ICE Clear
Europe’s ability to promptly bear such
losses, replenish its financial resources
and continue clearing operations
following an Investment Loss or NonDefault Loss, thus promoting the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions and, to the extent
applicable, derivative agreements,
contracts and transactions and
contribute to the safeguarding of
securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of ICE Clear Europe
or for which it is responsible in a
manner consistent with the Act and the
regulations thereunder applicable to ICE
Clear Europe, in particular, Section
17(A)(b)(3)(F).8
IV. Conclusion
On the basis of the foregoing, the
Commission finds that the proposal is
consistent with the requirements of the
Act and in particular with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act 9
and the rules and regulations
thereunder.
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,10 that the
proposed rule change (File No. SR–
ICEEU–2014–06) be, and hereby is,
approved.11
U.S.C. 78q–1.
U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F).
9 15 U.S.C. 78q–1.
10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
11 In approving the proposed rule change, the
Commission considered the proposal’s impact on
efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15
U.S.C. 78c(f).
PO 00000
7 15
8 15
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
40807
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.12
Kevin M. O’Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014–16361 Filed 7–11–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–72565; File No. SR–MIAX–
2014–31]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami
International Securities Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule
Regarding the MIAX Market Maker
Sliding Scale for Transaction Fees
July 8, 2014.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section
19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4
thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that
on June 25, 2014, Miami International
Securities Exchange LLC (‘‘MIAX’’ or
‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission
(‘‘Commission’’) a proposed rule change
as described in Items I, II, and III below,
which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Terms of Substance of
the Proposed Rule Change
The Exchange is filing a proposal to
amend its Fee Schedule.
The text of the proposed rule change
is available on the Exchange’s Web site
at https://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/
wotitle/rule_filing, at MIAX’s principal
office, and at the Commission’s Public
Reference Room.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Change
In its filing with the Commission, the
Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for
the proposed rule change and discussed
any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these
statements may be examined at the
places specified in Item IV below. The
Exchange has prepared summaries, set
forth in sections A, B, and C below, of
12 17
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
1 15
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 134 (Monday, July 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40805-40807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16361]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-72551; File No. SR-ICEEU-2014-06]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Regarding Investment Losses and Non-
Default Losses
July 8, 2014.
I. Introduction
On May 30, 2014, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change SR-ICEEU-2014-06 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on June 6, 2014.\3\ The Commission received no
comment letters regarding the proposed change. For the reasons
discussed below, the Commission is granting approval of the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-72297 (June 2, 2014),
79 FR 32792 (June 6, 2014) (SR-ICEEU-2014-06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Description
ICE Clear Europe is proposing to update its Rules to address
certain investment losses on margin and guaranty fund contributions
provided by clearing members (as defined more fully below, ``Investment
Losses'') as well as other losses to the clearing house arising other
than from a clearing member default (as defined more fully below,
``Non-Default Losses''), including losses from general business risk
and operational risk. According to ICE Clear Europe, the change to its
Rules would (i) require ICE Clear Europe to apply a specified amount of
its own assets to cover non-default losses and investment losses
(``Loss Assets'') and (ii) require clearing members in all product
categories to make contributions (referred to as ``Collateral Offset
Obligations'') to cover Investment Losses (but not other Non-Default
Losses) that exceed the available clearing house Loss Assets. ICE Clear
Europe has also stated that the proposed change would also limit its
liability for losses arising from a failure of a bank or similar
custodian.
United Kingdom law requires ICE Clear Europe to have rules
addressing the allocation of non-default losses that threaten the
clearing house's solvency and to have plans to maintain continuity of
services if such continuity is threatened as a result of such losses.
Plans to address losses from general business risk are also an element
of the CPSS-IOSCO Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ICE Clear Europe has also noted that the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission has adopted a similar requirement for
systemically important derivatives clearing organizations and
``subpart C'' derivatives clearing organizations in CFTC Rule
39.33(b)(2), and that the Commission has proposed a similar
requirement for certain ``covered clearing agencies'' in proposed
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15). See Standards for Covered Clearing Agencies,
Proposed rule, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-71699 (Mar.
12, 2014), 79 FR 29507 (May 22, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to ICE Clear Europe, Part 1 of its Rules has been
provisionally revised to include new definitions for ``Investment
Losses'' and ``Non-Default Losses,'' which form the basis of the new
loss allocation provisions. ICE Clear Europe has proposed creating a
new definition of ``Investment Losses'' to mean losses incurred or
suffered by the clearing house arising in connection with the default
of the issuer of any instrument and/or counterparty to any repurchase
or reverse repurchase contract or similar transaction in respect of
investment or reinvestment by the clearing house of margin (other than
variation margin) or guaranty fund contributions other than a loss
resulting from the clearing house's failure to follow its own
investment policies or a loss resulting from custodial losses. ICE
Clear Europe has stated that Investment Losses will be allocated
separately from losses arising from a default. ICE Clear Europe has
also stated that an investment loss relating to margin or guaranty fund
contributions provided by a defaulting clearing member will be included
in the calculation of Investment Losses, and that the amount of
Investment Losses will thus not be reduced by any amounts ICE Clear
Europe may use from its default resources under Parts 9 and 11 of its
Rules (including guaranty fund contributions or assessments) to address
losses from a default.
ICE Clear Europe has also proposed to add a definition of ``Non-
Default Losses'' to mean losses suffered by the clearing house (other
than Investment Losses) arising in connection with any event other than
an event of default and which threaten the solvency of the clearing
house. In addition, ICE Clear Europe has proposed a new definition for
``Collateral Offset Obligations,'' which refers to obligations of a
clearing member arising pursuant to new Rule 919, as discussed below,
to make payments to the clearing house in respect of Investment Losses,
which offset obligations of the clearing house to pay the clearing
member or return assets in respect of margin provided to the clearing
house by the clearing member. ICE Clear Europe has stated that it has
also proposed to add new definitions for ``Custodian'' (which is used
in new Rule 919), and ``Loss Assets,'' meaning assets of the clearing
house itself that are intended to be applied to Investment Losses and
Non-Default Losses under Rule 919 as described below.
ICE Clear Europe also proposes changes in Rules 111 and 905 to
conform and clarify the description of various types of losses or
liabilities that may be borne by the clearing house, through addition
of references to ``claims'' and ``shortfalls,'' in order to provide for
consistent use of language throughout its Rules where other references
are made to losses.
ICE Clear Europe has stated that the proposed change would also
adopt new Rule 919, which includes the allocation
[[Page 40806]]
rules for Investment Losses and Non-Default Losses and procedures for
applying Collateral Offset Obligations. ICE Clear Europe has also
stated that pursuant to proposed Rule 919(b), Non-Default Losses will
be satisfied by applying the available Loss Assets designated by the
clearing house and then other available capital or assets of the
clearing house, whereas Investment Losses will first be satisfied by
applying the available Loss Assets provided by the clearing house, and
thereafter by Collateral Offset Obligations as discussed herein. ICE
Clear Europe has stated that proposed Rule 919(p) would provide that
the amount of Loss Assets provided by ICE Clear Europe will initially
be USD 90 million and subject to adjustment by the clearing house by
circular from time to time. ICE Clear Europe has also stated that it
will not have an obligation to replenish the amount of Loss Assets, if
applied to Non-Default Losses or Investment Losses under the proposed
change.
According to ICE Clear Europe, pursuant to proposed Rule 919(c), if
there is an Investment Loss in an amount greater than the then-
available Loss Assets, all clearing members will be required to
indemnify the clearing house and pay Collateral Offset Obligations to
the clearing house in accordance with Rule 919(d). ICE Clear Europe has
stated that it will publish a circular including certain required
details of any Investment Loss and the amount of Collateral Offset
Obligations due, determined in accordance with the terms of proposed
Rule 919(d), based on the proportion of a clearing member's aggregate
initial margin and guaranty fund contributions (for all product
categories) to the aggregate initial margin and guaranty fund
contributions of all clearing members (for all product categories) (in
any case other than margin and contributions of defaulting clearing
members that are applied or included in the net sum calculation under
the Rules as a result of the default). ICE Clear Europe has also stated
that pursuant to proposed Rule 919(e), the Collateral Offset Obligation
of a clearing member shall not exceed the total of all initial margin
and guaranty fund contributions (across all accounts and product
categories) that it has deposited with the clearing house at the time
of the event giving rise to the Investment Loss and that to the extent
the Investment Losses exceed the amount of available Loss Assets and
the capped Collateral Offset Obligations of clearing members, clearing
members would not have further obligations to make payments to the
clearing house in respect thereof.
ICE Clear Europe has stated that Collateral Offset Obligations are
due at the time specified by the clearing house, under proposed Rule
919(f), and will be payable in accordance with the procedures for
collection of margin under Rule 302 and its Finance Procedures.
Furthermore, ICE Clear Europe has stated that Collateral Offset
Obligations may, at the election of the clearing house, be offset
against the obligation of the clearing house to return initial margin
or guaranty fund contributions, and will be collected pursuant to a
call for margin from a proprietary account of the clearing member. ICE
Clear Europe has also stated that in the case of a defaulting clearing
member, the clearing house may include the Collateral Offset Obligation
in any net sum (to reduce any net sum otherwise payable to the
defaulting clearing member) or offset it against any other obligation
of the clearing house to return any remaining margin or guaranty fund
contributions after application in respect of the default. ICE Clear
Europe has also stated that collection of the Collateral Offset
Obligation from the proprietary account of a clearing member is not
intended to preclude a clearing member from passing the cost of the
Collateral Offset Obligation to its customer(s), to the extent the
obligation relates to customer account margin or otherwise to a
customer and to the extent permitted by applicable law.
According to ICE Clear Europe, if the clearing house subsequently
recovers amounts in respect of an Investment Loss, proposed Rule 919(h)
provides for allocating the recovery to clearing members on a pro rata
basis in proportion to their Collateral Offset Obligations satisfied
(after repaying the clearing house for any of its own assets applied in
excess of the Loss Assets or any other persons for their assets
applied).
ICE Clear Europe has stated that pursuant to proposed Rule 919(i),
the obligation of a clearing member to make Collateral Offset
Obligations is separate from, and does not reduce, its obligation to
provide margin and to make guaranty fund contributions or guaranty fund
assessment contributions under the existing rules and pursuant to
proposed Rule 919(j), if the clearing house calls for Collateral Offset
Obligations in excess of that actually required, it will credit the
excess to the relevant clearing members' proprietary accounts, from
which it may be withdrawn in accordance with the usual procedure for
withdrawal of excess margin under Part 3 of the Rules.
ICE Clear Europe has stated that proposed Rule 919(k) provides that
the obligation to provide Collateral Offset Obligations under Rule 919
applies independently from the powers of assessment following clearing
member defaults in other parts of the Rules and clarifies that the
limits on assessment in Rules 917 and 918 for the F&O and FX product
categories do not affect the liability of clearing members for
Collateral Offset Obligations. ICE Clear Europe has also stated that
proposed Rule 919(l) clarifies that the exercise of rights under Rule
919 does not constitute a Clearing House Event (i.e., a payment default
or insolvency of the clearing house). ICE Clear Europe has also stated
that proposed Rule 919(m) provides for payments of Collateral Offset
Obligations to be made in accordance with the general procedures for
payments under Part 3 of the Rules and the Finance Procedures, subject
to the clearing house's setoff and netting rights under the Rules.
ICE Clear Europe has stated that under proposed Rule 919(n), the
clearing house is not required to pursue any litigation or other action
against any person in respect of unpaid amounts (including those
representing an Investment Loss or Non-Default Loss). Furthermore, ICE
Clear Europe has stated that, as discussed above, to the extent the
clearing house recovers amounts in respect of an Investment Loss,
proposed Rule 919(h) provides for allocating such recovery to clearing
members that have paid Collateral Offset Obligations. ICE Clear Europe
has also stated that proposed Rule 919(o) allows the clearing house to
make currency conversions in making determinations under Rule 919.
ICE Clear Europe has stated that pursuant to proposed Rule 919(q),
it must notify clearing members of the amount of Loss Assets used from
time to time. ICE Clear Europe is not required to replenish the amount
of Loss Assets if used, although it may elect to do so. ICE Clear
Europe has also stated that proposed Rule 919(q) provides that the
clearing house may replenish any regulatory capital as required to
bring it in compliance with applicable laws at any time, including
following an Investment Loss or other Non-Default Loss, and no such
recapitalization will result in a reduction of any obligation of any
clearing member to pay Collateral Offset Obligations, or the size of
any Investment Loss. ICE Clear Europe has also stated that the
replenishment of required regulatory capital does not in
[[Page 40807]]
itself require, or result in, a replenishment of Loss Assets.
ICE Clear Europe has stated that under proposed Rule 919(r), the
clearing house is not liable to any clearing member, customer or any
other person for losses arising from a failure of a payment or security
services provider, including a Custodian such as a payment or custody
bank, securities depository or securities settlement system.
ICE Clear Europe has stated that it has proposed other related
changes to Parts 11, 12 and 16 of its Rules. First, ICE Clear Europe
has proposed a change to Rule 1103(e) to allow the Loss Assets to be
held together with other clearing house contributions to the guaranty
fund (without affecting the limitations in the existing rules and Rule
919 on the use of such assets) and that as a result of this change,
each clearing house contribution is no longer required to be held in a
separate account, although the three clearing house guaranty fund
contributions and the Loss Assets are required to be held separately
from other clearing house assets. Second, ICE Clear Europe has proposed
conforming changes to definitions relating to custodians in Rule 1201.
ICE Clear Europe has proposed new Rule 1606(b) to address certain
matters relating to the investment of customer collateral in the form
of cash provided by FCM/BD Clearing Members under applicable CFTC
regulations. ICE Clear Europe has stated that the revised rule confirms
that such cash can only be invested in U.S. treasury securities in
accordance with applicable law and further provides that FCM/BD
Clearing Members must direct the clearing house whether to so invest
such cash or to leave it uninvested (and deems the clearing member to
have instructed the clearing house to invest such collateral if it does
not provide direction).
III. Discussion and Commission Findings
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \5\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if the
Commission finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to such self-regulatory organization. Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act \6\ requires, among other things, that the rules of a
clearing agency are designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent
applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions, to
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
\6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 17A of the Act \7\ and the rules thereunder applicable to
ICE Clear Europe. Because the proposed rule change specifies the
procedures for allocation and payment of Investment Losses and Non-
Default Losses, and provide for pre-funded Loss Assets to address
Investment Losses and Non-Default Losses and the ability to call
Collateral Offset Obligations from clearing members to address
Investment Losses exceeding the Loss Assets, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change will enhance ICE Clear Europe's ability to
promptly bear such losses, replenish its financial resources and
continue clearing operations following an Investment Loss or Non-
Default Loss, thus promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent applicable,
derivative agreements, contracts and transactions and contribute to the
safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or
control of ICE Clear Europe or for which it is responsible in a manner
consistent with the Act and the regulations thereunder applicable to
ICE Clear Europe, in particular, Section 17(A)(b)(3)(F).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
\8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Conclusion
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \9\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-ICEEU-2014-06) be,
and hereby is, approved.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
\11\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-16361 Filed 7-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P