Notice of Interpretation: Rule G-37, on Political Contributions and Prohibitions on Municipal Securities Business
Since May 1994, the Board has provided interpretive guidance on rule G-37 through the publication of eight Question & Answer notices.(1) The Board recently has received a number of questions concerning mergers in the municipal securities industry and the operation of the exemption provision set forth in section (i) of the rule from market participants and the agencies charged with enforcing the rule. As a result, the Board has determined that it is necessary to provide further guidance to the industry and the applicable enforcement agencies by confirming and elaborating upon guidance provided in prior Question & Answer notices and in prior communications with the applicable enforcement agencies. Accordingly, the Board is publishing this ninth set of questions and answers.
Questions and Answers Regarding Rule G-37(i)
1. Q: A person is associated with a dealer in a non-municipal finance professional capacity and makes a political contribution to an official of an issuer for whom such person is not entitled to vote. Less than two years after such person made the contribution, the dealer merges with another dealer and, solely as a result of the merger, that person becomes a municipal finance professional of the surviving dealer. Would the surviving dealer be prohibited from engaging in municipal securities business with that issuer?
A: Yes. Rule G-37 would prohibit the surviving dealer from engaging in municipal securities business with the issuer for two years from the date the contribution was made. Of course, the surviving dealer's prohibition on business would only begin when the person who made the contribution becomes a municipal finance professional of the surviving dealer.
The Board notes, however, that rule G-37 was not intended to prevent mergers in the municipal securities industry or, once a merger is consummated, to seriously hinder the surviving dealer's municipal securities business if the merger was not an attempt to circumvent the letter or spirit of rule G-37. Thus, the Board believes that it would be appropriate for the NASD or the appropriate regulatory agency (i.e., federal bank regulatory authorities) to grant conditional or unconditional exemptions from bans on municipal securities business arising from such mergers if the NASD or the appropriate regulatory agency determines that, pursuant to rule G-37(i), the exemption is consistent with the public interest, the protection of investors and the purposes of the rule, as well as any other factors set forth in the rule or any other factors deemed relevant by the NASD or the appropriate regulatory agency.
2. Q: The Board has previously provided two examples in which exemptions from a ban on municipal securities business may be appropriate under rule G-37(i). Are these the only situations in which the NASD or the appropriate regulatory agency may provide an exemption under rule G-37(i)?
A: No. The two examples noted in Q&A number 4 (June 15, 1995), MSRB Reports, Vol. 15, No. 2 (July 1995) at 3-4, MSRB Manual (CCH) ¶ 3681, were not meant to be the only instances in which exemptions might appropriately be given. Because of the varying factual situations that arise with each exemptive request, the Board believes that the NASD and the appropriate regulatory agencies should review such other factual situations presented by dealers in exemptive requests pursuant to the requirements in rule G-37(i) and, based on the facts, either approve or reject the request. Rule G-37(i) allows the NASD and the appropriate regulatory agencies to grant exemptions from the ban on business "conditionally or unconditionally" and, if the NASD or the appropriate regulatory agency believes it would be appropriate to shorten the ban on business or limit its scope, it is authorized to do so as long as the requirements of rule G-37(i) are met.
3. Q: The Board has previously described three situations which it believes are not sufficient to justify the granting of an exemption from a ban on municipal securities business under rule G-37(i). Does this mean that the NASD or the appropriate regulatory agency may never provide an exemption under rule G-37(i) if any of these situations exist?
A: No. The Board's intent in describing these three scenarios in Q&A number 4 (June 15, 1995), MSRB Reports, Vol. 15, No. 2 (July 1995) at 3-4, MSRB Manual (CCH) ¶ 3681, was to note that none of these situations was sufficient, in and of itself, to justify the granting of an exemption from a ban on municipal securities business. However, any such scenario in combination with other facts and circumstances deemed relevant by the NASD or the appropriate regulatory agency (including, but not limited to, the factors set forth in rule G-37(i)) could, in the judgment of the NASD or the appropriate regulatory agency, be sufficient to justify a conditional or unconditional exemption from the ban.
The Board also notes that none of the three situations previously cited as insufficient to justify an exemption involved a contribution made prior to an individual becoming a municipal finance professional. Thus, for example, where a non-de minimis contribution was made by a person who later becomes a municipal finance professional (whether by reason of a merger, as a newly hired associated person, as an existing associated person becoming involved in municipal securities activities, or otherwise), neither the NASD nor any appropriate regulatory agency is constrained from granting a conditional or unconditional exemption if, in its judgment, such exemption is consistent with rule G-37(i).
June 29, 1998
ENDNOTES
1. See MSRB Reports, Vol. 14, No. 3 (June 1994) at 11-16; Vol. 14, No. 4 (Aug. 1994) at 27-31; Vol. 14, No. 5 (Dec. 1994) at 8; Vol. 15, No. 1 (April 1995) at 21; Vol. 15, No. 2 (July 1995) at 3-4; Vol. 16, No. 1 (Jan. 1996) at 31; Vol. 16, No. 3 (Sept. 1996) at 35-36; and Vol. 17, No. 3 (Oct. 1997) at 11-12. See also CCH Manual at ¶ 3681.
