Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

FDIC Adopts Changes to Securitization Safe Harbor Rule

By James J. Antonopoulos, Julie A. Gillespie, Stuart M. Litwin, Jan C. Stewart & Jeffrey P. Taft on February 2, 2020
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Since its adoption in 2010, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (the “FDIC”) securitization safe harbor rule, 12 C.F.R. § 360.6 (the “Rule”), which relates to the treatment of financial assets transferred in connection with a securitization or participation transaction, has required that securitization documents require compliance with Regulation AB of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), 17 C.F.R. §§ 229.1100 et. seq. (“Regulation AB”) even in circumstances where Regulation AB by its terms would not apply to the issuance of obligations backed by such financial assets.   On January 30, 2020, the FDIC finalized and adopted changes (the “Adopted Change”) to certain provisions of the Rule to eliminate such requirement where Regulation AB would not otherwise apply to the related securitization transaction.  

This change will be effective 30 or 60 days following publication in the Federal Register (as determined by the Office of Management and Budget) and will modify section 360.6(b)(2)(i)(A) of the Rule to read as follows:

In the case of an issuance of obligations that is subject to [Regulation AB], the documents shall require that, on or prior to issuance of obligations and at the time of delivery of any periodic distribution report and, in any event, at least once per calendar quarter, while obligations are outstanding, information about the obligations and the securitized financial assets shall be disclosed to all potential investors at the financial asset or pool level, as appropriate for the financial assets, and security-level to enable evaluation and analysis of the credit risk and performance of the obligations and financial assets. The documents shall require that such information and its disclosure, at a minimum, shall comply with the requirements of Regulation AB. Information that is unknown or not available to the sponsor or the issuer after reasonable investigation maybe omitted if the issuer includes a statement in the offering documents disclosing that the specific information is otherwise unavailable.

The Adopted Change is the same as the language originally proposed by the FDIC in its notice of proposed rulemaking issued earlier this year. 84 Fed. Reg. 43732 (Aug. 22, 2019).

For bank-sponsored 144A securitizations relying on the Rule, the Adopted Change eliminates the Regulation AB disclosure requirement.  As a result, loan-level data that Regulation AB requires to be provided to investors for securitizations of certain asset classes (e.g. auto loans and mortgages) will no longer need to be disclosed in these private securitizations.  In adopting this change, the FDIC noted the disincentive provided by the previous requirement to bank-sponsored securitizations seeking to be compliant with the Rule and the policy objective of removing this barrier to securitization transactions, in particular as related to RMBS transactions. The FDIC does not believe that the removal of this barrier will result in any adverse effect on the safety and soundness of insured depository institutions.

The Adopted Change is great news for future bank sponsors of securitizations and could result in an increase in the amount of bank-sponsored ABS and RMBS because, unlike under the Rule in effect prior to the Adopted Change, the documents governing a private placement or an issuance not otherwise required to be registered are no longer required to mandate compliance with Regulation AB.  Bank sponsors of existing private securitizations will need to review the amendment standards in their existing transaction documents (entered into prior to the Adopted Change) to determine whether an amendment is possible to remove the requirement to provide Regulation AB style reporting as now permitted by the Adopted Change.

Photo of James J. Antonopoulos James J. Antonopoulos
Read more about James J. AntonopoulosEmail
Photo of Julie A. Gillespie Julie A. Gillespie
Read more about Julie A. GillespieEmail
Photo of Jeffrey P. Taft Jeffrey P. Taft

Jeffrey Taft is a partner in the Firm’s Financial Services Regulatory & Enforcement group and the Cybersecurity and Data Privacy practice. His practice focuses primarily on bank regulation, bank receivership and insolvency issues, payment systems, consumer financial services and cybersecurity/privacy issues. He has…

Jeffrey Taft is a partner in the Firm’s Financial Services Regulatory & Enforcement group and the Cybersecurity and Data Privacy practice. His practice focuses primarily on bank regulation, bank receivership and insolvency issues, payment systems, consumer financial services and cybersecurity/privacy issues. He has extensive experience counseling financial institutions, merchants, technology companies and other entities on various federal and state banking and consumer credit issues, including compliance with the Bank Holding Company Act, National Bank Act, International Banking Act, Consumer Financial Protection Act, Truth-in-Lending Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, state unfair or deceptive acts or practices statutes, CFPB’s UDAAP authority and the development and implementation of privacy, cybersecurity and information security programs under the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act, the NYDFS cybersecurity regulation and industry standards, such as PCI DSS and NIST.

Read Jeff’s full bio.

Read more about Jeffrey P. TaftEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Banking, Finance and Securities
  • Blog:
    Retained Interest
  • Organization:
    Mayer Brown

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo