Letters

Security-Based Swap Dealers Substituted Compliance for France

Summary

SIFMA sent comments to the SEC in response to reopening the comment period for the Commission’s 2020 proposed conditional substituted compliance order (the “French Order”) in connection with certain requirements applicable to non-U.S. security-based swap (“SBS”) dealers (“SBSDs”) and major security-based swap participants (collectively with SBSDs, “SBS Entities”) subject to regulation in the French Republic (such SBS Entities, “Covered Entities”).

PDF

Submitted To

SEC

Submitted By

SIFMA

Date

3

May

2021

Excerpt

Vanessa A. Countryman
Secretary
Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street NE
Washington, DC 20549-1090

Re: Reopening of Comment Period for Order Proposing Conditional Substituted Compliance in Connection with Certain Requirements Applicable to Non-U.S. Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants Subject to Regulation in the French Republic (S7-22-20)

Dear Ms. Countryman:

The Securities and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”)1 appreciates this opportunity to provide the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission” or “SEC”) with comments in response to the above-captioned release2 (the “Release”) reopening the comment period for the Commission’s 2020 proposed conditional substituted compliance order (the “French Order”) in connection with certain requirements applicable to non-U.S. security-based swap (“SBS”) dealers (“SBSDs”) and major security-based swap participants (collectively with SBSDs, “SBS Entities”) subject to regulation in the French Republic (such SBS Entities, “Covered Entities”).

We appreciate the Commission’s efforts to respond to comments on the French Order as well as comments on its previous substituted compliance proposal for Germany. In particular, we appreciate the Commission’s requests for further feedback to refine which foreign requirements operate as conditions to substituted compliance and clarify the ability of an SBS Entity to rely on substituted compliance for some but not all Exchange Act requirements in certain areas. In this letter (including Appendix A, where we provide comments on the French and European Union (“EU”) laws cited as conditions to substituted compliance), we provide further comments regarding these matters, as well as comments requesting technical clarifications or modifications to the French Order. Considering that virtually all of the matters discussed in this letter are also relevant to the Commission’s substituted compliance order for Germany, 4 we ask that to the extent the Commission makes any changes to the French Order in response to our comments, it make conforming changes to the final German order.5