On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

New Developments in Securitization 2016

Released on: Dec. 31, 2016
Running Time: 06:18:13

As the securitization world continues to emerge from the financial crisis, it faces a continuing flow of new regulation.   Some asset-backed securities (ABS) markets, such as auto securitizations, collateralized loan obligations (CLOs), and commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) have reemerged with steady issuance volumes.  Other markets such as residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) are slower to reemerge.  Significant new regulatory developments have occurred in certain areas. 

In this program, you will receive an intensive and comprehensive introduction and update on what legislative and regulatory actions and initiatives are underway, and what market responses can be expected.

You will learn:

  • Learn about new legislative and regulatory developments:
    • Analyze financial regulatory, securitization and derivatives reform
    • Update from the SEC’s Office of Structured Finance
    • Overview of the final credit risk retention rules and implementation issues
    • Recent CFPB actions relevant to the securitization market
  • Develop an overview of activity in the various securitization markets and responses to new regulations

Attorneys at law firms, corporations, investment banks, investment funds, and other financial institutions dealing with asset-backed securities or structured products will benefit from this program. Business professionals who need to understand the securitization process will also benefit from this program.

Lecture Topics [Total time 06:18:13]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.


  • Opening Remarks* [00:11:28]
    Frank Polverino
  • Q&A With the SEC Office of Structured Finance [00:58:13]
    Richard Johns, Katherine W. Hsu
  • Market Update: RMBS [01:00:05]
    Stephen S. Kudenholdt, Lawrence D. Rubenstein
  • Credit Risk Retention [01:04:12]
    Ellen L. Marks, Joyce E. McCarty, Bianca A. Russo, Sean Solis
  • CFPB Roundup - Recent CFPB Actions of Importance to the Securitization Market [00:59:59]
    Chris DiAngelo
  • Overview of Consumer and Other Securitization Markets [01:03:54]
    Andrew M. Faulkner, Stuart M. Litwin, Cheryl D. Barnes
  • Esoteric Asset Securitization [01:00:22]
    Ryan D. McNaughton, Michael L. Urschel, Jamie D. Kocis

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission: Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations: Information for Form ABS-EE Filings (April 28, 2016)
    Katherine W. Hsu
  • Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 185, Part II; U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 17 CFR Parts 229, 230, 232, et al., Asset-Backed Securities Disclosure and Registration; Final Rule (September 24, 2014)
    Katherine W. Hsu
  • Final Risk Retention Rules: Impact on RMBS (May 28, 2015)
    Stephen S. Kudenholdt
  • Structured Finance Industry Group: RMBS 3.0: A Comprehensive Set of Proposed Industry Standards to Promote Growth in the Private Label Securities Market—Third Edition (November 10, 2015)
    Stephen S. Kudenholdt
  • Residential Mortgage Securitization Overview (July 31, 2016) (PowerPoint slides)
    Lawrence D. Rubenstein
  • Who’s on First: Credit Risk Retention and the Identification of the Sponsor (October 6, 2016)
    Ellen L. Marks
  • The Review of Banking & Financial Services: U.S. Risk Retention in the CLO Market, Vol. 32, No. 5 (May 2016)
    Macey Levington, Beau Sterling, Sarah Crandall, Joyce E. McCarty
  • Securitization and Recent Actions of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) (December 14, 2016) (PowerPoint slides)
    Chris DiAngelo
  • Sample Comment Letter: Impact of CFPB’s Arbitration Rule on Securitization: Docket No. CFPB-2016-0020, Arbitration Agreements, 81 Fed. Reg. 32,830 (proposed May 24, 2015) (to be codified at 12 C.F.R. pt. 1040) (August 22, 2016)
    Chris DiAngelo
  • Credit Card Securitization
    Andrew M. Faulkner
  • Securitization of Equipment and Auto Leases (September 2013)
    Stuart M. Litwin
  • At Long Last—SEC Adopts Final Regulation AB II (September 5, 2014)
    Cheryl D. Barnes
  • Structured Finance Industry Group Comment Letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Re: Outstanding Proposed Rules under Regulation AB II—Student Loan ABS (File No. S7-08-10) (June 15, 2016)
    Cheryl D. Barnes, Richard Johns
  • Structured Finance Industry Group Comment Letter to Fitch Ratings, Re: Rating U.S. Federal Family Education Loan Program Student Loan ABS Criteria—Exposure Draft Questions dated November 18, 2015 (January 15, 2016)
    Cheryl D. Barnes, Richard Johns
  • Structured Finance Industry Group Comment Letter to Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., Re: Proposed Changes to Moody’s Approach to Rating Securities Backed by FFELP Student Loans—Request for Comment dated July 9, 2015 (October 30, 2015)
    Cheryl D. Barnes, Richard Johns
  • Recent Developments in Esoteric Assets (September 28, 2016)
    Michael L. Urschel, Jamie D. Kocis, Ryan D. McNaughton

Presentation Material


  • Q&A With the SEC Office of Structured Finance
    Richard Johns
  • Residential Mortgage Securitization Overview
    Lawrence D. Rubenstein
  • Securitization and Recent Actions of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
    Chris DiAngelo
  • Non-Mortgage Securitization Markets
    Cheryl D. Barnes, Andrew M. Faulkner, Stuart M. Litwin
  • New Developments in Esoteric Asset Securitization
    Jamie D. Kocis, Ryan D. McNaughton, Michael L. Urschel
Chairperson(s)
Frank Polverino ~ Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
Speaker(s)
Cheryl D. Barnes ~ Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
Chris DiAngelo ~ Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
Andrew M. Faulkner ~ Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Katherine W. Hsu ~ Chief, Office of Structured Finance, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Richard Johns ~ Executive Director, Structured Finance Industry Group
Jamie D. Kocis ~ Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
Stephen S. Kudenholdt ~ Dentons US LLP
Stuart M. Litwin ~ Mayer Brown LLP
Ellen L. Marks ~ Latham & Watkins LLP
Joyce E. McCarty ~ Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Ryan D. McNaughton ~ Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
Lawrence D. Rubenstein ~ Capital Markets Managing Counsel, Wells Fargo & Company
Bianca A. Russo ~ Managing Director and Associate General Counsel - Legal, Securitized Products, J.P. Morgan
Sean Solis ~ Dechert LLP
Michael L. Urschel ~ King & Spalding
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

 

Related Items

Live Programs  Live Programs

New Developments in Securitization 2018 (New York, NY) Dec. 12, 2018

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

New Developments in Securitization 2018  
New Developments in Securitization 2017 Frank Polverino, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
 
Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.