Reconciliation + regulation = complication
Comparing the key terms of over-the-counter derivatives trades against the data held by a counterparty is standard practice for many over-the-counter derivatives participants, but incoming regulation on both sides of the Atlantic will change some of the requirements, make it a compliance issue for the first time and — crucially — will force many smaller players to put completely new processes in place.
For firms that have not had to think too deeply about trade reconciliation before, the regime could come as a nasty shock. The obvious solution — possibly the only one, given the timeline — is to use one of the available third-party services, but this has problems of its own. Important regulatory processes can, of course, be outsourced, but it does not transfer the compliance responsibility away from a regulated entity. As a result, the decision needs to be a careful, considered one — but with US reconciliation requirements due to take effect on 1 July and the European equivalents scheduled for 15 September, there is a danger that some derivatives users may rush to adopt a third-party provider without thinking the consequences through…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pitman briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
Aurora Energy decision deems discharges prohibited, leaves open question of permit shield applicability
On 3 September 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Alaska Community Action on Toxics v Aurora Energy Services LLC.
Scaling back considerably from the October 2012 term, the US Supreme Court issued only a few rulings affecting environmental law during the October 2013 term.