Contact us with your California corporate & securities law questions (949) 353-6347 or Contact us here

Did The SEC Violate The Administrative Procedure Act?

Yesterday, Broc Romanek wrote about the joint dissent issued by Commissioners Daniel M. Gallagher and Michael S. Piwowar with respect to the Commission's recent adoption of Regulation SBSR which requires regulatory reporting of security-based swap information and the public dissemination of security-based swap transaction, volume, and pricing information by registered security-based swap data repositories.  But when exactly did the Commission adopt these new rules?  According to this press release, the Commission adopted Regulation SBSR at its meeting on January 14, 2015.  The adopting release, however is dated nearly a month later - February 11, 2015.  Why the delay?

According to the joint dissent, the staff lost a key comment letter that "covered a range of key issues in Regulation SBSR, and was submitted by an organization whose membership will be responsible for reporting nearly all security-based swaps subject to reporting under Regulation SBSR."  When this oversight was discovered, the dissenting Commissioners asked that the misplaced comment letter be published and the comment period re-opened.  That didn't happen.  The Commission instead published the previously adopted release, modified to include references to the omitted comment letter.  Did that comport with the Administrative Procedure Act?

The APA requires the SEC to publish "notice" of "either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved," in order to "give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments," and then, "[a]fter consideration of the relevant matter presented, the agency shall incorporate in the rules adopted a concise general statement of their basis and purpose." 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)-(c).  Here, the Commission's action effectively denies interested persons the opportunity to react to comments that the Commission deemed important enough to reference in its adopting release.  See Am. Radio Relay League, Inc. v. FCC, 524 F.3d 227 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

Share on:

ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING CALIFORNIA CORPORATE AND SECURITIES LAW? CONTACT US DIRECTLY

We offer expert advice with the intricacies of California law.

Our years of experience and expertise allow us to help clients navigate the business laws in California.

CONTACT US

ABOUT OUR AUTHOR

30172DBAB0084D3A8F39D7AF0A8E79BC.ashx Keith Paul Bishop
Partner at Allen Matkins
(949) 353-6328
 Contact me
Learn More About Keith

RECOGNITION

NationalLawReview

badge-author-large

nominee-badge

Get the latest news and analysis about California Corporate & Securities law. Subscribe to our newsletter today!

We respect your email privacy

CATEGORIES

see all

YOUTUBE

FACEBOOK