Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Create New MSRB Rule G-46, on Duties of Solicitor Municipal Advisors, and To Amend MSRB Rule G-8, on Books and Records, 20004-20014 [2023-06899]
Download as PDF
20004
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2023 / Notices
III. Date of Effectiveness of the
Proposed Rules and Timing for
Commission Action
Within 45 days of the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register or within such longer period (i)
as the Commission may designate up to
90 days of such date if it finds such
longer period to be appropriate and
publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii) as to which the Board consents, the
Commission will:
(A) by order approve or disapprove
such proposed rules; or
(B) institute proceedings to determine
whether the proposed rules should be
disapproved.
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to
submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing,
including whether the proposed rules
are consistent with the requirements of
Title I of the Act. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following
methods:
Electronic Comments
• Use the Commission’s internet
comment form (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/pcaob.shtml); or
• Send an email to rule-comments@
sec.gov. Please include PCAOB–2023–
01 on the subject line.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Paper Comments
• Send paper comments in triplicate
to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary,
Securities and Exchange Commission,
100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to
PCAOB–2023–01. This file number
should be included on the subject line
if email is used. To help the
Commission 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/pcaob.shtml). Copies of the
submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements
with respect to the proposed rules that
are filed with the Commission, and all
written communications relating to the
proposed rules 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 website
viewing and printing in the
Commission’s Public Reference Room,
100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549–1090, on official business days
between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing will also
be available for inspection and copying
at the principal office of the PCAOB. All
comments received will be posted
without charge; we do not edit personal
identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions
should refer to PCAOB–2023–01 and
should be submitted on or before April
25, 2023.
For the Commission by the Office of the
Chief Accountant.13
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Apr 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
II. Description of Proposed Rule Change
As described further below, the
proposed rule change consists of new
Proposed Rule G–46, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, and amendments to
Rule G–8.
[FR Doc. 2023–06961 Filed 4–3–23; 8:45 am]
A. Solicitor Municipal Advisor Activity
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
There are two broad categories of
municipal advisors—those that provide
certain advice to or on behalf of a
municipal entity or obligated person
and those that undertake certain
solicitations of a municipal entity or
obligated person on behalf of certain
third-party financial professionals.8 The
first category of municipal advisors is
often referred to as non-solicitor
municipal advisors, while the latter is
sometimes referred to as solicitors.9
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–97218; File No. SR–MSRB–
2023–02]
Self-Regulatory Organizations;
Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing of Amendment
No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of a Proposed Rule Change,
as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To
Create New MSRB Rule G–46, on
Duties of Solicitor Municipal Advisors,
and To Amend MSRB Rule G–8, on
Books and Records
March 29, 2023.
I. Introduction
On January 31, 2023, the Municipal
Securities Rulemaking Board (‘‘MSRB’’
or ‘‘Board’’) filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or
‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section
19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (‘‘Exchange Act’’) 1 and Rule
19b–4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule
change to create a new rule, MSRB Rule
G–46 (‘‘Rule G–46’’), on duties of
solicitor municipal advisors (‘‘Proposed
Rule G–46’’) and amend MSRB Rule G–
8 (‘‘Rule G–8’’), on books and records
(‘‘Proposed Amended Rule G–8’’)
(together, the ‘‘proposed rule change’’).
The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal
Register on February 14, 2023.3 The
public comment period closed on March
13 17
nor do they impose any ‘‘additional requirements’’
on auditors. Section 103(a)(3)(C) of Sarbanes-Oxley.
Accordingly, the Board has concluded that Section
103(a)(3)(C) of Sarbanes-Oxley does not apply to
this rulemaking.
7, 2023.4 The Commission received one
comment letter on the proposed rule
change.5 On March 23, 2023, the MSRB
responded to the comment letter 6 and
filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule change (‘‘Amendment No. 1’’).7 The
Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on Amendment No. 1
to the proposed rule change from
interested parties and is approving the
proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated
basis.
CFR 200.30–11(b)(1) and (3).
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
3 Release No. 34–96842 (February 8, 2023), 88 FR
9560 (February 14, 2023) (File No. MSRB–2023–02)
(the ‘‘Notice’’).
1 15
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4 The comment letter received on the proposed
rule change is available on the Commission’s
website at https://www.sec.gov.
5 See Letter to Secretary, from Leslie Norwood,
Managing Director and Associate General Counsel,
Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association (‘‘SIFMA’’), dated March 7, 2023
(‘‘SIFMA Letter’’).
6 See Letter to Secretary, Commission, from
Saliha Olgun, Interim Chief Regulatory Officer,
MSRB, dated March 23, 2023 (‘‘Response Letter’’).
7 Id. As described in Amendment No. 1, the
MSRB stated it proposed to amend the original
proposed rule change to make a change directly
responsive to the comments and two other technical
changes.
8 Exchange Act Section 15B(e)(4) generally
defines ‘‘municipal advisor’’ to mean a person (who
is not a municipal entity or an employee of a
municipal entity) that (i) provides advice to or on
behalf of a municipal entity or obligated person
with respect to municipal financial products or the
issuance of municipal securities, including advice
with respect to the structure, timing, terms, and
other similar matters concerning such financial
products or issues; or (ii) undertakes a solicitation
of a municipal entity. Additionally, the SEC has
interpreted the definition of ‘‘municipal advisor’’ to
include a person who engages in the solicitation of
an obligated person acting in the capacity of an
obligated person. 15 U.S.C. 78o–4(e)(4). See also
Release No. 34–70462 (September 20, 2013), 78 FR
67468 (November 12, 2013) (File No. S7–45–10) at
67469, n. 138, 408; 17 CFR 240.15Ba1–1(d)(1)(i).
9 Exchange Act Section 15B(e)(9) generally
defines ‘‘solicitation of a municipal entity or
obligated person’’ to mean a direct or indirect
communication with a municipal entity or
obligated person made by a person, for direct or
indirect compensation, on behalf of a broker, dealer,
municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, or
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2023 / Notices
Proposed Rule G–46 would govern the
conduct of these solicitors, more
specifically defined as ‘‘solicitor
municipal advisors’’ under Proposed
Rule G–46(a)(vi).10
Although the Exchange Act 11 permits
a municipal advisor to conduct such
solicitations on behalf of a third-party
broker, dealer or municipal securities
dealer (collectively and individually
‘‘dealers’’),12 MSRB Rule G–38 (‘‘Rule
G–38’’), on solicitation of municipal
securities business, prohibits a dealer
from providing or agreeing to provide
payment to third parties for solicitations
of municipal securities business made
on behalf of the dealer.13 Additionally,
the MSRB stated that a substantial
number of solicitations that would be
subject to Proposed Rule G–46 involve
a solicitation on behalf of a third-party
investment adviser to provide
investment advisory services to a
municipal entity.14 The MSRB noted
that such solicitations often occur in
connection with the solicitation of a
public pension plan.15 For example, the
MSRB offered that, if a person
communicates with a public pension
plan for the purpose of getting a
particular investment advisory firm
hired by the plan to provide investment
advisory services to such plan, that
person may be a solicitor municipal
advisor if such person is paid by the
investment advisory firm for the
communication and if such person and
the investment advisory firm are not
affiliated.16
The MSRB also stated the number of
municipal advisors that engage in
solicitations that may subject them to
Proposed Rule G–46 comprise a
relatively small percentage of the
municipal advisors that are registered
with the MSRB.17 Notwithstanding the
relatively small size of such solicitation
market, the MSRB argued that it is
important that the fundamental
protections extended to the municipal
entity and obligated person clients of
other MSRB-regulated entities be
extended to the municipal entities and
obligated persons with whom solicitor
municipal advisors interact.18 Due to
such increased protections
contemplated by the proposed rule
change, the MSRB concluded that the
proposed rule change would serve as an
important bulwark against potential
improper practices in the municipal
market and also would provide greater
certainty and transparency to solicitor
municipal advisors regarding regulatory
expectations.19
With respect to solicitations on behalf
of third parties to provide investment
advisory services, the MSRB stated that
there are two ways (discussed below) in
which a solicitor municipal advisor
typically may solicit a municipal entity:
(1) directly or (2) through an
intermediary.20
investment adviser that does not control, is not
controlled by, or is not under common control with
the person undertaking such solicitation for the
purpose of obtaining or retaining an engagement by
a municipal entity or obligated person of a broker,
dealer, municipal securities dealer, or municipal
advisor for or in connection with municipal
financial products, the issuance of municipal
securities, or of an investment adviser to provide
investment advisory services to or on behalf of a
municipal entity. 15 U.S.C. 78o–4(e)(9).
10 Notice, 88 FR at 9561.
11 See 15 U.S.C. 78o–4(e)(4) and (e)(9).
12 See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(4)(a) (defining the term
‘‘broker’’ to mean any person engaged in the
business of effecting transactions in securities for
the account of others); see also 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(5)
(defining the term ‘‘dealer’’ to mean any person
engaged in the business of buying and selling
securities (not including security-based swaps,
other than security-based swaps with or for persons
that are not eligible contract participants) for such
person’s own account through a broker or
otherwise) and 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(30) (defining the
term ‘‘municipal securities dealer’’ to mean any
person (including a separately identifiable
department or division of a bank) engaged in the
business of buying and selling municipal securities
for his own account, through a broker or otherwise,
subject to certain exclusions).
13 The prohibition in Rule G–38 predates the
regulation of municipal advisors. See Release No.
34–52278 (August 17, 2005), 70 FR 49342 (August
23, 2005) (File No. MSRB–2005–04).
14 Notice, 88 FR at 9561.
15 Id.
The MSRB identified that a solicitor
municipal advisor often first
communicates with a staff member of
the solicited entity (i.e., the municipal
entity or obligated person) who handles
investment manager research for the
entity.21 The MSRB further described
that this individual generally is
responsible for evaluating the solicitor
client’s product/services to ensure they
are appropriate for the entity given the
entity’s investment policy statement
guidelines and restrictions.22 The MSRB
elaborated that this first communication
potentially is one of many that may
span years.23 Additionally, the MSRB
further observed the solicitor municipal
advisor’s client likely will have its own
communications with the solicited
entity, which may include board
presentations, meetings and discussions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Apr 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
1. Direct Solicitations
during which the solicitor municipal
advisor may or may not be present.24
2. Indirect Solicitations Through an
Intermediary
The MSRB explained that a solicitor
municipal advisor typically initially
will solicit a financial intermediary or
an investment consultant (collectively
‘‘intermediary’’) who is hired by the
solicited entity to conduct searches and
identify appropriate investment
managers to meet a municipal entity’s
specific need.25 Such intermediary itself
may be a solicitor municipal advisor.
According to the MSRB, when a
solicitor municipal advisor first solicits
the intermediary, the solicitor
municipal advisor may not necessarily
know who the intermediary represents
(i.e., whether the intermediary
represents municipal entities, obligated
persons, other private entities, or all of
the above).26 Additionally, the MSRB
noted that the solicitor municipal
advisor generally will not know whether
the intermediary will recommend the
solicitor municipal advisor’s client to
the intermediary’s municipal entity
client(s) (if any). As a result, at the time
of the first solicitation, the MSRB stated
that a solicitor municipal advisor may
not know if it is indirectly soliciting a
municipal entity.27 The MSRB noted
that moreover, the solicitor municipal
advisor’s client (e.g., the investment
adviser) may engage in multiple
subsequent communications with either
the intermediary and/or the
intermediary’s client (e.g., the
municipal entity or obligated person),
during which the solicitor municipal
advisor may or may not be present.28 In
some instances, the solicitor municipal
advisor may never meet or directly
communicate with an intermediary’s
municipal entity or obligated person
client.29
B. Summary of Proposed Rule G–46
As described in further detail below
and in the Notice, the MSRB stated that
Proposed Rule G–46 would establish the
core standards of conduct and duties of
‘‘solicitor municipal advisors’’ when
engaging in solicitation activities that
would require them to register with the
SEC and the MSRB as municipal
advisors.30 The MSRB also noted that
Proposed Rule G–46 would codify
certain statements contained in an
MSRB notice issued in 2017 pertaining
16 Id.
17 Id.
24 Id.
18 Id.
19 Notice,
25 Id.
88 FR at 9562.
26 Id.
20 Id.
27 Id.
21 Id.
28 Id.
22 Id.
29 Id.
23 Id.
30 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20005
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
20006
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2023 / Notices
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
to the application of MSRB rules to
solicitor municipal advisors.31 Those
statements relate to the obligation of
solicitor municipal advisors under
MSRB Rule G–17 (‘‘Rule G–17’’), on
conduct of municipal securities and
municipal advisory activities (the ‘‘G–17
Excerpt for Solicitor Municipal
Advisors’’).32 In addition to codifying
much of the substance of the G–17
Excerpt for Solicitor Municipal
Advisors, the MSRB stated that the
Proposed Rule G–46 also would add
additional requirements that would
better align some of the obligations
imposed on solicitor municipal advisors
with those applicable to: non-solicitor
municipal advisors under MSRB Rule
G–42 (‘‘Rule G–42’’), on duties of nonsolicitor municipal advisors;
underwriters under Rule G–17, on fair
dealing; and certain solicitations
undertaken on behalf of third-party
investment advisers under the SEC’s
marketing rule for investment advisers
(the ‘‘IA Marketing Rule’’ or ‘‘IA Rule
206(4)–1’’).33
In summary, the MSRB stated that the
core provisions of Proposed Rule G–46
generally would:
• Set forth definitions for terms used
in the proposed rule; 34
• Require solicitor municipal
advisors to provide to their solicitor
clients full and fair disclosure in writing
of all of their material conflicts of
interest and material legal or
disciplinary events; 35
• Require solicitor municipal
advisors to document their relationships
in writing(s), deliver such writing(s) to
their solicitor clients, and set forth
certain minimum content that must be
included in such writing(s); 36
• Prohibit solicitor municipal
advisors from making a representation
that the solicitor municipal advisor
knows or should know is either
materially false or misleading regarding
the capacity, resources or knowledge of
the solicitor client and require solicitor
municipal advisors to have a reasonable
basis for any material representations it
makes to a solicited entity regarding the
capacity, resources or knowledge of the
solicitor client; 37
• Require solicitor municipal
advisors to disclose to solicited entities
31 See MSRB Regulatory Notice 2017–08,
Application of MSRB Rules to Solicitor Municipal
Advisors (May 4, 2017), available at https://
www.msrb.org/sites/default/files/2017-08.pdf
(‘‘Regulatory Notice 2017–08’’).
32 Notice, 88 FR at 9562.
33 17 CFR 275.206(4)–1; Notice, 88 FR at 9562.
34 Notice, 88 FR at 9562.
35 Id.
36 Id.
37 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Apr 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
material facts about the solicitation,
including but not limited to an
obligation to disclose information about
the solicitor municipal advisor’s role
and compensation, the solicitor
municipal advisor’s material conflict of
interest; and information regarding the
solicitor client; 38
• Set forth a dual disclosure standard
with respect to required disclosures to
solicited entities; 39 and
• Expressly prohibit solicitor
municipal advisors from: delivering an
inaccurate invoice for fees or expenses
and making payments for the purpose of
obtaining or retaining an engagement to
perform municipal advisory activities
subject to exceptions specified in the
rule.40
The MSRB stated that the
supplementary material to Proposed
Rule G–46 generally would:
• Provide additional explanation
regarding the MSRB’s expectations with
respect to the reasonable basis a
solicitor municipal advisor must have
for certain of its representations; 41
• Explain the relationship between a
solicitor municipal advisor’s fair dealing
obligations and a federal fiduciary duty
for municipal advisors; 42
• Explain the relationship between a
municipal advisor’s obligations under
Proposed Rule G–46 and Rule G–42; 43
and
• Provide additional explanation
applicable to a solicitor municipal
advisor’s obligation to document its
compensation arrangement and make
related disclosures.44
1. Definitions
The MSRB explained that Proposed
Rule G–46(a) would set forth a set of
definitions for terms used in the rule.45
In the proposed rule change, the MSRB
would define the terms
‘‘compensation,’’ 46 ‘‘excluded
communications,’’ 47 ‘‘solicitation,’’
38 Id.
39 Notice,
88 FR at 9563.
40 Id.
41 Id.
42 Id.
43 Id.
44 Id.
45 Id.
46 Id. Proposed Rule G–46(a)(i) generally would
provide that ‘‘compensation’’ means any cash, inkind or non-cash remuneration, including but not
limited to merchandise, gifts, travel expenses, meals
and lodging. Notice, 88 FR at 9563, n.17.
47 Notice, 88 FR at 9563. Proposed Rule G–
46(a)(ii) generally would provide that ‘‘excluded
communications’’ means (A) advertising by a
dealer, municipal advisor, or investment adviser;
(B) direct or indirect communications with an
obligated person if such obligated person is not
acting in the capacity of an obligated person; (C)
direct or indirect communications with an obligated
person made for the purpose of obtaining or
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
‘‘solicited entity,’’ ‘‘solicitor client,’’
‘‘solicitor municipal advisor,’’ and
‘‘solicitor relationship.’’ 48 As detailed
below, the MSRB identified that several
of these definitions are integral to
understanding nearly all of the
provisions of Proposed Rule G–46, and
the MSRB discussed each of these
definitions in fuller detail and context.
The MSRB noted that Proposed Rule
G–46(a)(iii) generally would define the
term ‘‘solicitation’’ to mean a direct or
indirect communication with a
municipal entity or obligated person
made by a solicitor municipal advisor,
for direct or indirect compensation, on
behalf of a municipal advisor or
investment adviser that does not
control, is not controlled by, or is not
under common control with the
solicitor municipal advisor for the
purpose of obtaining or retaining an
engagement by a municipal entity or
obligated person of a municipal advisor
for or in connection with municipal
financial products or the issuance of
municipal securities or of an investment
adviser to provide investment advisory
services to or on behalf of a municipal
entity; provided, however, that it does
not include excluded communications,
as defined in Proposed Rule G–
46(a)(ii).49 The MSRB stated that this
definition is consistent with the defined
term ‘‘solicitation of a municipal entity
or obligated person’’ under Exchange
Act Section 15B(e)(9), except to the
extent that the term ‘‘solicitation’’ under
Proposed Rule G–46(a)(iii) does not
address solicitations undertaken on
behalf of a third-party dealer.50 The
retaining an engagement that is not in connection
with the issuance of municipal securities or with
respect to municipal financial products; and (D)
direct or indirect communications made for the
purpose of obtaining or retaining an engagement for
or in connection with municipal financial products
that are investment strategies to the extent that
those investment strategies are not plans or
programs for the investment of the proceeds of
municipal securities or the recommendation of and
brokerage of municipal escrow investments. Notice,
88 FR at 9563, n.18. The term ‘‘excluded
communications’’ is used in the term ‘‘solicitation,’’
which would be defined in Proposed Rule G–
46(a)(iii). Id.
48 Notice, 88 FR at 9563. Proposed Rule G–
46(a)(vii) generally would provide that, for
purposes of the rule, a ‘‘solicitor relationship’’ is
deemed to exist when a municipal advisor enters
into an agreement to undertake a solicitation of a
municipal entity or obligated person within the
meaning of Exchange Act Section 15B(e)(9) and the
rules and regulations thereunder. Notice, 88 FR at
9563, n.19. The solicitor relationship shall be
deemed to have ended on the date which is the
earlier of (i) the date on which the solicitor
relationship has terminated pursuant to the terms
of the documentation of the solicitor relationship
required by Proposed Rule G–46(c) or (ii) the date
on which the solicitor municipal advisor withdraws
from the solicitor relationship. Id.
49 Notice, 88 FR at 9563.
50 Id.; 15 U.S.C. 78o–4(e)(9).
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2023 / Notices
MSRB stated that because Rule G–38
generally prohibits a dealer from
providing or agreeing to provide
payment to third parties for solicitations
of municipal securities business made
on behalf of the dealer, Proposed Rule
G–46 assumes that such solicitations do
not occur.51
The MSRB wrote that Proposed Rule
G–46(a)(iv) generally would define the
term ‘‘solicited entity’’ to mean any
municipal entity or obligated person (as
those terms are defined in Exchange Act
Sections 15B(e)(8) and (e)(10) 52 and the
rules and regulations thereunder) that
the solicitor municipal advisor has
solicited, is soliciting or intends to
solicit within the meaning of Exchange
Act Sections 15B(e)(4)(A)(ii) and
(e)(9) 53 and the rules and regulations
thereunder.54
The MSRB generally defined
‘‘solicitor client’’ in Proposed Rule G–
46(a)(v) to mean the municipal advisor
or investment adviser on behalf of
whom the solicitor municipal advisor
undertakes a solicitation within the
meaning of Exchange Act Sections
15B(e)(4)(A)(ii) and (e)(9) 55 and the
rules and regulations thereunder.56 As
the MSRB previously noted, Proposed
Rule G–46 presumes that solicitors do
not conduct paid solicitations on behalf
of third-party dealers because of the
prohibition set forth in Rule G–38.57 As
a result, the MSRB noted that Proposed
Rule G–46(a)(v)’s definition of ‘‘solicitor
client’’ does not include dealers as
solicitor clients.58
The MSRB generally defined
‘‘solicitor municipal advisor’’ in
Proposed Rule G–46(a)(vi) to mean, for
purposes of the rule, a municipal
advisor within the meaning of Exchange
Act Section 15B(e)(4) 59 and other rules
and regulations thereunder.60 The
MSRB further provided that Proposed
Rule G–46(a)(vi) shall exclude a person
that is otherwise a municipal advisor
solely based on activities within the
meaning of Exchange Act Section
15B(e)(4)(A)(i) 61 and the rules and
regulations thereunder.62 The MSRB
stated that, generally, this means that a
solicitor municipal advisor is any
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
51 Notice,
88 FR at 9563.
52 15 U.S.C. 78o–4(e)(8) and (e)(10).
53 15 U.S.C. 78o–4(e)(4)(A)(ii) and (e)(9).
54 Notice, 88 FR at 9563.
55 Id.
56 Id.
57 Id.
58 Id.
59 15 U.S.C. 78o–4(e)(4).
60 Notice, 88 FR at 9563.
61 15 U.S.C. 78o–4(e)(4)(A)(i).
62 Notice, 88 FR at 9563.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Apr 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
municipal advisor that is not a nonsolicitor municipal advisor.63
2. Disclosure to Solicitor Clients
The MSRB noted that its Proposed
Rule G–46(b) would require a solicitor
municipal advisor to provide to a client
full and fair disclosure in writing of all
material conflicts of interest and any
legal or disciplinary event that would be
material to a reasonable solicitor client’s
evaluation of the solicitor municipal
advisor or the integrity of its
management or advisory personnel.64
Further, the MSRB stated that these
disclosures must be provided prior to or
upon engaging in municipal advisory
activities.65
The MSRB stated that the Proposed
Rule G–46(b) sets forth an alternative to
providing a narrative description of any
such legal or disciplinary events by
permitting solicitor municipal advisors
to reference such information in certain
other publicly available information if
the conditions specified in the rule are
met.66 As a result, the MSRB posited,
solicitor municipal advisors (that are
also registered broker-dealers or
investment advisers) would be
permitted to identify the specific type of
event and make specific reference to the
relevant portions of the solicitor
municipal advisor’s Form BD or Form
ADV if the solicitor municipal advisor
provides detailed information
specifying where the client may
electronically access such forms.67 The
MSRB noted that all other municipal
advisors would be permitted to identify
the specific type of event and make
specific reference to the relevant
portions of the solicitor municipal
advisor’s most recent Forms MA or MA–
I filed with the Commission if the
solicitor municipal advisor provides
detailed information specifying where
the client may electronically access
such forms.68
3. Documentation of the Solicitor
Relationship
The MSRB explained that Proposed
Rule G–46(c) would require a solicitor
municipal advisor to evidence each of
its solicitor relationships by a writing or
20007
writings created and delivered to the
solicitor client prior to, upon or
promptly after the establishment of the
solicitor relationship.69 The writing(s)
would be required to be dated and
include, at a minimum:
• a description of the solicitation
activities to be engaged in by the
solicitor municipal advisor on behalf of
the solicitor client (including the scope
of the agreed-upon activities and a
statement that the scope of the
solicitation is anticipated to include the
solicitation of municipal entities and/or
obligated persons); 70
• the terms and amount of the
compensation to be received by the
solicitor municipal advisor for such
activities; 71
• the date, triggering event, or means
for the termination of the relationship,
or, if none, a statement that there is
none; 72 and
• any terms relating to withdrawal
from the relationship.73
The MSRB stated that the proposed
obligation to document the relationship
is generally consistent with a nonsolicitor municipal advisor’s obligation
to document its municipal advisory
relationship with a client under Rule G–
42(c).74 The MSRB argued that this
documentation obligation will help
ensure that the solicitor client has
certain basic material information about
the engagement including the scope of
agreed-upon activities and information
pertaining to compensation for such
activities.75 The MSRB also posited that
this documentation obligation will
assist examining authorities in
understanding the solicitation
arrangement and will provide them with
necessary information to assist in
evaluating a solicitor municipal
advisor’s compliance with relevant
obligations.76
The MSRB stated that a solicitor may
be asked to solicit a broad range of
entities on behalf of a client of the
solicitor.77 These entities may include
municipal entities, obligated persons
and corporate entities that are not
69 Id.
63 Id.
70 Id.
64 Notice,
71 Id.
88 FR at 9563–64.
65 Notice, 88 FR at 9564.
66 Id.
67 Id. For example, a solicitor municipal advisor
could direct a solicitor client to FINRA’s
BrokerCheck system or the Investment Adviser
Public Disclosure website, as applicable; provided,
that the direction is accompanied by information as
to how to retrieve the firm’s specific Form BD or
Form ADV and specific reference to the relevant
portions of the applicable form. Notice, 88 FR at
9564, n.26.
68 Notice, 88 FR at 9564.
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
72 Id.
73 Id.
74 Id. Rule G–42(c) generally requires a municipal
advisor to evidence each of its municipal advisory
relationships by a writing or writings created and
delivered to the municipal entity or obligated
person client prior to, upon or promptly after the
establishment of the municipal advisory
relationship. Notice, 88 FR at 9564, n.28.
75 Notice, 88 FR at 9564.
76 Id.
77 Id.
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
20008
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2023 / Notices
obligated persons.78 Although the
MSRB observed that the solicitation of
municipal entities and obligated
persons generally would require
compliance with Proposed Rule G–46
(to the extent the solicitation would
make the solicitor a ‘‘municipal
advisor’’), the MSRB concluded that the
solicitation of an entity that is not a
municipal entity or an obligated person
would not require such compliance.79
The MSRB stated that in order to
promote certainty as to the applicable
regulatory scheme for any engagement,
that it is imperative for any engagement
to be documented in a writing that
clearly indicates whether the
solicitation of municipal entities and/or
obligated persons is anticipated.80 The
MSRB also concluded that information
pertaining to termination of the
relationship or withdrawal from the
relationship will similarly assist both
solicitor clients and examination and
enforcement authorities in
understanding the scope of an
engagement.81
The MSRB stated that Supplementary
Material .04 to Proposed Rule G–46
would provide additional guidance with
respect to the obligation to document
the terms and the amount of
compensation to be received.82
Specifically, the MSRB provided that
such guidance provides that the
documentation(s) must clearly describe
the structure of the compensation
arrangement and the amount of
compensation paid or to be paid.83
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
4. Representations to Solicited Entities
The MSRB explained that Proposed
Rule G–46(d)(i) expressly would
prohibit a solicitor municipal advisor
from making a representation that the
solicitor municipal advisor knows or
should know is either materially false or
materially misleading due to the
omission of a material fact about the
capacity, resources, or knowledge of the
solicitor client.84 The MSRB stated that
this prohibition is similar to a
prohibition applicable to non-solicitor
municipal advisors under Rule G–42
except that, unlike with Rule G–42, the
prohibition for solicitor municipal
advisors would not be limited to
representations that occur in response to
requests for proposals or qualifications
or in oral presentations to a client or
prospective client for the purpose of
78 Id.
79 Id.
80 Id.
81 Id.
82 Id.
83 Id.
84 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Apr 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
obtaining or retaining an engagement for
the solicitor client.85 The MSRB
explained this assertion by offering its
belief that all of the solicitor municipal
advisor’s communications regarding the
capacity, resources or knowledge of the
solicitor’s clients are expected to be for
the purpose of obtaining or retaining an
engagement for their clients.86
The MSRB wrote that Proposed Rule
G–46(d)(ii) would require a solicitor
municipal advisor to have a reasonable
basis for any material representations it
makes to a solicited entity regarding the
capacity, resources, or knowledge of the
solicitor client.87 The MSRB noted that
solicited entities should be entitled to
rely on the material representations
made by solicitor municipal advisors, as
regulated financial professionals hired
for the purpose of soliciting business on
behalf of their clients, with respect to
the qualifications of their clients.88 The
MSRB further asserted that such
representations should have some
reasonable basis.89
The MSRB stated that Supplementary
Material .01 would provide guidance on
compliance with the reasonable-basis
standard.90 Specifically, the MSRB
stated that this supplementary material
would clarify that while a solicitor
municipal advisor must have a
reasonable basis for the representations
described in Proposed Rule G–46(d), the
solicitor municipal advisor is not
required to actively seek out every piece
of information that may be relevant to
such representations.91
5. Disclosures to Solicited Entities
The MSRB’s Proposed Rule G–46(e)
would require a solicitor municipal
advisor to disclose to any solicited
entity all material facts about the
solicitation in the manner specified in
section (f) of the proposed rule.92 The
MSRB wrote that this proposed change
would include an obligation to disclose
85 Id.
86 Notice,
87 Notice,
88 FR at 9564–65.
88 FR at 9565.
88 Id.
89 Id. The MSRB noted that this obligation bears
some analogy to a non-solicitor municipal advisor’s
duty of care obligation to have a reasonable basis
for any advice provided to or on behalf of a client
pursuant to Rule G–42, Supplementary Material .01.
Notice, 88 FR at 9565, n.30. While a non-solicitor
municipal advisor provides advice to or on behalf
of its municipal entity and obligated person clients,
the MSRB stated that a solicitor municipal advisor
solicits municipal entities and obligated persons on
behalf of its clients. The MSRB concluded that, in
both cases, the municipal advisor would be
required to have a reasonable basis for what are
likely to be the core material statements the
municipal advisor was hired to provide to
municipal entities and obligated persons. Id.
90 Notice, 88 FR at 9565.
91 Id.
92 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
certain information pertaining to the
solicitor municipal advisor’s: (i) role
and compensation; (ii) conflicts of
interest; and (iii) client.93
i. Role and Compensation Disclosures
The MSRB stated that Proposed Rule
G–46(e)(i) would require a solicitor
municipal advisor to disclose to any
solicited entity the solicitor municipal
advisor’s name; the solicitor client’s
name; the type of business being
solicited (i.e., municipal advisory
business or investment advisory
services); the material terms of the
solicitor municipal advisor’s
compensation arrangement, including a
description of the compensation
provided or to be provided, directly or
indirectly, to the solicitor municipal
advisor for such solicitation; and
payments made by the solicitor
municipal advisor to another solicitor
municipal advisor to facilitate the
solicitation.94
The MSRB stated that Supplementary
Material .04 would provide additional
guidance with respect to the obligation
to disclose the material terms of the
solicitor municipal advisor’s
compensation arrangement.95
Specifically, the MSRB noted that
Proposed Rule G–46(e)(i)(D) would
require disclosure of at least the same
information as that required by
Proposed Rule G–46(c)(ii), to the extent
material.96 However, Proposed Rule G–
46(e)(i)(D) also may require the
disclosure of additional information,
depending on the facts and
circumstances. For example, if the
solicitor municipal advisor receives
indirect compensation for the
solicitation, information pertaining to
the indirect compensation also must be
disclosed.97
Additionally, the solicitor municipal
advisor would be required to disclose
the following statements:
• In connection with its solicitation
activities as a municipal advisor, a
solicitor municipal advisor does not
owe a fiduciary duty under Section
15B(c)(i) of the Exchange Act 98 or
MSRB rules to the entities that it solicits
and is not required by those provisions
to act in the best interests of such
entities without regard to the solicitor
municipal advisor’s own financial or
other interests. However, in connection
with such solicitation activities, a
solicitor municipal advisor is required
93 Id.
94 Id.
95 Id.
96 Id.
97 Id.
98 Id.
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2023 / Notices
to deal fairly with all persons, including
both solicited entities and the solicitor
municipal advisor’s clients; 99 and
• A solicitor municipal advisor’s
primary role is to solicit the solicited
entity on behalf of certain third-party
regulated entities and the solicitor
municipal advisor will be compensated
for its solicitation services by the
solicitor municipal advisor’s client.100
The MSRB stated that these
statements draw from analogous
disclosures that underwriters must
make to their issuer clients pursuant to
Rule G–17,101 but are tailored to reflect
the existence of a federal fiduciary duty
for non-solicitor municipal advisors and
to make clear that a solicitor municipal
advisor’s fair dealing obligations apply
in connection with its solicitation
activities.102
The MSRB stated that Supplementary
Material .02 to Proposed Rule G–46
would expound on the relationship
between Proposed Rule G–46 and the
fair dealing obligation under Rule G–17
and includes similar discussion
regarding application of the federal
fiduciary duty to a solicitor municipal
advisor’s solicitations of solicited
entities.103 The MSRB clarified,
however, that this proposed change
would specify that solicitor municipal
advisors may be subject to fiduciary or
other duties under state or other laws
and that nothing in Proposed Rule G–46
shall be deemed to supersede any more
restrictive provision of state or other
laws applicable to municipal advisory
activities.104 Finally, the MSRB
described that Supplementary Material
.02 would include a cross reference to
Supplementary Material .03 and would
remind solicitor municipal advisors
that, to the extent they also engage in
non-solicitor municipal advisory
99 Id.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
100 Id.
101 More specifically, the MSRB explained that
these disclosures include an obligation to disclose
that: Rule G–17 requires an underwriter to deal
fairly at all times with both issuers and investors;
unlike a municipal advisor, the underwriter does
not have a fiduciary duty to the issuer under the
federal securities laws and is, therefore, not
required by federal law to act in the best interests
of the issuer without regard to its own financial or
other interests; and the underwriter’s primary role
is to purchase securities with a view to distribution
in an arm’s-length commercial transaction with the
issuer and it has financial and other interests that
differ from those of the issuer. Notice, 88 FR at
9565, n.32; see MSRB Interpretive Notice
Concerning the Application of MSRB Rule G–17 to
Underwriters of Municipal Securities (March 31,
2021) (the ‘‘G–17 Underwriter’s Guidance’’),
available at https://www.msrb.org/InterpretiveNotice-Concerning-Application-MSRB-Rule-G-17Underwriters-Municipal-Securities.
102 Notice, 88 FR at 9565.
103 Id.
104 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Apr 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
activity, the requirements of Rule G–42
will apply with respect to such activity
and a federal fiduciary duty will apply
with respect to the municipal entity
clients of the municipal advisor.105
ii. Conflicts Disclosures
The MSRB stated that Proposed Rule
G–46(e)(ii) would require a solicitor
municipal advisor to disclose any
material conflicts of interest, including
but not limited to the fact that, because
the solicitor municipal advisor is
compensated for its solicitation efforts,
it has an incentive to recommend its
clients, resulting in a material conflict of
interest.106 The MSRB noted that a
solicitor municipal advisor also would
be required to disclose any material
conflicts of interest, of which the
solicitor municipal advisor is aware
after reasonable inquiry that could
reasonably be anticipated to impair the
solicitor municipal advisor’s ability to
solicit the solicited entity in accordance
with its duty of fair dealing.107 The
MSRB stated that this obligation is
comparable to a non-solicitor municipal
advisor’s obligation under Rule G–42 to
disclose to its clients all material
conflicts of interest, including any
conflicts, of which the municipal
advisor is aware after reasonable
inquiry, that could reasonably be
anticipated to impair the municipal
advisor’s ability to provide advice to or
on behalf of the client in accordance
with the standards set forth in the
rule.108 The MSRB observed that this
proposed change is comparable to the
obligation under the IA Marketing Rule
to disclose that a promoter, due to the
fact that it is compensated, has an
incentive to recommend the investment
adviser it promotes, resulting in a
material conflict of interest.109 The
MSRB concluded that disclosure of such
conflict-of-interest information is key to
assisting a solicited entity in evaluating
the solicitor municipal advisor’s
statements and in determining whether
to retain the solicitor’s client.110 In
Amendment No. 1., the MSRB corrected
a typographical error (i.e., remove an
105 Id.
106 Notice,
88 FR at 9565–66.
88 FR at 9566.
108 Id.; see Rule G–42(b)(i)(F).
109 Notice, 88 FR at 9566.
110 The MSRB offered the example that, without
a specific disclosure about a solicitor municipal
advisor’s incentives, a solicitation creates a risk that
the solicited entity would mistakenly view the
solicitor municipal advisor’s recommendation as
being an unbiased opinion about the solicitor
client’s ability to, for example, manage the solicited
entity’s assets, and would rely on that
recommendation more than the solicited entity
otherwise would if the solicited entity knew of the
solicitor municipal advisor’s incentive. Id.
107 Notice,
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20009
errant ‘‘’s’’ from the rule text) in
proposed Rule G–46(e)(ii).111
iii. Solicitor Client Disclosures
The MSRB wrote that Proposed Rule
G–46(e)(iii) would require a solicitor
municipal advisor to provide to the
solicited entity the following
information regarding the solicitor
client the type of information that is
generally available on Form MA (in the
case of a municipal advisor client) or
Form ADV, Part 2 (in the case of an
investment adviser client) or Form ADV,
Part 2 (in the case of an investment
adviser client); and a description of how
the solicited entity can obtain a copy of
the solicitor client’s Form MA or Form
ADV, Part 2, as applicable.112
The MSRB stated that these
requirements are designed to help
ensure that, at any early stage, solicited
entities are directed to important
written information about the entities
the solicitor municipal advisor
represents—including, but not limited
to, information about the disciplinary
history of the solicitor municipal
advisor’s clients.113 However, the MSRB
provided that it does not require
solicitor municipal advisors to obtain a
copy of these documents and provide
them to their solicited entities, nor does
it require a solicitor municipal advisor
to disclose any specific information
about the client that is included in such
forms.
6. Timing and Manner of Disclosures to
Solicited Entities
The MSRB explained that Proposed
Rule G–46(f), as modified by
Amendment No. 1., would provide that
any disclosures required under section
(e) of the proposed rule (pertaining to
disclosures to solicited entities) must be
made in writing.114 The MSRB also
noted the proposed rule would provide
for a dual-disclosure requirement, such
that solicitations that result in a
solicited entity engaging a solicitor
client would receive the requisite
disclosures twice.115 Specifically, the
MSRB explained that the solicited entity
would receive the disclosures once at
the time of the first communication
giving rise to the solicitation and again
at the time that engagement
documentation pertaining to the
solicited entity’s engagement of the
solicitor client is delivered (or promptly
thereafter).116
111 Amendment
112 Notice,
No. 1.
88 FR at 9566.
113 Id.
114 Id.
See also Amendment No. 1.
88 FR at 9566.
115 Notice,
116 Id.
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
20010
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2023 / Notices
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
i. Initial Disclosure at the Time of the
First Communication
The MSRB stated that the disclosures
would be required to be delivered at the
time of the first communication (as that
term is used in the definition of
‘‘solicitation’’) with a solicited entity on
behalf of a specific solicitor client.117
Specifically, the MSRB wrote that the
disclosures would be required to be
provided to the solicitor client
representative with whom such
communication is made. In the case of
an indirect solicitation—a solicitation of
an intermediary who represents a
municipal entity or obligated person—
the MSRB expounded that disclosures
must be provided to the intermediary
with whom such communication is
made.118 In Amendment No. 1, the
MSRB made a technical correction to
state that, at the time of such first direct
communication with a solicited entity
on behalf of a specific solicitor client,
the requisite disclosures must be
provided to the solicited entity
representative (rather than the solicitor
client representative as set forth in the
Notice) with whom such
communication is made.119 Amendment
No. 1 also corrected an errant crossreference in proposed Rule G–46(f)(i)
ii. Second Disclosure at the Time of the
Solicitor Client’s Engagement With the
Solicited Entity
The MSRB noted that if the
solicitation results in a solicited entity
engaging a solicitor client for
investment advisory services or
municipal advisory services, all
disclosures required by Proposed Rule
G–46(e) would be required to be
provided at the time that such
engagement documentation is delivered
to the solicited entity or promptly
thereafter.120 The MSRB concluded that
this is the case even if there are no
changes between the initial set of
disclosures and the second set of
disclosures.121
The MSRB also described that the
second set of disclosures may be
provided by either the solicitor client or
the solicitor municipal advisor.122 The
MSRB wrote that this flexibility would
permit, for example, a solicitor
municipal advisor’s investment adviser
client to provide the solicitor’s
disclosures to the solicited entity at the
time that the investment adviser enters
into an engagement with the solicited
entity.123 Further, the MSRB noted that
these disclosures would be required to
be made to an official of the solicited
entity that: (1) the solicitor municipal
advisor (or, the solicitor client, if the
solicitor client provides such
disclosures) reasonably believes has the
authority to bind the solicited entity by
contract; and (2) is not a party to a
disclosed conflict.124 The MSRB
explained that these two conditions
would not apply to the initial delivery
of disclosures.125
The MSRB stated that this dual or
bifurcated approach would help ensure
that the person that is initially solicited
receives this key information in time to
consider it in connection with the initial
solicitation.126 However, the MSRB
explained that, because such person(s)
may not have the authority to bind the
solicited entity by contract (particularly
where such person is an intermediary
between the solicitor and the solicited
entity), the MSRB would require the
disclosures to be provided again at the
time of the engagement between the
solicited entity and the solicitor client
(or promptly thereafter).127 The MSRB
posited that any risk associated with the
first disclosures not being passed on to
a knowledgeable person with the
authority to bind the solicited entity in
contract would be mitigated by
requiring that the disclosures are
provided again at the time of the
engagement—this time, to someone who
does have such authority.128
Additionally, the MSRB noted that the
MSRB has observed that solicitations
may sometimes span years, and
particularly in such instances, the
MSRB concluded that it is important
that the solicited entity receives the
disclosures again at the time of the
solicitor client’s engagement with the
solicited entity.129
7. Specified Prohibitions
The MSRB stated that Proposed Rule
G–46(g) expressly would prohibit a
solicitor municipal advisor from
delivering an invoice for fees or
expenses for municipal advisory
activities that is materially inaccurate in
its reflection of the activities actually
performed or the personnel that actually
performed those activities; and making
payments for the purpose of obtaining
or retaining an engagement to perform
municipal advisory activities.130
88 FR at 9566–67.
125 Notice, 88 FR at 9567.
126 Id.
127 Id.
128 Id.
129 Id.
130 Id.
118 Id.
119 Amendment
120 Notice,
No. 1.
88 FR at 9566.
121 Id.
122 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Apr 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
C. Proposed Rule G–46 Supplementary
Material
Proposed Rule G–46 would set forth
four supplementary material sections:
• Providing additional explanation
regarding the MSRB’s expectations with
respect to the reasonable basis a
solicitor municipal advisor must have
for the representations described in
Proposed Rule G–46(d); 136
• Explaining the relationship between
a solicitor municipal advisor’s fair
dealing obligations and the applicability
of a federal fiduciary duty for municipal
advisors; 137
• Explaining the relationship between
a municipal advisor’s obligations under
Proposed Rule G–46 and Rule G–42; 138
and
131 Id.
132 Id.
133 Id.
123 Id.
124 Notice,
117 Id.
Specifically, the MSRB wrote that
solicitor municipal advisors would be
prohibited from making payments for
the purpose of obtaining or retaining an
engagement to perform municipal
advisory activities other than:
• payments to an affiliate for a direct
or indirect communication with a
municipal entity or obligated person on
behalf of the solicitor municipal advisor
where such communication is made for
the purpose of obtaining or retaining an
engagement to perform municipal
advisory activities; 131
• reasonable fees paid to another
municipal advisor registered as such
with the Commission and the MSRB for
making a communication for the
purpose of obtaining or retaining an
engagement to perform municipal
advisory activities; 132 and
• payments that are permissible
‘‘normal business dealings’’ as described
in Rule G–20, on gifts, gratuities, noncash compensation and expenses of
issuance.133
The MSRB explained that that these
specified prohibitions are modeled on
similar prohibitions applicable to nonsolicitors under Rule G–42(e)(i) and to
a lesser degree would align with certain
prohibitions applicable to underwriters
under the G–17 Underwriter’s
Guidance.134
In Amendment No. 1 the MSRB
proposed to correct an errant internal
cross-reference in Proposed Rule G–
46(g)(ii).135
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
134 Id. See Rule G–42(e)(i); see also G–17
Underwriter’s Guidance at section titled,
‘‘Underwriter Compensation and New Issue
Pricing.’’
135 Amendment No. 1.
136 Notice, 88 FR at 9567.
137 Id.
138 Id.
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2023 / Notices
• Providing additional detail
regarding a solicitor municipal advisor’s
compensation documentation and
disclosure obligations.139
The MSRB stated that Supplementary
Material .03 explains that municipal
advisors should be mindful that one
may be, simultaneously, both a solicitor
municipal advisor for purposes of
Proposed Rule G–46 and a non-solicitor
municipal advisor for purposes of Rule
G–42.140 For example, the MSRB
explained that a municipal advisor may
provide ‘‘advice’’ as defined in Rule G–
42 to a municipal entity (the ‘‘advisory
engagement’’) and separately may act as
a solicitor municipal advisor with
respect to that same municipal entity or
another municipal entity as
contemplated in Proposed Rule G–46
(the ‘‘solicitor municipal advisor
engagement’’).141 The MSRB wrote that
the municipal advisor would be subject
to Rule G–42 with respect to the
advisory engagement and would be
subject to Proposed Rule G–46 with
respect to the solicitor municipal
advisor engagement.142 The MSRB
stated that municipal advisors should
evaluate the activity undertaken with
respect to each engagement to determine
which rule governs and ensure the
written supervisory procedures required
under Rule G–44 reflect such.143
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
D. Proposed Amendments to MSRB Rule
G–8
The MSRB explained that proposed
amendments to Rule G–8 would add
specific recordkeeping obligations
designed to help facilitate and
document compliance with Proposed
Rule G–46. Specifically, the MSRB
stated that these amendments would
add new subsection (viii) requiring
solicitor municipal advisors to make
and keep the following books and
records: 144
• evidence that the disclosures
required by Proposed Rule G–46(b) were
made in the manner required by that
section; 145
• a copy of each writing or writings
required by Proposed Rule G–46(c); 146
• documentation substantiating the
solicitor municipal advisor’s reasonable
basis for believing its representations as
described in Proposed Rule G–46(d)
(e.g., a checklist confirming that an
investment adviser client’s Form ADV
was reviewed); 147 and
• evidence that the disclosures
required by Proposed Rule G–46(e) were
made in the manner described in
Proposed Rule G–46(f) (e.g., automatic
email delivery receipt).148
III. Summary of Comment Received
and MSRB’s Response
The Commission received one
comment letter on the proposed rule
change, as well as response from the
MSRB to this comment letter. As more
fully described below, the SIFMA Letter
argued that the proposed MSRB Rule G–
46 is unclear and unworkable in several
areas, and therefore, urged the SEC to
disapprove the proposed rule.149 The
MSRB’s Response Letter responded
directly to each of these points.150
Avoiding Unnecessary Regulation
SIFMA explained that its members
believe that the proposed rule change is
confusing and unnecessary, as many
solicitor municipal advisors are already
regulated by the SEC pursuant to the
Investment Advisers Act.151 SIFMA also
reiterated a request for the MSRB to
prohibit municipal advisors from paying
third-party municipal advisors for a
solicitation of municipal advisory
business.152 Finally, SIFMA warned that
solicitation of municipal advisors could
‘‘create material conflict of interest,’’
and thereby, create circumstances
leading to corruption that ‘‘could be
damaging to the integrity of the
municipal securities market.’’ 153
In its Response Letter, the MSRB
stated that the proposed rule change is
designed to harmonize with relevant
rules under comparative regimes,
including the regime for investment
advisers.154 The MSRB also indicated
that the MSRB does not believe that the
fact that some solicitor municipal
advisors are also investment advisers
obviates the need for regulation in their
capacity as solicitor municipal
advisors.155 Further, the MSRB
responded to SIFMA’s conflict of
interest concerns by noting that, among
other things, the proposed rule change
is designed to address these material
conflicts of interest and to provide some
guardrails around such solicitation
activities.156 The MSRB concluded that
147 Id.
148 Id.
139 Id.
149 SIFMA
140 Id.
150 See
Letter at 1.
Response Letter.
151 SIFMA Letter at 2.
152 Id.
153 Id.
154 Response Letter at 2.
155 Id.
156 Id.
141 Id.
142 Id.
143 Id.
144 Id.
145 Id.
146 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Apr 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
the proposed rule change’s approach (as
opposed to the outright prohibition on
paying solicitor municipal advisors for
their third-party solicitations of
municipal advisory business) is
consistent with the apparent intent in
the Dodd-Frank Act in granting
rulemaking authority to the MSRB over
such conduct.157
Inadvertent Solicitations
SIFMA further indicated that a safe
harbor for inadvertent solicitations is
warranted because there confusion
exists as to what disclosures are due to
which parties and when.158
In response to SIFMA’s concern, the
MSRB explained that, as described in
Amendment No. 1, the MSRB made a
technical correction to the proposed
rule change to correct a typographical
error in Proposed Rule G–46(f)(i)(A) that
it believes may have inadvertently
contributed to any confusion.159 The
MSRB identified that Amendment No.
1’s revisions clarify that, at the time of
the first direct communication with a
solicited entity on behalf of a specific
solicitor client, the requisite disclosures
must be provided to the solicited entity
representative (rather than the solicitor
client representative as set forth in the
Notice) with whom such
communication is made.160 Further, the
MSRB explained that this prose is
consistent with the heading of section
(f) of Proposed Rule G–46 (titled
‘‘Timing and Manner of Disclosures to
Solicited Entities’’).161
The MSRB described that the dual
disclosure obligation set forth in the
proposed rule change require the
following. For direct solicitations of a
solicited entity by a solicitor municipal
advisor, the MSRB stated that, at the
time of the first solicitation, the solicitor
municipal advisor would be required to
make the disclosures required by
Proposed Rule G–46(e) to the solicited
entity representative (i.e., the person
actually solicited, such as an employee
of the solicited entity).162 The MSRB
also noted that, if that solicitation
results in the solicited entity engaging
the solicitor client for investment
advisory services or municipal advisory
services, all disclosures required by
Proposed Rule G–46(e) would be
required to be provided again at the
time that such engagement
documentation is delivered to the
solicited entity or promptly
157 Id.
158 SIFMA
Letter at 2.
Letter at 2.
159 Response
160 Id.
161 Id.
162 Response
Sfmt 4703
20011
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
Letter at 2–3.
04APN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
20012
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2023 / Notices
thereafter.163 The MSRB wrote that the
same standard would apply for indirect
solicitations, except for the fact that, at
the time of the first solicitation, the
disclosures would be required to be
provided to the intermediary with
whom such communication is made.164
The MSRB stated that a solicitor
municipal advisor may make multiple
solicitations of a solicited entity
(sometimes spanning more than one
year) before a solicitation may result in
a solicited entity engaging a solicitor
client.165 As a result, the MSRB
concluded that it is important that the
disclosures set forth in Proposed Rule
G–46(e) are provided twice—once in
connection with the initial solicitation
so that the solicitee can appropriately
evaluate the disclosures in connection
with the solicitation and again at the
time of the relevant engagement when
an official that is reasonably believed to
have the authority to bind the solicited
entity by contract is guaranteed to
receive the disclosures.166
Next, the MSRB asserted that,
pursuant to Sections 15B(e)(4)(ii) and
(e)(9) of the Exchange Act,167 one meets
the definition of a ‘‘municipal advisor’’
if, in relevant part, one undertakes a
direct or indirect communication with a
municipal entity or obligated person.168
Consequently, the MSRB deemed it
consistent with a regulated entity’s
supervisory and compliance obligations
to expect regulated entities to be
cognizant of their communications and
to put into place appropriate processes
to help them ascertain whether or not
they are engaging in municipal advisory
activity.169 The MSRB explained that, in
the context of third-party solicitations,
one such mechanism may be to inquire
of intermediaries whether they
represent municipal entities or obligated
persons.170 The MSRB also noted that
nothing would prohibit a solicitor
municipal advisor from, out of an
abundance of caution, providing the
disclosures specified in Proposed Rule
G–46(e) to all intermediaries that the
solicitor municipal advisor solicits.
After careful consideration, the MSRB
stated that a safe harbor for inadvertent
solicitations is not warranted. The
MSRB explained that, consistent with
the definition of ‘‘municipal advisor’’
under the Exchange Act, to trigger the
application of Proposed Rule G–46, a
163 Response
Letter at 3.
164 Id.
solicitor municipal advisor must
undertake the relevant solicitation ‘‘for
the purpose of obtaining or retaining’’
an engagement between the solicited
entity and the solicitor client.171
Because this requires affirmative intent,
the MSRB deemed that a provision for
‘‘inadvertent’’ solicitations is not
appropriate.172 To that end, the MSRB
concluded that the example set forth in
the SIFMA Letter would subject a firm
to Proposed Rule G–46. If a firm initially
solicits a solicited entity on its own
behalf, but the solicited entity
unilaterally chooses not to engage the
firm and, instead, seeks to engage a
third-party investment adviser and the
firm earns compensation based on such
engagement, the MSRB does not believe
that the firm would be subject to
Proposed Rule G–46 if it has not
solicited the solicited entity for the
purpose of obtaining or retaining an
engagement on behalf of that third-party
investment adviser.173
III. Discussion of Commission’s
Findings
The Commission has carefully
considered the proposed rule change,
the comment letter received, the MSRB
Response Letter, and Amendment No. 1.
The Commission finds that the
proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, is consistent with
the requirements of the Exchange Act,
and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to the MSRB.
In particular, the Commission
believes that the proposed rule change,
as modified by Amendment No. 1, is
consistent with the provisions of
Section 15B(b)(2)(C), which provides, in
part, that the MSRB’s rules shall be
designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in municipal
securities and municipal financial
products, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market in municipal securities and
municipal financial products, and, in
general, to protect investors, municipal
entities, obligated persons, and the
public interest.174
The Commission finds that the
proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, will: (i) prevent
165 Id.
166 Id.
167 15
U.S.C. 78o–4(e)(4) and (e)(9).
168 Response Letter at 3.
169 Id.
170 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Apr 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
171 Exchange Act Section 15B(e)(9), 15 U.S.C.
78o–4(e)(9).
172 Response Letter at 3.
173 Response Letter at 3–4.
174 15 U.S.C. 78o–4(b)(2)(C).
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices; (ii) foster cooperation and
coordination among regulators; and (iii)
protect investors, municipal entities,
obligated persons, and the public
interest.
A. Prevention of Fraudulent and
Manipulative Acts and Practices
The Commission finds that the
proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, would help prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices.
First, Proposed Rule G–46 would
expressly prohibit solicitor municipal
advisors from making a representation
that the solicitor municipal advisor
knows or should know is either
materially false or misleading regarding
the capacity, resources or knowledge of
the solicitor client.175 Second, Proposed
Rule G–46 would require solicitor
municipal advisors to have a reasonable
basis for any material representations
the solicitor municipal advisor makes to
a solicited entity regarding the capacity,
resources or knowledge of the solicitor
client.176 Third, Proposed Rule G–46
expressly would prohibit solicitor
municipal advisors from delivering an
inaccurate invoice for fees or
expenses.177 The Commission believes
that the proposed rule change’s
prohibitions prevent either: (i) forms of
fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices themselves (e.g., materially
false or misleading representations and
inaccurate invoices for fees or expenses)
or (ii) behavior that could reasonably be
understood to accompany (or serve as
indicia of) the commission of fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, if
they are not fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices
themselves (e.g., lacking reasonable
basis for a material representation).
Furthermore, the proposed
Supplementary Materials to Rule G–46
provide explanations of Proposed Rule
G–46’s prohibitions of fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices. This
increased clarity would increase the
effectiveness of such prohibitions by
raising understanding of these
prohibitions among solicitor municipal
advisors and the municipal entities and
obligated persons with whom they
interact.
Additionally, Proposed Rule G–46
prohibit solicitor municipal advisors
from making payments for the purpose
of obtaining or retaining an engagement
to perform municipal advisory activities
175 Notice,
88 FR 9568.
176 Id.
177 Id.
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2023 / Notices
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
(subject to specified exceptions).178
Among other things, the Commission
finds that this prohibition would
effectively require solicitor municipal
advisors to use only associated persons
or other regulated solicitor municipal
advisors to obtain business on their
behalf. This proposed rule change
would help ensure that only regulated
persons (who are subject to rules
designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices) may
engage in solicitation activities on
behalf of a solicitor municipal advisor.
As such, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change, as modified
by Amendment No. 1, helps prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices.
B. Fostering Cooperation and
Coordination
The Commission finds that the
proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, would foster
cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating
transactions in municipal securities and
municipal financial products.
Proposed Rule G–46 requires solicitor
municipal advisors to document their
relationships in writing that includes
certain minimum content that is vital to
the solicitor municipal advisor, its
clients and applicable regulators in
understanding the material terms of an
engagement (including the scope of
agreed-upon activities, information
pertaining to compensation for such
activities and whether the solicitation of
municipal entities and/or obligated
persons is anticipated).179 Proposed
Rule G–46’s new documentation
obligation (and the Supplementary
Materials to Rule G–46 explaining it)
would help promote certainty as to the
applicable regulatory scheme for any
engagement since only solicitations of
municipal entities and obligated
persons would be subject to Proposed
Rule G–46, whereas other solicitations
may fall within the jurisdiction of the
rules of other regulators (e.g., the
Commission or the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority). By promoting
certainty regarding the regulatory
scheme applicable to solicitor
municipal advisors, the proposed rule
change will allow different regulators to
operate with a common understanding
that these solicitations fall under the
new regulatory regime for solicitor
municipal advisors.
Similarly, the Commission finds that
proposed Rule G–46 and the proposed
amendments to Rule G–8 would assist
regulators who examine solicitor
municipal advisors understand the
solicitation arrangement through both
Proposed Rule G–46’s documentation
requirements, as well as Rule G–8’s
requirements that such documentation
be preserved in solicitor municipal
advisor’s books and records.180
Furthermore, these proposals would
provide these regulators with necessary
information to assist in evaluating a
solicitor municipal advisor’s
compliance with relevant obligations.181
The Commission further believes that
the proposed amendments to Rule G–8
(with the ensuing application of existing
MSRB Rule G–9 on records
preservation) would help create an audit
trail, assisting examination and
enforcement authorities in their
examination for compliance with, and
prosecution of, these prohibitions.182
As such, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change, as modified
by Amendment No. 1, fosters
cooperation and coordination among
persons engaged in regulating
transactions in municipal securities and
municipal financial products.
C. Protection of Municipal Entities,
Obligated Persons, and the Public
Interest
The Commission believes that the
proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, would protect
municipal entities, obligated persons,
and the public interest.
Specifically, Proposed Rule G–46
requires solicitor municipal advisors to
disclose in writing all of their material
conflicts of interest and material legal or
disciplinary events to the entities that
determine whether to hire such solicitor
municipal advisors.183 The Commission
finds that this requirement would
increase solicitor municipal advisor
accountability and discourage conduct
inconsistent with a solicitor municipal
advisor’s obligations under Proposed
Rule G–46 because such conduct would
be required to be disclosed in
information provided to clients.
Specifically, the Commission finds that
a municipal entity or obligated person
could view a solicitor municipal
advisor’s disclosure of material conflict
of interests and/or disclosure of material
legal or disciplinary events as a reason
to avoid retaining that solicitor
municipal advisor. Therefore, the
Commission believes that a solicitor
municipal advisors may try to avoid
such behavior to avoid losing future
180 Id.
181 Id.
178 Id.
182 Notice,
179 Id.
183 Notice,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Apr 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
88 FR at 9567–68.
88 FR at 9565–66.
Frm 00111
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20013
engagements. As such, the Commission
finds that the proposed rule change
incentivizes firms to refrain from
behavior that could harm municipal
entities and obligated persons, and
therefore, protect municipal entities,
obligated persons, and the public
interest.
The proposed rule change also would
protect municipal entities, obligated
persons, and the public interest by
setting forth obligations applicable to
solicitor municipal advisors similar to
those applicable to non-solicitor
municipal advisors to their clients
under Rule G–42. Like non-solicitor
municipal advisors, solicitor municipal
advisors would be required to: disclose
their material conflicts of interest; 184
document their relationships in
writing; 185 and refrain from certain
conduct such as making certain
materially false or misleading
representations,186 delivering a
materially inaccurate invoice,187 and
making certain payments for the
purpose of obtaining or retaining an
engagement.188 Under Proposed Rule G–
46, the protections provided by these
provisions would be provided to
municipal entities and obligated
persons solicited by solicitor municipal
advisors. Furthermore, the proposed
changes to Rule G–8 would mandate
preserving records related to Proposed
Rule G–46; as such, Rule G–8 would
strengthening these new protections by
compelling contemporaneous
documentation of compliance with
them.
As such, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change, as modified
by Amendment No. 1, protects
municipal entities, obligated persons,
and the public interest.
In approving the proposed rule
change, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule change’s impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital
formation.189 Exchange Act Section
15B(b)(2)(C) 190 requires that MSRB
rules not be designed to impose any
burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Exchange Act. The
Commission does not believe the
proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, would impose any
new burden on competition as it would
apply a regulatory regime equally to all
184 See
Rule G–42(b)(i)(F).
Rule G–42(c) and Proposed Rule G–46(c).
186 See Rule G–42(e)(i)(C) and Proposed Rule G–
46(d)(i).
187 See Rule G–42(e)(i)(B) and Proposed Rule G–
46(g)(i).
188 See Rule G–8 and Rule G–46.
189 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
190 15 U.S.C. 78o–4(b)(2)(C).
185 See
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
20014
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2023 / Notices
solicitor municipal advisors (similar to
the regime that currently exists for nonsolicitor municipal advisors under Rule
G–42 and Rule G–8 on recordkeeping,
and for underwriters under the Rule G–
17 Underwriter’s Guidance).191 This
consequence of the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No.
1, would not burden competition.
Further, the Commission finds that on
an ongoing year-by-year basis, the
additional regulatory burden imposed
would be proportional to each solicitor
municipal advisory firm’s size and
business activities. Accordingly, the
Commission does not believe that the
proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, would result in any
additional burden on competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in in
furtherance of the purposes of the
Exchange Act.
The Commission also finds that the
proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, will not hinder
capital formation. As noted above, the
proposed rule change brings a
regulatory regime to solicitor municipal
advisors similar to the regimes that
currently exist for non-solicitor
municipal advisors and underwriters.
Therefore, Commission finds that the
proposed rule change would not
negatively impact the municipal
securities market’s operational
efficiency.
The Commission also finds that the
proposed rule change includes
provisions that could help promote
efficiency. As noted above, the
Commission believes that the proposed
rule change would promote clearer
regulatory requirements for all solicitor
municipal advisors.
As noted above, the Commission
received one comment letter on the
filing. The Commission believes that the
MSRB, through its response and
Amendment No. 1, addressed the
commenters’ concerns. For the reasons
noted above, the Commission believes
that the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, is
consistent with the Exchange Act.
Electronic Comments
V. Solicitation of Comments on
Amendment No. 1
The Commission finds good cause for
approving the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to
the 30th day after the date of
publication of notice of Amendment No.
1 in the Federal Register. As noted by
the MSRB, Amendment No. 1 does not
raise any significant issues with respect
to the proposed rule change and only
provides a minor change to address an
issue raised by the commenter and other
technical corrections. Further, the
Interested persons are invited to
submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing,
including whether Amendment No. 1 is
consistent with the Exchange Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
191 See
Rules G–42; G–8; and G–17.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Apr 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
• Use the Commission’s internet
comment form (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml); or
• Send an email to rule-comments@
sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–
MSRB–2023–02 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
• Send paper comments in triplicate
to Secretary, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549.
All submissions should refer to File
Number SR–MSRB–2023–02. This file
number should be included on the
subject line if email is used. To help the
Commission 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/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 website 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 also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal
office of the MSRB. All comments
received will be posted without change;
the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR–MSRB–
2023–02 and should be submitted on or
before April 25, 2023.
VI. Accelerated Approval of Proposed
Rule Change as Modified by
Amendment No. 1
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, is designed to ease
burdens without negatively affecting
investors or the public interest.
For the foregoing reasons, the
Commission finds good cause for
approving the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, on an
accelerated basis, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act.
VII. Conclusion
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,192
that the proposed rule change (SR–
MSRB–2023–02) be, and hereby is,
approved.
For the Commission, by the Office of
Municipal Securities, pursuant to delegated
authority.193
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023–06899 Filed 4–3–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[SEC File No. 270–40, OMB Control No.
3235–0313]
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request; Extension: Rule 203–2 &
Form ADV–W
Upon Written Request, Copies Available
From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services,
100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549–2736
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities
and Exchange Commission
(‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments
on the collection of information
summarized below. The Commission
plans to submit this existing collection
of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension
and approval.
The title for the collection of
information is ‘‘Rule 203–2 (17 CFR
275.203–2) and Form ADV–W (17 CFR
279.2) under the Investment Advisers
Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b).’’ Rule 203–
2 under the Investment Advisers Act of
1940 establishes procedures for an
investment adviser to withdraw its
registration or pending registration with
the Commission. Rule 203–2 requires
every person withdrawing from
investment adviser registration with the
Commission to file Form ADV–W
electronically on the Investment
Adviser Registration Depository
192 15
193 17
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
04APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 4, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20004-20014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06899]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-97218; File No. SR-MSRB-2023-02]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, To Create New MSRB Rule G-46, on Duties of Solicitor
Municipal Advisors, and To Amend MSRB Rule G-8, on Books and Records
March 29, 2023.
I. Introduction
On January 31, 2023, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``MSRB'' or ``Board'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to create a new rule, MSRB
Rule G-46 (``Rule G-46''), on duties of solicitor municipal advisors
(``Proposed Rule G-46'') and amend MSRB Rule G-8 (``Rule G-8''), on
books and records (``Proposed Amended Rule G-8'') (together, the
``proposed rule change'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on February 14, 2023.\3\ The public comment period closed on
March 7, 2023.\4\ The Commission received one comment letter on the
proposed rule change.\5\ On March 23, 2023, the MSRB responded to the
comment letter \6\ and filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change (``Amendment No. 1'').\7\ The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change from interested parties and is approving the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Release No. 34-96842 (February 8, 2023), 88 FR 9560
(February 14, 2023) (File No. MSRB-2023-02) (the ``Notice'').
\4\ The comment letter received on the proposed rule change is
available on the Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov.
\5\ See Letter to Secretary, from Leslie Norwood, Managing
Director and Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA''), dated March 7, 2023
(``SIFMA Letter'').
\6\ See Letter to Secretary, Commission, from Saliha Olgun,
Interim Chief Regulatory Officer, MSRB, dated March 23, 2023
(``Response Letter'').
\7\ Id. As described in Amendment No. 1, the MSRB stated it
proposed to amend the original proposed rule change to make a change
directly responsive to the comments and two other technical changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Description of Proposed Rule Change
As described further below, the proposed rule change consists of
new Proposed Rule G-46, as modified by Amendment No. 1, and amendments
to Rule G-8.
A. Solicitor Municipal Advisor Activity
There are two broad categories of municipal advisors--those that
provide certain advice to or on behalf of a municipal entity or
obligated person and those that undertake certain solicitations of a
municipal entity or obligated person on behalf of certain third-party
financial professionals.\8\ The first category of municipal advisors is
often referred to as non-solicitor municipal advisors, while the latter
is sometimes referred to as solicitors.\9\
[[Page 20005]]
Proposed Rule G-46 would govern the conduct of these solicitors, more
specifically defined as ``solicitor municipal advisors'' under Proposed
Rule G-46(a)(vi).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Exchange Act Section 15B(e)(4) generally defines ``municipal
advisor'' to mean a person (who is not a municipal entity or an
employee of a municipal entity) that (i) provides advice to or on
behalf of a municipal entity or obligated person with respect to
municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal
securities, including advice with respect to the structure, timing,
terms, and other similar matters concerning such financial products
or issues; or (ii) undertakes a solicitation of a municipal entity.
Additionally, the SEC has interpreted the definition of ``municipal
advisor'' to include a person who engages in the solicitation of an
obligated person acting in the capacity of an obligated person. 15
U.S.C. 78o-4(e)(4). See also Release No. 34-70462 (September 20,
2013), 78 FR 67468 (November 12, 2013) (File No. S7-45-10) at 67469,
n. 138, 408; 17 CFR 240.15Ba1-1(d)(1)(i).
\9\ Exchange Act Section 15B(e)(9) generally defines
``solicitation of a municipal entity or obligated person'' to mean a
direct or indirect communication with a municipal entity or
obligated person made by a person, for direct or indirect
compensation, on behalf of a broker, dealer, municipal securities
dealer, municipal advisor, or investment adviser that does not
control, is not controlled by, or is not under common control with
the person undertaking such solicitation for the purpose of
obtaining or retaining an engagement by a municipal entity or
obligated person of a broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer,
or municipal advisor for or in connection with municipal financial
products, the issuance of municipal securities, or of an investment
adviser to provide investment advisory services to or on behalf of a
municipal entity. 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(e)(9).
\10\ Notice, 88 FR at 9561.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Exchange Act \11\ permits a municipal advisor to
conduct such solicitations on behalf of a third-party broker, dealer or
municipal securities dealer (collectively and individually
``dealers''),\12\ MSRB Rule G-38 (``Rule G-38''), on solicitation of
municipal securities business, prohibits a dealer from providing or
agreeing to provide payment to third parties for solicitations of
municipal securities business made on behalf of the dealer.\13\
Additionally, the MSRB stated that a substantial number of
solicitations that would be subject to Proposed Rule G-46 involve a
solicitation on behalf of a third-party investment adviser to provide
investment advisory services to a municipal entity.\14\ The MSRB noted
that such solicitations often occur in connection with the solicitation
of a public pension plan.\15\ For example, the MSRB offered that, if a
person communicates with a public pension plan for the purpose of
getting a particular investment advisory firm hired by the plan to
provide investment advisory services to such plan, that person may be a
solicitor municipal advisor if such person is paid by the investment
advisory firm for the communication and if such person and the
investment advisory firm are not affiliated.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(e)(4) and (e)(9).
\12\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(4)(a) (defining the term ``broker'' to
mean any person engaged in the business of effecting transactions in
securities for the account of others); see also 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(5)
(defining the term ``dealer'' to mean any person engaged in the
business of buying and selling securities (not including security-
based swaps, other than security-based swaps with or for persons
that are not eligible contract participants) for such person's own
account through a broker or otherwise) and 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(30)
(defining the term ``municipal securities dealer'' to mean any
person (including a separately identifiable department or division
of a bank) engaged in the business of buying and selling municipal
securities for his own account, through a broker or otherwise,
subject to certain exclusions).
\13\ The prohibition in Rule G-38 predates the regulation of
municipal advisors. See Release No. 34-52278 (August 17, 2005), 70
FR 49342 (August 23, 2005) (File No. MSRB-2005-04).
\14\ Notice, 88 FR at 9561.
\15\ Id.
\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB also stated the number of municipal advisors that engage
in solicitations that may subject them to Proposed Rule G-46 comprise a
relatively small percentage of the municipal advisors that are
registered with the MSRB.\17\ Notwithstanding the relatively small size
of such solicitation market, the MSRB argued that it is important that
the fundamental protections extended to the municipal entity and
obligated person clients of other MSRB-regulated entities be extended
to the municipal entities and obligated persons with whom solicitor
municipal advisors interact.\18\ Due to such increased protections
contemplated by the proposed rule change, the MSRB concluded that the
proposed rule change would serve as an important bulwark against
potential improper practices in the municipal market and also would
provide greater certainty and transparency to solicitor municipal
advisors regarding regulatory expectations.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Id.
\18\ Id.
\19\ Notice, 88 FR at 9562.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to solicitations on behalf of third parties to provide
investment advisory services, the MSRB stated that there are two ways
(discussed below) in which a solicitor municipal advisor typically may
solicit a municipal entity: (1) directly or (2) through an
intermediary.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Direct Solicitations
The MSRB identified that a solicitor municipal advisor often first
communicates with a staff member of the solicited entity (i.e., the
municipal entity or obligated person) who handles investment manager
research for the entity.\21\ The MSRB further described that this
individual generally is responsible for evaluating the solicitor
client's product/services to ensure they are appropriate for the entity
given the entity's investment policy statement guidelines and
restrictions.\22\ The MSRB elaborated that this first communication
potentially is one of many that may span years.\23\ Additionally, the
MSRB further observed the solicitor municipal advisor's client likely
will have its own communications with the solicited entity, which may
include board presentations, meetings and discussions during which the
solicitor municipal advisor may or may not be present.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Id.
\22\ Id.
\23\ Id.
\24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Indirect Solicitations Through an Intermediary
The MSRB explained that a solicitor municipal advisor typically
initially will solicit a financial intermediary or an investment
consultant (collectively ``intermediary'') who is hired by the
solicited entity to conduct searches and identify appropriate
investment managers to meet a municipal entity's specific need.\25\
Such intermediary itself may be a solicitor municipal advisor.
According to the MSRB, when a solicitor municipal advisor first
solicits the intermediary, the solicitor municipal advisor may not
necessarily know who the intermediary represents (i.e., whether the
intermediary represents municipal entities, obligated persons, other
private entities, or all of the above).\26\ Additionally, the MSRB
noted that the solicitor municipal advisor generally will not know
whether the intermediary will recommend the solicitor municipal
advisor's client to the intermediary's municipal entity client(s) (if
any). As a result, at the time of the first solicitation, the MSRB
stated that a solicitor municipal advisor may not know if it is
indirectly soliciting a municipal entity.\27\ The MSRB noted that
moreover, the solicitor municipal advisor's client (e.g., the
investment adviser) may engage in multiple subsequent communications
with either the intermediary and/or the intermediary's client (e.g.,
the municipal entity or obligated person), during which the solicitor
municipal advisor may or may not be present.\28\ In some instances, the
solicitor municipal advisor may never meet or directly communicate with
an intermediary's municipal entity or obligated person client.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Id.
\26\ Id.
\27\ Id.
\28\ Id.
\29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Summary of Proposed Rule G-46
As described in further detail below and in the Notice, the MSRB
stated that Proposed Rule G-46 would establish the core standards of
conduct and duties of ``solicitor municipal advisors'' when engaging in
solicitation activities that would require them to register with the
SEC and the MSRB as municipal advisors.\30\ The MSRB also noted that
Proposed Rule G-46 would codify certain statements contained in an MSRB
notice issued in 2017 pertaining
[[Page 20006]]
to the application of MSRB rules to solicitor municipal advisors.\31\
Those statements relate to the obligation of solicitor municipal
advisors under MSRB Rule G-17 (``Rule G-17''), on conduct of municipal
securities and municipal advisory activities (the ``G-17 Excerpt for
Solicitor Municipal Advisors'').\32\ In addition to codifying much of
the substance of the G-17 Excerpt for Solicitor Municipal Advisors, the
MSRB stated that the Proposed Rule G-46 also would add additional
requirements that would better align some of the obligations imposed on
solicitor municipal advisors with those applicable to: non-solicitor
municipal advisors under MSRB Rule G-42 (``Rule G-42''), on duties of
non-solicitor municipal advisors; underwriters under Rule G-17, on fair
dealing; and certain solicitations undertaken on behalf of third-party
investment advisers under the SEC's marketing rule for investment
advisers (the ``IA Marketing Rule'' or ``IA Rule 206(4)-1'').\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Id.
\31\ See MSRB Regulatory Notice 2017-08, Application of MSRB
Rules to Solicitor Municipal Advisors (May 4, 2017), available at
https://www.msrb.org/sites/default/files/2017-08.pdf (``Regulatory
Notice 2017-08'').
\32\ Notice, 88 FR at 9562.
\33\ 17 CFR 275.206(4)-1; Notice, 88 FR at 9562.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, the MSRB stated that the core provisions of Proposed
Rule G-46 generally would:
Set forth definitions for terms used in the proposed rule;
\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Notice, 88 FR at 9562.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Require solicitor municipal advisors to provide to their
solicitor clients full and fair disclosure in writing of all of their
material conflicts of interest and material legal or disciplinary
events; \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Require solicitor municipal advisors to document their
relationships in writing(s), deliver such writing(s) to their solicitor
clients, and set forth certain minimum content that must be included in
such writing(s); \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibit solicitor municipal advisors from making a
representation that the solicitor municipal advisor knows or should
know is either materially false or misleading regarding the capacity,
resources or knowledge of the solicitor client and require solicitor
municipal advisors to have a reasonable basis for any material
representations it makes to a solicited entity regarding the capacity,
resources or knowledge of the solicitor client; \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Require solicitor municipal advisors to disclose to
solicited entities material facts about the solicitation, including but
not limited to an obligation to disclose information about the
solicitor municipal advisor's role and compensation, the solicitor
municipal advisor's material conflict of interest; and information
regarding the solicitor client; \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Set forth a dual disclosure standard with respect to
required disclosures to solicited entities; \39\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Notice, 88 FR at 9563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expressly prohibit solicitor municipal advisors from:
delivering an inaccurate invoice for fees or expenses and making
payments for the purpose of obtaining or retaining an engagement to
perform municipal advisory activities subject to exceptions specified
in the rule.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB stated that the supplementary material to Proposed Rule G-
46 generally would:
Provide additional explanation regarding the MSRB's
expectations with respect to the reasonable basis a solicitor municipal
advisor must have for certain of its representations; \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain the relationship between a solicitor municipal
advisor's fair dealing obligations and a federal fiduciary duty for
municipal advisors; \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain the relationship between a municipal advisor's
obligations under Proposed Rule G-46 and Rule G-42; \43\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provide additional explanation applicable to a solicitor
municipal advisor's obligation to document its compensation arrangement
and make related disclosures.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Definitions
The MSRB explained that Proposed Rule G-46(a) would set forth a set
of definitions for terms used in the rule.\45\ In the proposed rule
change, the MSRB would define the terms ``compensation,'' \46\
``excluded communications,'' \47\ ``solicitation,'' ``solicited
entity,'' ``solicitor client,'' ``solicitor municipal advisor,'' and
``solicitor relationship.'' \48\ As detailed below, the MSRB identified
that several of these definitions are integral to understanding nearly
all of the provisions of Proposed Rule G-46, and the MSRB discussed
each of these definitions in fuller detail and context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Id.
\46\ Id. Proposed Rule G-46(a)(i) generally would provide that
``compensation'' means any cash, in-kind or non-cash remuneration,
including but not limited to merchandise, gifts, travel expenses,
meals and lodging. Notice, 88 FR at 9563, n.17.
\47\ Notice, 88 FR at 9563. Proposed Rule G-46(a)(ii) generally
would provide that ``excluded communications'' means (A) advertising
by a dealer, municipal advisor, or investment adviser; (B) direct or
indirect communications with an obligated person if such obligated
person is not acting in the capacity of an obligated person; (C)
direct or indirect communications with an obligated person made for
the purpose of obtaining or retaining an engagement that is not in
connection with the issuance of municipal securities or with respect
to municipal financial products; and (D) direct or indirect
communications made for the purpose of obtaining or retaining an
engagement for or in connection with municipal financial products
that are investment strategies to the extent that those investment
strategies are not plans or programs for the investment of the
proceeds of municipal securities or the recommendation of and
brokerage of municipal escrow investments. Notice, 88 FR at 9563,
n.18. The term ``excluded communications'' is used in the term
``solicitation,'' which would be defined in Proposed Rule G-
46(a)(iii). Id.
\48\ Notice, 88 FR at 9563. Proposed Rule G-46(a)(vii) generally
would provide that, for purposes of the rule, a ``solicitor
relationship'' is deemed to exist when a municipal advisor enters
into an agreement to undertake a solicitation of a municipal entity
or obligated person within the meaning of Exchange Act Section
15B(e)(9) and the rules and regulations thereunder. Notice, 88 FR at
9563, n.19. The solicitor relationship shall be deemed to have ended
on the date which is the earlier of (i) the date on which the
solicitor relationship has terminated pursuant to the terms of the
documentation of the solicitor relationship required by Proposed
Rule G-46(c) or (ii) the date on which the solicitor municipal
advisor withdraws from the solicitor relationship. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB noted that Proposed Rule G-46(a)(iii) generally would
define the term ``solicitation'' to mean a direct or indirect
communication with a municipal entity or obligated person made by a
solicitor municipal advisor, for direct or indirect compensation, on
behalf of a municipal advisor or investment adviser that does not
control, is not controlled by, or is not under common control with the
solicitor municipal advisor for the purpose of obtaining or retaining
an engagement by a municipal entity or obligated person of a municipal
advisor for or in connection with municipal financial products or the
issuance of municipal securities or of an investment adviser to provide
investment advisory services to or on behalf of a municipal entity;
provided, however, that it does not include excluded communications, as
defined in Proposed Rule G-46(a)(ii).\49\ The MSRB stated that this
definition is consistent with the defined term ``solicitation of a
municipal entity or obligated person'' under Exchange Act Section
15B(e)(9), except to the extent that the term ``solicitation'' under
Proposed Rule G-46(a)(iii) does not address solicitations undertaken on
behalf of a third-party dealer.\50\ The
[[Page 20007]]
MSRB stated that because Rule G-38 generally prohibits a dealer from
providing or agreeing to provide payment to third parties for
solicitations of municipal securities business made on behalf of the
dealer, Proposed Rule G-46 assumes that such solicitations do not
occur.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Notice, 88 FR at 9563.
\50\ Id.; 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(e)(9).
\51\ Notice, 88 FR at 9563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB wrote that Proposed Rule G-46(a)(iv) generally would
define the term ``solicited entity'' to mean any municipal entity or
obligated person (as those terms are defined in Exchange Act Sections
15B(e)(8) and (e)(10) \52\ and the rules and regulations thereunder)
that the solicitor municipal advisor has solicited, is soliciting or
intends to solicit within the meaning of Exchange Act Sections
15B(e)(4)(A)(ii) and (e)(9) \53\ and the rules and regulations
thereunder.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(e)(8) and (e)(10).
\53\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(e)(4)(A)(ii) and (e)(9).
\54\ Notice, 88 FR at 9563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB generally defined ``solicitor client'' in Proposed Rule G-
46(a)(v) to mean the municipal advisor or investment adviser on behalf
of whom the solicitor municipal advisor undertakes a solicitation
within the meaning of Exchange Act Sections 15B(e)(4)(A)(ii) and (e)(9)
\55\ and the rules and regulations thereunder.\56\ As the MSRB
previously noted, Proposed Rule G-46 presumes that solicitors do not
conduct paid solicitations on behalf of third-party dealers because of
the prohibition set forth in Rule G-38.\57\ As a result, the MSRB noted
that Proposed Rule G-46(a)(v)'s definition of ``solicitor client'' does
not include dealers as solicitor clients.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Id.
\56\ Id.
\57\ Id.
\58\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB generally defined ``solicitor municipal advisor'' in
Proposed Rule G-46(a)(vi) to mean, for purposes of the rule, a
municipal advisor within the meaning of Exchange Act Section 15B(e)(4)
\59\ and other rules and regulations thereunder.\60\ The MSRB further
provided that Proposed Rule G-46(a)(vi) shall exclude a person that is
otherwise a municipal advisor solely based on activities within the
meaning of Exchange Act Section 15B(e)(4)(A)(i) \61\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder.\62\ The MSRB stated that, generally, this means
that a solicitor municipal advisor is any municipal advisor that is not
a non-solicitor municipal advisor.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(e)(4).
\60\ Notice, 88 FR at 9563.
\61\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(e)(4)(A)(i).
\62\ Notice, 88 FR at 9563.
\63\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Disclosure to Solicitor Clients
The MSRB noted that its Proposed Rule G-46(b) would require a
solicitor municipal advisor to provide to a client full and fair
disclosure in writing of all material conflicts of interest and any
legal or disciplinary event that would be material to a reasonable
solicitor client's evaluation of the solicitor municipal advisor or the
integrity of its management or advisory personnel.\64\ Further, the
MSRB stated that these disclosures must be provided prior to or upon
engaging in municipal advisory activities.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Notice, 88 FR at 9563-64.
\65\ Notice, 88 FR at 9564.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB stated that the Proposed Rule G-46(b) sets forth an
alternative to providing a narrative description of any such legal or
disciplinary events by permitting solicitor municipal advisors to
reference such information in certain other publicly available
information if the conditions specified in the rule are met.\66\ As a
result, the MSRB posited, solicitor municipal advisors (that are also
registered broker-dealers or investment advisers) would be permitted to
identify the specific type of event and make specific reference to the
relevant portions of the solicitor municipal advisor's Form BD or Form
ADV if the solicitor municipal advisor provides detailed information
specifying where the client may electronically access such forms.\67\
The MSRB noted that all other municipal advisors would be permitted to
identify the specific type of event and make specific reference to the
relevant portions of the solicitor municipal advisor's most recent
Forms MA or MA-I filed with the Commission if the solicitor municipal
advisor provides detailed information specifying where the client may
electronically access such forms.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Id.
\67\ Id. For example, a solicitor municipal advisor could direct
a solicitor client to FINRA's BrokerCheck system or the Investment
Adviser Public Disclosure website, as applicable; provided, that the
direction is accompanied by information as to how to retrieve the
firm's specific Form BD or Form ADV and specific reference to the
relevant portions of the applicable form. Notice, 88 FR at 9564,
n.26.
\68\ Notice, 88 FR at 9564.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Documentation of the Solicitor Relationship
The MSRB explained that Proposed Rule G-46(c) would require a
solicitor municipal advisor to evidence each of its solicitor
relationships by a writing or writings created and delivered to the
solicitor client prior to, upon or promptly after the establishment of
the solicitor relationship.\69\ The writing(s) would be required to be
dated and include, at a minimum:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a description of the solicitation activities to be engaged
in by the solicitor municipal advisor on behalf of the solicitor client
(including the scope of the agreed-upon activities and a statement that
the scope of the solicitation is anticipated to include the
solicitation of municipal entities and/or obligated persons); \70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the terms and amount of the compensation to be received by
the solicitor municipal advisor for such activities; \71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the date, triggering event, or means for the termination
of the relationship, or, if none, a statement that there is none; \72\
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
any terms relating to withdrawal from the
relationship.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB stated that the proposed obligation to document the
relationship is generally consistent with a non-solicitor municipal
advisor's obligation to document its municipal advisory relationship
with a client under Rule G-42(c).\74\ The MSRB argued that this
documentation obligation will help ensure that the solicitor client has
certain basic material information about the engagement including the
scope of agreed-upon activities and information pertaining to
compensation for such activities.\75\ The MSRB also posited that this
documentation obligation will assist examining authorities in
understanding the solicitation arrangement and will provide them with
necessary information to assist in evaluating a solicitor municipal
advisor's compliance with relevant obligations.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ Id. Rule G-42(c) generally requires a municipal advisor to
evidence each of its municipal advisory relationships by a writing
or writings created and delivered to the municipal entity or
obligated person client prior to, upon or promptly after the
establishment of the municipal advisory relationship. Notice, 88 FR
at 9564, n.28.
\75\ Notice, 88 FR at 9564.
\76\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB stated that a solicitor may be asked to solicit a broad
range of entities on behalf of a client of the solicitor.\77\ These
entities may include municipal entities, obligated persons and
corporate entities that are not
[[Page 20008]]
obligated persons.\78\ Although the MSRB observed that the solicitation
of municipal entities and obligated persons generally would require
compliance with Proposed Rule G-46 (to the extent the solicitation
would make the solicitor a ``municipal advisor''), the MSRB concluded
that the solicitation of an entity that is not a municipal entity or an
obligated person would not require such compliance.\79\ The MSRB stated
that in order to promote certainty as to the applicable regulatory
scheme for any engagement, that it is imperative for any engagement to
be documented in a writing that clearly indicates whether the
solicitation of municipal entities and/or obligated persons is
anticipated.\80\ The MSRB also concluded that information pertaining to
termination of the relationship or withdrawal from the relationship
will similarly assist both solicitor clients and examination and
enforcement authorities in understanding the scope of an
engagement.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ Id.
\78\ Id.
\79\ Id.
\80\ Id.
\81\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB stated that Supplementary Material .04 to Proposed Rule G-
46 would provide additional guidance with respect to the obligation to
document the terms and the amount of compensation to be received.\82\
Specifically, the MSRB provided that such guidance provides that the
documentation(s) must clearly describe the structure of the
compensation arrangement and the amount of compensation paid or to be
paid.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ Id.
\83\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Representations to Solicited Entities
The MSRB explained that Proposed Rule G-46(d)(i) expressly would
prohibit a solicitor municipal advisor from making a representation
that the solicitor municipal advisor knows or should know is either
materially false or materially misleading due to the omission of a
material fact about the capacity, resources, or knowledge of the
solicitor client.\84\ The MSRB stated that this prohibition is similar
to a prohibition applicable to non-solicitor municipal advisors under
Rule G-42 except that, unlike with Rule G-42, the prohibition for
solicitor municipal advisors would not be limited to representations
that occur in response to requests for proposals or qualifications or
in oral presentations to a client or prospective client for the purpose
of obtaining or retaining an engagement for the solicitor client.\85\
The MSRB explained this assertion by offering its belief that all of
the solicitor municipal advisor's communications regarding the
capacity, resources or knowledge of the solicitor's clients are
expected to be for the purpose of obtaining or retaining an engagement
for their clients.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ Id.
\85\ Id.
\86\ Notice, 88 FR at 9564-65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB wrote that Proposed Rule G-46(d)(ii) would require a
solicitor municipal advisor to have a reasonable basis for any material
representations it makes to a solicited entity regarding the capacity,
resources, or knowledge of the solicitor client.\87\ The MSRB noted
that solicited entities should be entitled to rely on the material
representations made by solicitor municipal advisors, as regulated
financial professionals hired for the purpose of soliciting business on
behalf of their clients, with respect to the qualifications of their
clients.\88\ The MSRB further asserted that such representations should
have some reasonable basis.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Notice, 88 FR at 9565.
\88\ Id.
\89\ Id. The MSRB noted that this obligation bears some analogy
to a non-solicitor municipal advisor's duty of care obligation to
have a reasonable basis for any advice provided to or on behalf of a
client pursuant to Rule G-42, Supplementary Material .01. Notice, 88
FR at 9565, n.30. While a non-solicitor municipal advisor provides
advice to or on behalf of its municipal entity and obligated person
clients, the MSRB stated that a solicitor municipal advisor solicits
municipal entities and obligated persons on behalf of its clients.
The MSRB concluded that, in both cases, the municipal advisor would
be required to have a reasonable basis for what are likely to be the
core material statements the municipal advisor was hired to provide
to municipal entities and obligated persons. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB stated that Supplementary Material .01 would provide
guidance on compliance with the reasonable-basis standard.\90\
Specifically, the MSRB stated that this supplementary material would
clarify that while a solicitor municipal advisor must have a reasonable
basis for the representations described in Proposed Rule G-46(d), the
solicitor municipal advisor is not required to actively seek out every
piece of information that may be relevant to such representations.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ Notice, 88 FR at 9565.
\91\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Disclosures to Solicited Entities
The MSRB's Proposed Rule G-46(e) would require a solicitor
municipal advisor to disclose to any solicited entity all material
facts about the solicitation in the manner specified in section (f) of
the proposed rule.\92\ The MSRB wrote that this proposed change would
include an obligation to disclose certain information pertaining to the
solicitor municipal advisor's: (i) role and compensation; (ii)
conflicts of interest; and (iii) client.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Id.
\93\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Role and Compensation Disclosures
The MSRB stated that Proposed Rule G-46(e)(i) would require a
solicitor municipal advisor to disclose to any solicited entity the
solicitor municipal advisor's name; the solicitor client's name; the
type of business being solicited (i.e., municipal advisory business or
investment advisory services); the material terms of the solicitor
municipal advisor's compensation arrangement, including a description
of the compensation provided or to be provided, directly or indirectly,
to the solicitor municipal advisor for such solicitation; and payments
made by the solicitor municipal advisor to another solicitor municipal
advisor to facilitate the solicitation.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB stated that Supplementary Material .04 would provide
additional guidance with respect to the obligation to disclose the
material terms of the solicitor municipal advisor's compensation
arrangement.\95\ Specifically, the MSRB noted that Proposed Rule G-
46(e)(i)(D) would require disclosure of at least the same information
as that required by Proposed Rule G-46(c)(ii), to the extent
material.\96\ However, Proposed Rule G-46(e)(i)(D) also may require the
disclosure of additional information, depending on the facts and
circumstances. For example, if the solicitor municipal advisor receives
indirect compensation for the solicitation, information pertaining to
the indirect compensation also must be disclosed.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ Id.
\96\ Id.
\97\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the solicitor municipal advisor would be required to
disclose the following statements:
In connection with its solicitation activities as a
municipal advisor, a solicitor municipal advisor does not owe a
fiduciary duty under Section 15B(c)(i) of the Exchange Act \98\ or MSRB
rules to the entities that it solicits and is not required by those
provisions to act in the best interests of such entities without regard
to the solicitor municipal advisor's own financial or other interests.
However, in connection with such solicitation activities, a solicitor
municipal advisor is required
[[Page 20009]]
to deal fairly with all persons, including both solicited entities and
the solicitor municipal advisor's clients; \99\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ Id.
\99\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A solicitor municipal advisor's primary role is to solicit
the solicited entity on behalf of certain third-party regulated
entities and the solicitor municipal advisor will be compensated for
its solicitation services by the solicitor municipal advisor's
client.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB stated that these statements draw from analogous
disclosures that underwriters must make to their issuer clients
pursuant to Rule G-17,\101\ but are tailored to reflect the existence
of a federal fiduciary duty for non-solicitor municipal advisors and to
make clear that a solicitor municipal advisor's fair dealing
obligations apply in connection with its solicitation activities.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ More specifically, the MSRB explained that these
disclosures include an obligation to disclose that: Rule G-17
requires an underwriter to deal fairly at all times with both
issuers and investors; unlike a municipal advisor, the underwriter
does not have a fiduciary duty to the issuer under the federal
securities laws and is, therefore, not required by federal law to
act in the best interests of the issuer without regard to its own
financial or other interests; and the underwriter's primary role is
to purchase securities with a view to distribution in an arm's-
length commercial transaction with the issuer and it has financial
and other interests that differ from those of the issuer. Notice, 88
FR at 9565, n.32; see MSRB Interpretive Notice Concerning the
Application of MSRB Rule G-17 to Underwriters of Municipal
Securities (March 31, 2021) (the ``G-17 Underwriter's Guidance''),
available at https://www.msrb.org/Interpretive-Notice-Concerning-Application-MSRB-Rule-G-17-Underwriters-Municipal-Securities.
\102\ Notice, 88 FR at 9565.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB stated that Supplementary Material .02 to Proposed Rule G-
46 would expound on the relationship between Proposed Rule G-46 and the
fair dealing obligation under Rule G-17 and includes similar discussion
regarding application of the federal fiduciary duty to a solicitor
municipal advisor's solicitations of solicited entities.\103\ The MSRB
clarified, however, that this proposed change would specify that
solicitor municipal advisors may be subject to fiduciary or other
duties under state or other laws and that nothing in Proposed Rule G-46
shall be deemed to supersede any more restrictive provision of state or
other laws applicable to municipal advisory activities.\104\ Finally,
the MSRB described that Supplementary Material .02 would include a
cross reference to Supplementary Material .03 and would remind
solicitor municipal advisors that, to the extent they also engage in
non-solicitor municipal advisory activity, the requirements of Rule G-
42 will apply with respect to such activity and a federal fiduciary
duty will apply with respect to the municipal entity clients of the
municipal advisor.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ Id.
\104\ Id.
\105\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Conflicts Disclosures
The MSRB stated that Proposed Rule G-46(e)(ii) would require a
solicitor municipal advisor to disclose any material conflicts of
interest, including but not limited to the fact that, because the
solicitor municipal advisor is compensated for its solicitation
efforts, it has an incentive to recommend its clients, resulting in a
material conflict of interest.\106\ The MSRB noted that a solicitor
municipal advisor also would be required to disclose any material
conflicts of interest, of which the solicitor municipal advisor is
aware after reasonable inquiry that could reasonably be anticipated to
impair the solicitor municipal advisor's ability to solicit the
solicited entity in accordance with its duty of fair dealing.\107\ The
MSRB stated that this obligation is comparable to a non-solicitor
municipal advisor's obligation under Rule G-42 to disclose to its
clients all material conflicts of interest, including any conflicts, of
which the municipal advisor is aware after reasonable inquiry, that
could reasonably be anticipated to impair the municipal advisor's
ability to provide advice to or on behalf of the client in accordance
with the standards set forth in the rule.\108\ The MSRB observed that
this proposed change is comparable to the obligation under the IA
Marketing Rule to disclose that a promoter, due to the fact that it is
compensated, has an incentive to recommend the investment adviser it
promotes, resulting in a material conflict of interest.\109\ The MSRB
concluded that disclosure of such conflict-of-interest information is
key to assisting a solicited entity in evaluating the solicitor
municipal advisor's statements and in determining whether to retain the
solicitor's client.\110\ In Amendment No. 1., the MSRB corrected a
typographical error (i.e., remove an errant ``'s'' from the rule text)
in proposed Rule G-46(e)(ii).\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ Notice, 88 FR at 9565-66.
\107\ Notice, 88 FR at 9566.
\108\ Id.; see Rule G-42(b)(i)(F).
\109\ Notice, 88 FR at 9566.
\110\ The MSRB offered the example that, without a specific
disclosure about a solicitor municipal advisor's incentives, a
solicitation creates a risk that the solicited entity would
mistakenly view the solicitor municipal advisor's recommendation as
being an unbiased opinion about the solicitor client's ability to,
for example, manage the solicited entity's assets, and would rely on
that recommendation more than the solicited entity otherwise would
if the solicited entity knew of the solicitor municipal advisor's
incentive. Id.
\111\ Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Solicitor Client Disclosures
The MSRB wrote that Proposed Rule G-46(e)(iii) would require a
solicitor municipal advisor to provide to the solicited entity the
following information regarding the solicitor client the type of
information that is generally available on Form MA (in the case of a
municipal advisor client) or Form ADV, Part 2 (in the case of an
investment adviser client) or Form ADV, Part 2 (in the case of an
investment adviser client); and a description of how the solicited
entity can obtain a copy of the solicitor client's Form MA or Form ADV,
Part 2, as applicable.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ Notice, 88 FR at 9566.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB stated that these requirements are designed to help ensure
that, at any early stage, solicited entities are directed to important
written information about the entities the solicitor municipal advisor
represents--including, but not limited to, information about the
disciplinary history of the solicitor municipal advisor's clients.\113\
However, the MSRB provided that it does not require solicitor municipal
advisors to obtain a copy of these documents and provide them to their
solicited entities, nor does it require a solicitor municipal advisor
to disclose any specific information about the client that is included
in such forms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Timing and Manner of Disclosures to Solicited Entities
The MSRB explained that Proposed Rule G-46(f), as modified by
Amendment No. 1., would provide that any disclosures required under
section (e) of the proposed rule (pertaining to disclosures to
solicited entities) must be made in writing.\114\ The MSRB also noted
the proposed rule would provide for a dual-disclosure requirement, such
that solicitations that result in a solicited entity engaging a
solicitor client would receive the requisite disclosures twice.\115\
Specifically, the MSRB explained that the solicited entity would
receive the disclosures once at the time of the first communication
giving rise to the solicitation and again at the time that engagement
documentation pertaining to the solicited entity's engagement of the
solicitor client is delivered (or promptly thereafter).\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ Id. See also Amendment No. 1.
\115\ Notice, 88 FR at 9566.
\116\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 20010]]
i. Initial Disclosure at the Time of the First Communication
The MSRB stated that the disclosures would be required to be
delivered at the time of the first communication (as that term is used
in the definition of ``solicitation'') with a solicited entity on
behalf of a specific solicitor client.\117\ Specifically, the MSRB
wrote that the disclosures would be required to be provided to the
solicitor client representative with whom such communication is made.
In the case of an indirect solicitation--a solicitation of an
intermediary who represents a municipal entity or obligated person--the
MSRB expounded that disclosures must be provided to the intermediary
with whom such communication is made.\118\ In Amendment No. 1, the MSRB
made a technical correction to state that, at the time of such first
direct communication with a solicited entity on behalf of a specific
solicitor client, the requisite disclosures must be provided to the
solicited entity representative (rather than the solicitor client
representative as set forth in the Notice) with whom such communication
is made.\119\ Amendment No. 1 also corrected an errant cross-reference
in proposed Rule G-46(f)(i)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ Id.
\118\ Id.
\119\ Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Second Disclosure at the Time of the Solicitor Client's Engagement
With the Solicited Entity
The MSRB noted that if the solicitation results in a solicited
entity engaging a solicitor client for investment advisory services or
municipal advisory services, all disclosures required by Proposed Rule
G-46(e) would be required to be provided at the time that such
engagement documentation is delivered to the solicited entity or
promptly thereafter.\120\ The MSRB concluded that this is the case even
if there are no changes between the initial set of disclosures and the
second set of disclosures.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ Notice, 88 FR at 9566.
\121\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB also described that the second set of disclosures may be
provided by either the solicitor client or the solicitor municipal
advisor.\122\ The MSRB wrote that this flexibility would permit, for
example, a solicitor municipal advisor's investment adviser client to
provide the solicitor's disclosures to the solicited entity at the time
that the investment adviser enters into an engagement with the
solicited entity.\123\ Further, the MSRB noted that these disclosures
would be required to be made to an official of the solicited entity
that: (1) the solicitor municipal advisor (or, the solicitor client, if
the solicitor client provides such disclosures) reasonably believes has
the authority to bind the solicited entity by contract; and (2) is not
a party to a disclosed conflict.\124\ The MSRB explained that these two
conditions would not apply to the initial delivery of disclosures.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ Id.
\123\ Id.
\124\ Notice, 88 FR at 9566-67.
\125\ Notice, 88 FR at 9567.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB stated that this dual or bifurcated approach would help
ensure that the person that is initially solicited receives this key
information in time to consider it in connection with the initial
solicitation.\126\ However, the MSRB explained that, because such
person(s) may not have the authority to bind the solicited entity by
contract (particularly where such person is an intermediary between the
solicitor and the solicited entity), the MSRB would require the
disclosures to be provided again at the time of the engagement between
the solicited entity and the solicitor client (or promptly
thereafter).\127\ The MSRB posited that any risk associated with the
first disclosures not being passed on to a knowledgeable person with
the authority to bind the solicited entity in contract would be
mitigated by requiring that the disclosures are provided again at the
time of the engagement--this time, to someone who does have such
authority.\128\ Additionally, the MSRB noted that the MSRB has observed
that solicitations may sometimes span years, and particularly in such
instances, the MSRB concluded that it is important that the solicited
entity receives the disclosures again at the time of the solicitor
client's engagement with the solicited entity.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ Id.
\127\ Id.
\128\ Id.
\129\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Specified Prohibitions
The MSRB stated that Proposed Rule G-46(g) expressly would prohibit
a solicitor municipal advisor from delivering an invoice for fees or
expenses for municipal advisory activities that is materially
inaccurate in its reflection of the activities actually performed or
the personnel that actually performed those activities; and making
payments for the purpose of obtaining or retaining an engagement to
perform municipal advisory activities.\130\ Specifically, the MSRB
wrote that solicitor municipal advisors would be prohibited from making
payments for the purpose of obtaining or retaining an engagement to
perform municipal advisory activities other than:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
payments to an affiliate for a direct or indirect
communication with a municipal entity or obligated person on behalf of
the solicitor municipal advisor where such communication is made for
the purpose of obtaining or retaining an engagement to perform
municipal advisory activities; \131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
reasonable fees paid to another municipal advisor
registered as such with the Commission and the MSRB for making a
communication for the purpose of obtaining or retaining an engagement
to perform municipal advisory activities; \132\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
payments that are permissible ``normal business dealings''
as described in Rule G-20, on gifts, gratuities, non-cash compensation
and expenses of issuance.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB explained that that these specified prohibitions are
modeled on similar prohibitions applicable to non-solicitors under Rule
G-42(e)(i) and to a lesser degree would align with certain prohibitions
applicable to underwriters under the G-17 Underwriter's Guidance.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ Id. See Rule G-42(e)(i); see also G-17 Underwriter's
Guidance at section titled, ``Underwriter Compensation and New Issue
Pricing.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Amendment No. 1 the MSRB proposed to correct an errant internal
cross-reference in Proposed Rule G-46(g)(ii).\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Proposed Rule G-46 Supplementary Material
Proposed Rule G-46 would set forth four supplementary material
sections:
Providing additional explanation regarding the MSRB's
expectations with respect to the reasonable basis a solicitor municipal
advisor must have for the representations described in Proposed Rule G-
46(d); \136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ Notice, 88 FR at 9567.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explaining the relationship between a solicitor municipal
advisor's fair dealing obligations and the applicability of a federal
fiduciary duty for municipal advisors; \137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explaining the relationship between a municipal advisor's
obligations under Proposed Rule G-46 and Rule G-42; \138\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 20011]]
Providing additional detail regarding a solicitor
municipal advisor's compensation documentation and disclosure
obligations.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB stated that Supplementary Material .03 explains that
municipal advisors should be mindful that one may be, simultaneously,
both a solicitor municipal advisor for purposes of Proposed Rule G-46
and a non-solicitor municipal advisor for purposes of Rule G-42.\140\
For example, the MSRB explained that a municipal advisor may provide
``advice'' as defined in Rule G-42 to a municipal entity (the
``advisory engagement'') and separately may act as a solicitor
municipal advisor with respect to that same municipal entity or another
municipal entity as contemplated in Proposed Rule G-46 (the ``solicitor
municipal advisor engagement'').\141\ The MSRB wrote that the municipal
advisor would be subject to Rule G-42 with respect to the advisory
engagement and would be subject to Proposed Rule G-46 with respect to
the solicitor municipal advisor engagement.\142\ The MSRB stated that
municipal advisors should evaluate the activity undertaken with respect
to each engagement to determine which rule governs and ensure the
written supervisory procedures required under Rule G-44 reflect
such.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ Id.
\141\ Id.
\142\ Id.
\143\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Proposed Amendments to MSRB Rule G-8
The MSRB explained that proposed amendments to Rule G-8 would add
specific recordkeeping obligations designed to help facilitate and
document compliance with Proposed Rule G-46. Specifically, the MSRB
stated that these amendments would add new subsection (viii) requiring
solicitor municipal advisors to make and keep the following books and
records: \144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
evidence that the disclosures required by Proposed Rule G-
46(b) were made in the manner required by that section; \145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a copy of each writing or writings required by Proposed
Rule G-46(c); \146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
documentation substantiating the solicitor municipal
advisor's reasonable basis for believing its representations as
described in Proposed Rule G-46(d) (e.g., a checklist confirming that
an investment adviser client's Form ADV was reviewed); \147\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
evidence that the disclosures required by Proposed Rule G-
46(e) were made in the manner described in Proposed Rule G-46(f) (e.g.,
automatic email delivery receipt).\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Summary of Comment Received and MSRB's Response
The Commission received one comment letter on the proposed rule
change, as well as response from the MSRB to this comment letter. As
more fully described below, the SIFMA Letter argued that the proposed
MSRB Rule G-46 is unclear and unworkable in several areas, and
therefore, urged the SEC to disapprove the proposed rule.\149\ The
MSRB's Response Letter responded directly to each of these points.\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\ SIFMA Letter at 1.
\150\ See Response Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avoiding Unnecessary Regulation
SIFMA explained that its members believe that the proposed rule
change is confusing and unnecessary, as many solicitor municipal
advisors are already regulated by the SEC pursuant to the Investment
Advisers Act.\151\ SIFMA also reiterated a request for the MSRB to
prohibit municipal advisors from paying third-party municipal advisors
for a solicitation of municipal advisory business.\152\ Finally, SIFMA
warned that solicitation of municipal advisors could ``create material
conflict of interest,'' and thereby, create circumstances leading to
corruption that ``could be damaging to the integrity of the municipal
securities market.'' \153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ SIFMA Letter at 2.
\152\ Id.
\153\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Response Letter, the MSRB stated that the proposed rule
change is designed to harmonize with relevant rules under comparative
regimes, including the regime for investment advisers.\154\ The MSRB
also indicated that the MSRB does not believe that the fact that some
solicitor municipal advisors are also investment advisers obviates the
need for regulation in their capacity as solicitor municipal
advisors.\155\ Further, the MSRB responded to SIFMA's conflict of
interest concerns by noting that, among other things, the proposed rule
change is designed to address these material conflicts of interest and
to provide some guardrails around such solicitation activities.\156\
The MSRB concluded that the proposed rule change's approach (as opposed
to the outright prohibition on paying solicitor municipal advisors for
their third-party solicitations of municipal advisory business) is
consistent with the apparent intent in the Dodd-Frank Act in granting
rulemaking authority to the MSRB over such conduct.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ Response Letter at 2.
\155\ Id.
\156\ Id.
\157\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inadvertent Solicitations
SIFMA further indicated that a safe harbor for inadvertent
solicitations is warranted because there confusion exists as to what
disclosures are due to which parties and when.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ SIFMA Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to SIFMA's concern, the MSRB explained that, as
described in Amendment No. 1, the MSRB made a technical correction to
the proposed rule change to correct a typographical error in Proposed
Rule G-46(f)(i)(A) that it believes may have inadvertently contributed
to any confusion.\159\ The MSRB identified that Amendment No. 1's
revisions clarify that, at the time of the first direct communication
with a solicited entity on behalf of a specific solicitor client, the
requisite disclosures must be provided to the solicited entity
representative (rather than the solicitor client representative as set
forth in the Notice) with whom such communication is made.\160\
Further, the MSRB explained that this prose is consistent with the
heading of section (f) of Proposed Rule G-46 (titled ``Timing and
Manner of Disclosures to Solicited Entities'').\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ Response Letter at 2.
\160\ Id.
\161\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB described that the dual disclosure obligation set forth in
the proposed rule change require the following. For direct
solicitations of a solicited entity by a solicitor municipal advisor,
the MSRB stated that, at the time of the first solicitation, the
solicitor municipal advisor would be required to make the disclosures
required by Proposed Rule G-46(e) to the solicited entity
representative (i.e., the person actually solicited, such as an
employee of the solicited entity).\162\ The MSRB also noted that, if
that solicitation results in the solicited entity engaging the
solicitor client for investment advisory services or municipal advisory
services, all disclosures required by Proposed Rule G-46(e) would be
required to be provided again at the time that such engagement
documentation is delivered to the solicited entity or promptly
[[Page 20012]]
thereafter.\163\ The MSRB wrote that the same standard would apply for
indirect solicitations, except for the fact that, at the time of the
first solicitation, the disclosures would be required to be provided to
the intermediary with whom such communication is made.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ Response Letter at 2-3.
\163\ Response Letter at 3.
\164\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MSRB stated that a solicitor municipal advisor may make
multiple solicitations of a solicited entity (sometimes spanning more
than one year) before a solicitation may result in a solicited entity
engaging a solicitor client.\165\ As a result, the MSRB concluded that
it is important that the disclosures set forth in Proposed Rule G-46(e)
are provided twice--once in connection with the initial solicitation so
that the solicitee can appropriately evaluate the disclosures in
connection with the solicitation and again at the time of the relevant
engagement when an official that is reasonably believed to have the
authority to bind the solicited entity by contract is guaranteed to
receive the disclosures.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ Id.
\166\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, the MSRB asserted that, pursuant to Sections 15B(e)(4)(ii)
and (e)(9) of the Exchange Act,\167\ one meets the definition of a
``municipal advisor'' if, in relevant part, one undertakes a direct or
indirect communication with a municipal entity or obligated
person.\168\ Consequently, the MSRB deemed it consistent with a
regulated entity's supervisory and compliance obligations to expect
regulated entities to be cognizant of their communications and to put
into place appropriate processes to help them ascertain whether or not
they are engaging in municipal advisory activity.\169\ The MSRB
explained that, in the context of third-party solicitations, one such
mechanism may be to inquire of intermediaries whether they represent
municipal entities or obligated persons.\170\ The MSRB also noted that
nothing would prohibit a solicitor municipal advisor from, out of an
abundance of caution, providing the disclosures specified in Proposed
Rule G-46(e) to all intermediaries that the solicitor municipal advisor
solicits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(e)(4) and (e)(9).
\168\ Response Letter at 3.
\169\ Id.
\170\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After careful consideration, the MSRB stated that a safe harbor for
inadvertent solicitations is not warranted. The MSRB explained that,
consistent with the definition of ``municipal advisor'' under the
Exchange Act, to trigger the application of Proposed Rule G-46, a
solicitor municipal advisor must undertake the relevant solicitation
``for the purpose of obtaining or retaining'' an engagement between the
solicited entity and the solicitor client.\171\ Because this requires
affirmative intent, the MSRB deemed that a provision for
``inadvertent'' solicitations is not appropriate.\172\ To that end, the
MSRB concluded that the example set forth in the SIFMA Letter would
subject a firm to Proposed Rule G-46. If a firm initially solicits a
solicited entity on its own behalf, but the solicited entity
unilaterally chooses not to engage the firm and, instead, seeks to
engage a third-party investment adviser and the firm earns compensation
based on such engagement, the MSRB does not believe that the firm would
be subject to Proposed Rule G-46 if it has not solicited the solicited
entity for the purpose of obtaining or retaining an engagement on
behalf of that third-party investment adviser.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\171\ Exchange Act Section 15B(e)(9), 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(e)(9).
\172\ Response Letter at 3.
\173\ Response Letter at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion of Commission's Findings
The Commission has carefully considered the proposed rule change,
the comment letter received, the MSRB Response Letter, and Amendment
No. 1. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified
by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange
Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the MSRB.
In particular, the Commission believes that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15B(b)(2)(C), which provides, in part, that the
MSRB's rules shall be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to,
and facilitating transactions in municipal securities and municipal
financial products, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market in municipal securities and municipal
financial products, and, in general, to protect investors, municipal
entities, obligated persons, and the public interest.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, will: (i) prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices; (ii) foster cooperation and coordination among regulators;
and (iii) protect investors, municipal entities, obligated persons, and
the public interest.
A. Prevention of Fraudulent and Manipulative Acts and Practices
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, would help prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices.
First, Proposed Rule G-46 would expressly prohibit solicitor
municipal advisors from making a representation that the solicitor
municipal advisor knows or should know is either materially false or
misleading regarding the capacity, resources or knowledge of the
solicitor client.\175\ Second, Proposed Rule G-46 would require
solicitor municipal advisors to have a reasonable basis for any
material representations the solicitor municipal advisor makes to a
solicited entity regarding the capacity, resources or knowledge of the
solicitor client.\176\ Third, Proposed Rule G-46 expressly would
prohibit solicitor municipal advisors from delivering an inaccurate
invoice for fees or expenses.\177\ The Commission believes that the
proposed rule change's prohibitions prevent either: (i) forms of
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices themselves (e.g.,
materially false or misleading representations and inaccurate invoices
for fees or expenses) or (ii) behavior that could reasonably be
understood to accompany (or serve as indicia of) the commission of
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, if they are not
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices themselves (e.g.,
lacking reasonable basis for a material representation). Furthermore,
the proposed Supplementary Materials to Rule G-46 provide explanations
of Proposed Rule G-46's prohibitions of fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices. This increased clarity would increase the
effectiveness of such prohibitions by raising understanding of these
prohibitions among solicitor municipal advisors and the municipal
entities and obligated persons with whom they interact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ Notice, 88 FR 9568.
\176\ Id.
\177\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, Proposed Rule G-46 prohibit solicitor municipal
advisors from making payments for the purpose of obtaining or retaining
an engagement to perform municipal advisory activities
[[Page 20013]]
(subject to specified exceptions).\178\ Among other things, the
Commission finds that this prohibition would effectively require
solicitor municipal advisors to use only associated persons or other
regulated solicitor municipal advisors to obtain business on their
behalf. This proposed rule change would help ensure that only regulated
persons (who are subject to rules designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices) may engage in solicitation activities
on behalf of a solicitor municipal advisor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\178\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As such, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, helps prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices.
B. Fostering Cooperation and Coordination
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, would foster cooperation and coordination with persons
engaged in regulating transactions in municipal securities and
municipal financial products.
Proposed Rule G-46 requires solicitor municipal advisors to
document their relationships in writing that includes certain minimum
content that is vital to the solicitor municipal advisor, its clients
and applicable regulators in understanding the material terms of an
engagement (including the scope of agreed-upon activities, information
pertaining to compensation for such activities and whether the
solicitation of municipal entities and/or obligated persons is
anticipated).\179\ Proposed Rule G-46's new documentation obligation
(and the Supplementary Materials to Rule G-46 explaining it) would help
promote certainty as to the applicable regulatory scheme for any
engagement since only solicitations of municipal entities and obligated
persons would be subject to Proposed Rule G-46, whereas other
solicitations may fall within the jurisdiction of the rules of other
regulators (e.g., the Commission or the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority). By promoting certainty regarding the regulatory scheme
applicable to solicitor municipal advisors, the proposed rule change
will allow different regulators to operate with a common understanding
that these solicitations fall under the new regulatory regime for
solicitor municipal advisors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\179\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the Commission finds that proposed Rule G-46 and the
proposed amendments to Rule G-8 would assist regulators who examine
solicitor municipal advisors understand the solicitation arrangement
through both Proposed Rule G-46's documentation requirements, as well
as Rule G-8's requirements that such documentation be preserved in
solicitor municipal advisor's books and records.\180\ Furthermore,
these proposals would provide these regulators with necessary
information to assist in evaluating a solicitor municipal advisor's
compliance with relevant obligations.\181\ The Commission further
believes that the proposed amendments to Rule G-8 (with the ensuing
application of existing MSRB Rule G-9 on records preservation) would
help create an audit trail, assisting examination and enforcement
authorities in their examination for compliance with, and prosecution
of, these prohibitions.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\180\ Id.
\181\ Id.
\182\ Notice, 88 FR at 9567-68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As such, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, fosters cooperation and coordination among
persons engaged in regulating transactions in municipal securities and
municipal financial products.
C. Protection of Municipal Entities, Obligated Persons, and the Public
Interest
The Commission believes that the proposed rule change, as modified
by Amendment No. 1, would protect municipal entities, obligated
persons, and the public interest.
Specifically, Proposed Rule G-46 requires solicitor municipal
advisors to disclose in writing all of their material conflicts of
interest and material legal or disciplinary events to the entities that
determine whether to hire such solicitor municipal advisors.\183\ The
Commission finds that this requirement would increase solicitor
municipal advisor accountability and discourage conduct inconsistent
with a solicitor municipal advisor's obligations under Proposed Rule G-
46 because such conduct would be required to be disclosed in
information provided to clients. Specifically, the Commission finds
that a municipal entity or obligated person could view a solicitor
municipal advisor's disclosure of material conflict of interests and/or
disclosure of material legal or disciplinary events as a reason to
avoid retaining that solicitor municipal advisor. Therefore, the
Commission believes that a solicitor municipal advisors may try to
avoid such behavior to avoid losing future engagements. As such, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change incentivizes firms to
refrain from behavior that could harm municipal entities and obligated
persons, and therefore, protect municipal entities, obligated persons,
and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\ Notice, 88 FR at 9565-66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule change also would protect municipal entities,
obligated persons, and the public interest by setting forth obligations
applicable to solicitor municipal advisors similar to those applicable
to non-solicitor municipal advisors to their clients under Rule G-42.
Like non-solicitor municipal advisors, solicitor municipal advisors
would be required to: disclose their material conflicts of interest;
\184\ document their relationships in writing; \185\ and refrain from
certain conduct such as making certain materially false or misleading
representations,\186\ delivering a materially inaccurate invoice,\187\
and making certain payments for the purpose of obtaining or retaining
an engagement.\188\ Under Proposed Rule G-46, the protections provided
by these provisions would be provided to municipal entities and
obligated persons solicited by solicitor municipal advisors.
Furthermore, the proposed changes to Rule G-8 would mandate preserving
records related to Proposed Rule G-46; as such, Rule G-8 would
strengthening these new protections by compelling contemporaneous
documentation of compliance with them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ See Rule G-42(b)(i)(F).
\185\ See Rule G-42(c) and Proposed Rule G-46(c).
\186\ See Rule G-42(e)(i)(C) and Proposed Rule G-46(d)(i).
\187\ See Rule G-42(e)(i)(B) and Proposed Rule G-46(g)(i).
\188\ See Rule G-8 and Rule G-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As such, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, protects municipal entities, obligated
persons, and the public interest.
In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule change's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation.\189\ Exchange Act Section
15B(b)(2)(C) \190\ requires that MSRB rules not be designed to impose
any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The Commission does not believe
the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, would impose
any new burden on competition as it would apply a regulatory regime
equally to all
[[Page 20014]]
solicitor municipal advisors (similar to the regime that currently
exists for non-solicitor municipal advisors under Rule G-42 and Rule G-
8 on recordkeeping, and for underwriters under the Rule G-17
Underwriter's Guidance).\191\ This consequence of the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, would not burden competition.
Further, the Commission finds that on an ongoing year-by-year basis,
the additional regulatory burden imposed would be proportional to each
solicitor municipal advisory firm's size and business activities.
Accordingly, the Commission does not believe that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, would result in any additional
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in in
furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\189\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
\190\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
\191\ See Rules G-42; G-8; and G-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also finds that the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, will not hinder capital formation. As
noted above, the proposed rule change brings a regulatory regime to
solicitor municipal advisors similar to the regimes that currently
exist for non-solicitor municipal advisors and underwriters. Therefore,
Commission finds that the proposed rule change would not negatively
impact the municipal securities market's operational efficiency.
The Commission also finds that the proposed rule change includes
provisions that could help promote efficiency. As noted above, the
Commission believes that the proposed rule change would promote clearer
regulatory requirements for all solicitor municipal advisors.
As noted above, the Commission received one comment letter on the
filing. The Commission believes that the MSRB, through its response and
Amendment No. 1, addressed the commenters' concerns. For the reasons
noted above, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Exchange Act.
V. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 1
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1
is consistent with the Exchange Act. Comments may be submitted by any
of the following methods:
Electronic Comments
Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MSRB-2023-02 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2023-02. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission 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/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 website 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 also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the MSRB. All comments received
will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2023-02 and should be
submitted on or before April 25, 2023.
VI. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change as Modified by
Amendment No. 1
The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the 30th day after the
date of publication of notice of Amendment No. 1 in the Federal
Register. As noted by the MSRB, Amendment No. 1 does not raise any
significant issues with respect to the proposed rule change and only
provides a minor change to address an issue raised by the commenter and
other technical corrections. Further, the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, is designed to ease burdens without
negatively affecting investors or the public interest.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds good cause for
approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on
an accelerated basis, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act.
VII. Conclusion
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act,\192\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MSRB-2023-02) be,
and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\192\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
For the Commission, by the Office of Municipal Securities,
pursuant to delegated authority.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\193\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-06899 Filed 4-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P