Notice2022-19348
Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Clearing Rules
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 8, 2022
Issuing agencies
Securities and Exchange Commission
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 173 (Thursday, September 8, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 173 (Thursday, September 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55045-55048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19348]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-95654; File No. SR-ICC-2022-012]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Clearing Rules
September 1, 2022.
I. Introduction
On July 19, 2022, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICE Clear Credit'' or
``ICC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend its Rules to permit it to take advantage
of certain settlement finality protections under applicable United
Kingdom (``UK'') and European Union (``EU'') law. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on July 29,
2022.\3\ The Commission did not receive comments regarding the proposed
rule change. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is
approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\3\ Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Clearing Rules;
Exchange Act Release No. 95357 (July 25, 2022); 87 FR 45840 (July
29, 2022) (File No. SR-ICC-2022-012) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change
A. Background
The EU Settlement Finality Directive \4\ introduced various
insolvency-related protections in relation to ``designated systems''
used by EU participants to transfer financial instruments and payments,
and participation in those systems. The Settlement Finality Directive
aims to ensure that as a matter of EU member state laws, transfer
orders which enter into such systems are finally settled, regardless of
whether the sending participant has gone into an insolvency process.
Transfer orders for this purpose include instructions to make cash
payments (including margin payments) and instructions to transfer
securities (including as margin or in physical settlement of a cleared
transaction, if applicable). Under the Settlement Finality Directive,
transfer orders and related netting arrangements are enforceable, even
in the event of insolvency proceedings against a participant, provided
that the transfer
[[Page 55046]]
order was entered into the system before the opening of the insolvency
proceeding. Further, under the Settlement Finality Directive, the right
of the operator of a designated system to realize and apply collateral
security provided by a participant would not be affected by insolvency
proceedings against the participant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EU Directive 98/26/EC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Designated systems'' are defined as formal arrangements, governed
by the law of an EU member state, between three or more participants
with common rules and standard arrangements for clearing or execution
of transfer orders between participants, and have been designated as a
system and notified to the European Securities and Markets Authority
(``ESMA''). Although the Settlement Finality Directive itself does not
establish an equivalent regime for systems operated under the laws of a
non-EU member state (``third-country systems''), such as United States
(``US'') clearing houses, Recital 7 of the Settlement Finality
Directive provides that member states may choose to apply the
provisions of the Settlement Finality Directive to their domestic
institutions that participate directly in third country systems, and to
collateral security provided in connection with participation in such
systems. As a result, in some EU member states it is possible for a
third country system such as ICC to receive national designation or be
otherwise protected as a designated system for the purposes of that
member state's national law.
The UK has implemented similar settlement finality regulations that
continue to apply following the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, and
which are also potentially applicable to UK institutions that
participate in third country systems (such as a US clearing house).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Financial Markets and Insolvency (Settlement Finality)
Regulations 1999. As used herein, the EU Settlement Finality
Directive, national implementing legislation and the UK Settlement
Finality Regulations are collectively referred to as ``Settlement
Finality Laws.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Proposed Rule Change
The purpose of the proposed rule changes is to modify certain of
ICC's Rules to introduce explicit provisions relating to the settlement
finality of transfer orders in order to permit ICC to take advantage of
certain protections for default rights and remedies under applicable
Settlement Finality Laws.\6\ The proposed amendments are expected to be
principally relevant in the case of an insolvency of an ICC Clearing
Participant domiciled in the UK or an EU member state. The proposed
amendments would rely on certain protections in such Settlement
Finality Laws and regulations that provide additional support (on top
of existing protections in applicable law) for the enforceability of
the ICC's default rights and remedies under the Rules without
interference in such an insolvency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The description that follows is substantially excerpted from
the Notice. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the
meanings assigned to them in ICC's Rules, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, the amendments would address which ``transfer
orders'' arise in ICC's system, when they become irrevocable, who is
bound by them, and when they terminate. ICC believes that the
amendments would facilitate obtaining the relevant protections of the
Settlement Finality Laws, which would principally be relevant in the
case of an insolvency of a Participant domiciled in an EU member state
or in the UK. The amendments would not otherwise affect ICC's rights
and obligations under the Rules, including default rights and remedies,
and would not be expected to be relevant to an insolvency proceeding
involving a Participant organized in the US or otherwise outside of the
EU or the UK.
In the Rules, ICE Clear Credit would adopt a new Chapter 10
addressing Settlement Finality Laws. Rule 1000 would add a number of
related definitions, including definitions for relevant legislation and
regulations, such as ``EMIR,'' ``Financial Collateral Directive,''
``Financial Collateral Regulations,'' ``FSMA,'' ``Settlement Finality
Directive,'' ``Settlement Finality Regulations,'' and ``UK EMIR.'' The
rule would also adopt key definitions relating to the settlement
finality provisions, including ``ICE Systems'' (referencing ICE Clear
Credit's trade registration, clearing processing and finance systems),
``SFD System'' (referencing the third country system operated by ICE
Clear Credit for purposes of the Settlement Finality Laws), ``Payment
Transfer Order,'' ``Securities Transfer Order'' and ``Transfer Order''
(representing the types of transfer orders used in the ICE system and
covered by the Settlement Finality Laws), ``SFD Participant''
(referencing ICE Clear Credit itself, its Participants organized in the
European Economic Area (``EEA'') or in the UK, among certain other
relevant persons), ``SFD Custodian'' (referencing a custodian located
in the EEA or the UK used by ICE Clear Credit or a Participant for the
holding or transfer of Non-Cash Collateral), ``SFD Financial
Institution'' (referencing a financial institution located in the EEA
or UK used by ICE Clear Credit or a Participant for purpose of the
deposit or transfer of cash), ``SFD Security'' (referencing a security
as defined in the Settlement Finality Laws), ``Indirect Participant''
(referencing Non-Participant Parties that fall within the definition of
indirect participant under the Settlement Finality Laws), and ``Non-
Cash Collateral'' (referencing Margin or Collateral in the form of a
security).
New Rule 1001 would set out general principles relevant to
implementation of the EU and UK settlement finality arrangements.
Subsection (a) would provide that ICC is the operator of a third
country system for purposes of relevant Settlement Finality Laws, and
that Chapter 10 of the Rules would apply to ICE Clear Credit and SFD
Participants to the extent that the Settlement Finality Laws are
applicable to such persons. Subsection (b) would require SFD
Participants to comply with actions taken by ICC pursuant to Chapter 10
and the relevant Settlement Finality Laws, and to acknowledge that the
Settlement Finality Laws modify certain otherwise applicable provisions
of insolvency laws. Subsection (c) would provide that each SFD
Participant is on notice of the provisions of Chapter 10, and by virtue
of participating in the SFD System, is deemed to agree to the
application of Chapter 10 (including in the event of any conflict with
any other agreement or obligation). Subsection (d) would provide an
additional acknowledgment that Margin and Collateral transferred to ICC
under the Rules fall within certain protections for collateral
arrangements under the Settlement Finality Laws.
New Rule 1002 would address the timing and circumstances in which
various types of Transfer Orders would arise for purposes of the ICC
SFD System, specifically Payment Transfer Orders and Securities
Transfer Orders in various circumstances, including for transfer of
positions (``Position Transfer Orders''), transfer of non-cash
collateral (``Collateral Transfer Orders''), submission of new trades
for clearing (``New Transaction Clearing Orders''), backloading trades
for clearing (``Backloaded Transaction Clearing Orders, and together
with New Transaction Clearing Orders, ``Transaction Clearing Orders''),
and physical settlement under cleared CDS contracts (``CDS Physical
Settlement Orders''). The rule would also specify the subject matter of
each type of Transfer Order (e.g., a payment in respect of a Payment
Transfer Order) and the parties in respect of which each type of
Transfer Order would apply and have effect (e.g., in the case of a
Payment Transfer Order, the affected Participant (if it is an SFD
Participant), ICE Clear Credit, and any affected SFD
[[Page 55047]]
Financial Institution). Rule 1002 would also address the possibility of
multiple Transfer Orders existing in respect of the same obligation
(which may exist, but would not result in the duplication of any
obligation), and the fact that netting or close out of Contracts would
not affect the status of Transfer Orders. The rule also states,
consistent with the general approach of the Rules, that where a
Transfer Order applies to an Indirect Participant, it would not affect
the liability of any SFD Participant pursuant to the same Transfer
Order.
Rule 1003 would specify the time at which each type of Transfer
Order (specifically, Payment Transfer Orders, Position Transfer Orders,
Collateral Transfer Orders, Transaction Clearing Orders, and CDS
Physical Settlement Orders) becomes irrevocable for purposes of the
relevant Settlement Finality Laws. Payment Transfer Orders would become
irrevocable at the earlier of the time payment is received or at the
time the relevant financial institution used by ICC for this purpose
sends a SWIFT or other confirmation that payment has been made.
Collateral Transfer Orders similarly would become irrevocable at the
earlier of the time the transfer is received or a related securities
transfer order in a relevant securities transfer system becomes
irrevocable. Position Transfer Orders would become irrevocable at the
time the position transfer is recorded in the ICC systems, and
Transaction Clearing Orders would become irrevocable at the applicable
Novation Time under the Rules. CDS Physical Settlement Orders would
become irrevocable at the earliest of (1) the time the Matched Delivery
Buyer has irrevocably instructed its custodian to transfer the relevant
securities to the Matched Delivery Seller, (2) the time the relevant
instrument is delivered or assigned, or (3) the time notice is
otherwise given under the Rules that the Matched Delivery Pair have
settled the relevant Matched Delivery Contracts. Under the Rule, as
from the time when the Transfer Order becomes irrevocable, it could not
be revoked or purported to be revoked by any SFD Participant or ICE
Clear Credit and would be binding on all SFD Participants.
Rule 1004 would address variations or cancellations of Transfers
Orders prior to the time they become irrevocable, in specified
circumstances. These circumstances include, for any Transfer Order,
cases where the order is affected by manifest or proven error or an
error agreed to by all affected SFD Participants. Additional grounds
for variation or cancellation apply for particular types of Transfer
Order. In the case of a Payment Transfer Order or Collateral Transfer
Order, these would include where the underlying Contract is void or
avoided under the Rules or applicable law, or amended as a result of
ICC exercising its discretion under the Rules. Transaction Clearing
Orders may be subject to variation or cancellation where the underlying
trade is not eligible for clearing or otherwise not accepted for
clearing, and Backloaded Transaction Clearing Orders may be subject to
variation or cancellation if an error or omission is noted to ICC prior
to the Novation Time. Similarly, variation or cancellation of a CDS
Physical Settlement Order may be made if a NOPS Amendment Notice is
validly delivered under the Rules or ICE Clear Credit Procedures. Under
Rule 1004, in these circumstances, ICC would be permitted to make
appropriate modifications to the relevant Transfer Order, or in the
alternative to cancel the relevant Transfer Order. Rule 1004 also would
not preclude ICC from taking steps to give rise to a new Transfer Order
with opposite effect to an existing Transfer Order or part thereof.
Rule 1004 also would provide for notice of any modification or
cancellation of a Transfer Order to affected SFD Participants.
Rule 1005 would specify the circumstances under which Transfer
Orders are deemed satisfied. Specifically, Payment Transfer Orders are
satisfied upon all required payments being received in immediately
available funds or full satisfaction of the underlying obligation is
otherwise made and recorded in ICC's systems, free of any encumbrances.
Position Transfer Orders would be deemed satisfied upon becoming
irrevocable (at which time the relevant positions have been transferred
under the Rules). Collateral Transfer Orders would be deemed satisfied
upon ICC or the Participant, as applicable, receiving the Non-Cash
Collateral in its account or upon the definitive record of the assets
transferred by the Participant being updated to reflect the successful
transfer of the relevant collateral. Transaction Clearing Orders would
be deemed satisfied at the time the relevant cleared contracts arise
under the Rules. A CDS Physical Settlement Order would be deemed
satisfied at the time ICC updates its records to reflect that physical
delivery of the relevant security has been completed or the delivery
obligations of the parties are otherwise discharged or settled.
Rule 1006 would set out certain acknowledgements of ICC,
Participants, and Non-Participant Parties with respect to matters
relating to Margin or Collateral to the extent they fall to be
determined under the laws of an EEA member state or the UK. The
amendments would clarify that such arrangements are subject to the EU
Financial Collateral Directive or UK Financial Collateral Regulations,
as applicable, and would provide that Participants and Non-Participant
Parties would not dispute that characterization. The amendments would
further provide that arrangements for the provision of cash Margin and
Collateral constitute ``title transfer financial collateral
arrangements'' and arrangements for the provision of Pledged Items
constitute ``security financial collateral arrangements,'' in each case
for purposes of the EU Financial Collateral Directive or UK Financial
Collateral Arrangements, that all such Margin and Collateral constitute
``financial collateral'' for purposes of such laws, and that ICC has
possession or control of such Margin and Collateral for purposes of
such laws. The amendments would also state that for purposes of UK law,
the security arrangements under the Rules constitute a ``market
charge'' for purposes of the Companies Act 1989, which provides certain
protections for the enforceability of such arrangements in the event of
the insolvency of a clearing participant.
ICC also proposes to make certain amendments to Rule 611, which
currently addresses the treatment of certain Rules under various
insolvency laws and other protections for the enforceability of default
remedies in the event of the insolvency of a clearing participant. The
amendments would add a new subsection (f), which would provide that
specified Rules providing for default rights and remedies would
constitute default rules, procedures and similar arrangements as
defined for purposes of relevant EU and UK law, including EMIR, UK
EMIR, and the Settlement Finality Laws.
III. Discussion and Commission Findings
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization.\7\ For the reasons discussed below, the Commission finds
that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
[[Page 55048]]
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \8\ and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
\8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
\9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to
the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, the proposed rule changes would introduce
provisions that support the operation of the settlement finality
provisions of EU and UK law. These provisions ensure that transfer
orders by a Clearing Participant that is domiciled in an EU member
state or in the UK will be cleared even if that Clearing Participant
enters into insolvency proceedings after the transfer order was entered
into the system. As noted in more detail above, the proposed rule
change would accomplish this by adopting key definitions relating to
the Settlement Finality Laws, set out general principles relevant to
implementation of the EU and UK settlement finality arrangements (such
as participant acknowledgement of the applicability of the settlement
finality rules to margin and collateral), specify timing that each
transfer order becomes irrevocable for purposes of the relevant
Settlement Finality Laws, circumstances under which transfer orders are
deemed satisfied, and specify that Rules providing for default rights
and remedies would constitute default rules, procedures and similar
arrangements as defined for purposes of relevant EU and UK law,
including EMIR, UK EMIR, and the Settlement Finality Laws.
The Commission believes that these proposed rule changes, while not
changing any of the existing default rights or remedies of ICC but
rather by adopting explicit provisions relating to settlement finality
of transfer orders of Clearing Participants in insolvency, will help
support the payment and transfer of margin and collateral and thus the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions
by ensuring that its rules facilitate explicit reference and
participant awareness and acknowledgement of the applicability of EU
and UK Settlement Finality Laws.
For these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1)
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) requires that each covered clearing agency
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed, as applicable, to provide for a well-
founded, clear, transparent and enforceable legal basis for each aspect
of its activities in all relevant jurisdictions.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, ICC proposes to rely on provisions of the
Settlement Finality Laws regulations that provide additional support
for the enforceability of the ICC's default rights and remedies. For
example, under the Settlement Finality Directive, transfer orders and
related netting arrangements are enforceable, even in the event of
insolvency proceedings against a participant. The Commission believes
that by proposing to align key definitions and rules to the Settlement
Finality Laws as noted above and by requiring relevant Clearing
Participants to comply with and acknowledge the settlement finality
provisions, the proposed rule changes would provide a well-founded and
clear legal basis for ICC to enforce its clearing rules during an
insolvency of a Clearing Participant domiciled in the EU or the UK.
For these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule
changes are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Conclusion
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act,
and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act \14\ and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) hereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
\15\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\16\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ICC-2022-012), be, and hereby
is, approved.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
\17\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-19348 Filed 9-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 8, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.