96-16169. The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. and Chemical Bank; Notice of Application  

  • [Federal Register Volume 61, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 25, 1996)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 32862-32864]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 96-16169]
    
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
    [Rel. No. IC-22029; International Series Release No. 995; File No. 812-
    10176]
    
    
    The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. and Chemical Bank; Notice of 
    Application
    
    June 19, 1996.
    Agency: Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'').
    
    Action: Notice of Application for Exemption under the Investment 
    Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'').
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Applicants: The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. (``Chase'') and Chemical 
    Bank (``Chemical'').
    
    Relevant Act Sections: Order requested under section 6(c) of the Act 
    for an exemption from section 17(f) of the Act.
    
    Summary of Application: Applicants request an order that would amend a
    
    [[Page 32863]]
    
    prior order that permits Chase, as custodian or subcustodian of 
    registered U.S. investment company assets, to deposit such assets in 
    foreign banks and foreign securities depositories. The requested order 
    would substitute the entity surviving the anticipated merger of Chase 
    and Chemical as the party to which relief is granted. Chemical will 
    survive the merger and change its name to ``The Chase Manhattan Bank.''
    
    Filing Date: The application was filed on June 3, 1996.
    
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application 
    will be issued unless the SEC orders a hearing. Interested persons may 
    request a hearing a writing to the SEC's Secretary and serving 
    applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing 
    requests should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on July 11, 1996 by 
    proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for 
    lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the 
    nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the 
    issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may 
    request notification by writing to the SEC's Secretary.
    
    Addresses: Secretary, SEC, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
    20549. Applicants, c/o Daniel L. Goelzer, Esq., Baker & McKenzie, 815 
    Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.
    
    For Further Information Contact: Deepak T. Pai, Staff Attorney, at 
    (202) 942-0574, or Robert A. Robertson, Branch Chief, at (202) 942-0564 
    (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company 
    Regulation).
    
    Supplementary Information: The following is a summary of the 
    application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the 
    SEC's Public Reference Branch.
    
    Applicants' Representations
    
        1. Chase is a national banking association, regulated by the 
    Comptroller of the Currency under the National Bank Act. At December 
    31, 1995, Chase has shareholders' equity in excess of $8.065 billion. 
    Through its Global Securities Services division, Chase provides custody 
    and related services to global institutional investors, including U.S. 
    Investment Companies.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\ As used herein, ``U.S. Investment Company'' means any 
    management investment company registered under the Act, other than 
    an investment company registered under section 7(d) of the Act.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        2. Chemical Bank is a banking institution, organized under the laws 
    of the State of New York. It is regulated as a bank by the 
    Superintendent of Banks of New York, and is a member bank of the 
    Federal Reserve System. At December 31, 1995, Chemical had 
    shareholders' equity in excess of $8.18 billion.
        3. On March 31, 1996, Chase's parent holding company, The Chase 
    Manhattan Corporation, and Chemical's parent holding company, Chemical 
    Banking Corporation, merged. Chemical Banking Corporation was the 
    surviving entity in the merger, and it has changed its name to ``The 
    Chase Manhattan Corporation.'' During July 1996, it is anticipated that 
    Chase will be merged into Chemical (the ``Merger''). Chemical will 
    survive the Merger, and will change its name to ``The Chase Manhattan 
    Bank'' (``New Chase''). New Chase will succeed by operation of law to 
    the rights and obligations of Chase, including Chase's obligations 
    under the various custody agreements with U.S. Investment Companies or 
    their custodians.
        4. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) for an exemption 
    from section 17(f) that would amend a prior order (the ``Prior 
    Order'').\2\ The Prior Order granted an exemption to Chase to permit 
    it, as custodian or subcustodian of such U.S. Investment Company 
    assets, to deposit such assets in foreign banks and foreign securities 
    depositories. Applicants request that New Chase be substituted for 
    Chase as the party to which relief is granted. The amendment will 
    permit New Chase to place U.S. Investment Company assets in the custody 
    of foreign subcustodians under the same terms and conditions as Chase 
    under the Prior Order.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \2\ Investment Company Act Release Nos. 12002 (Oct. 23, 1981) 
    (notice) and 12053 (Nov. 20, 1981) (order). The order was granted 
    before the adoption of rule 17f-5 under the Act. Following the 
    adoption of rule 17f-5, the order was amended to conform it to 
    certain conditions in the rule. Investment Company Act Release Nos. 
    14133 (Sept. 7, 1984) (notice) and 14184 (Oct. 9, 1984) (order).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        5. The Prior order permits Chase to place U.S. Investment Company 
    assets in the custody of foreign subcustodians under terms which 
    include, among other things: (a) A subcustodian must be an ``eligible 
    foreign custodian,'' as defined in rule 17f-5(c)(2); \3\ (b) Chase must 
    maintain a Bankers Blanket Bond for assets held outside the U.S. if 
    such coverage is available at reasonable cost or, if such coverage is 
    discontinued, must advise its U.S. Investment Company customers; and 
    (c) the custody agreement must contain specific provisions including, 
    among other things: (i) Assets will be identified on Chase's books as 
    belonging to the U.S. Investment Company, and on the foreign bank's 
    books and records as belonging to Chase, as agent for the U.S. 
    Investment Company--Chase and its subcustodians must allow access to 
    their books and records to the U.S. Investment Company; (ii) Chase will 
    furnish auditor's reports (and similar reports concerning each foreign 
    bank and foreign securities depository) to its U.S. Investment Company 
    customers; (iii) securities will be held in an account containing only 
    assets held by Chase for its customers, subject to the instructions of 
    Chase or its agents; (iv) securities will not be subject to any right 
    or other claim in favor of the foreign entity, except for charges for 
    safe custody or administration; (v) Chase will exercise reasonable care 
    in the performance of its duties; (vi) the law of New York will be the 
    governing law of the contract; and (vii) Chase will indemnify and hold 
    its U.S. Investment Company customer harmless from and against any loss 
    that may occur as the result of the failure of a foreign bank or 
    securities depository to the same extent as if Chase itself were 
    holding such securities in New York.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \3\ The rule defines the term ``Eligible Foreign Custodian'' to 
    include (i) a banking institution or trust company, organized under 
    the laws of a country other than the U.S., that is regulated by that 
    country's government or an agency thereof, and that has 
    shareholders; equity in excess of $200,000,000, or (ii) a majority-
    owned direct or indirect subsidiary of a qualified U.S. bank or 
    bank-holding company that is organized under the laws of a country 
    other than the U.S. and that has shareholders' equity in excess of 
    $100 million.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Applicants' Legal Analysis
    
        1. Section 17(f) of the Act requires every registered management 
    investment company to place and maintain its securities and similar 
    investments in the custody of certain entities, including ``banks'' 
    having aggregate capital, surplus and undivided profits of at least 
    $500,000. A ``bank,'' as defined in section 2(a)(5) of the Act, 
    includes (a) A banking institution organized under the laws of the 
    U.S.; (b) a member of the Federal Reserve System; and (c) any other 
    banking institution or trust company doing business under the laws of 
    any state or of the U.S., and meeting certain requirements. Therefore, 
    the only entities located outside the U.S. which section 17(f) 
    authorizes to serve as custodians for registered management investment 
    companies are the overseas branches of U.S. banks.
        2. Rule 17f-4 under the Act, at the time of the Prior Order, 
    permitted U.S. Investment Company assets to be deposited with 
    securities depositories registered with the SEC under section 17A of 
    the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. However, no foreign depository was 
    registered under section 17A, and therefore rule 17f-4 did not 
    authorize
    
    [[Page 32864]]
    
    the use of securities depositories outside the U.S.\4\ Because of the 
    limitations imposed by section 17(f) and rule 17f-4, Chase was required 
    to obtain exemptive relief in order to utilize foreign banks and 
    foreign securities depositories as subcustodians for the assets of U.S. 
    Investment Companies.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \4\ Rule 17f-4 was amended in 1984 (after the adoption of rule 
    17f-5) to permit the use of certain foreign securities depositories 
    in accordance with rule 17f-5. Investment Company Act Release No. 
    14132 (Sept. 7, 1984).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        3. Section 6(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that the SEC 
    may exempt any person or class of persons from any provision of the Act 
    or from any rule thereunder, if such exemption is necessary or 
    appropriate in the public interest, consistent with the protection of 
    investors, and consistent with the purposes fairly intended by the 
    policy and provisions of the Act.
        4. Applicants believe that the requested amendment is necessary and 
    appropriate in the public interest to permit U.S. Investment Companies 
    for which Chase serves as custodian or subcustodian to continue relying 
    on the Prior Order after the Merger. Applicants state that the Merger, 
    a transaction undertaken for reasons unrelated to the terms of Chase's 
    foreign custody arrangements, should not have the unintended effect of 
    terminating the ability of New Chase and its U.S. Investment Company 
    customers to rely on the Prior Order. Chase has numerous longstanding 
    contractual relationships with its U.S. Investment Company customers, 
    and with numerous foreign subcustodians, predicated on the Prior Order. 
    Applicants believe that, while the terms of these contracts do not 
    differ materially from the requirements of rule 17f-5 (except in ways 
    that are more favorable to U.S. Investment Companies), it would be 
    administratively burdensome and expensive to amend these contracts to 
    delete references to the Prior Order and to conform the contracts to 
    rule 17f-5.
        5. Applicants believe that the assets to which the Prior Order 
    relates will be as effectively protected by New Chase as they have been 
    by Chase. Following the Merger, New Chase will be required to indemnify 
    U.S. Investment Companies for losses to the same extent that Chase is 
    currently required to do so under the Prior Order. Applicants believe 
    that, in certain respects, the Prior Order imposes more stringent 
    requirements, and therefore provides a higher level of protection for 
    U.S. Investment Company assets, than does rule 17f-5. Applicants state 
    that this application does not seek to change in any manner the terms 
    and protections applicable to U.S. Investment Company assets held in 
    custody under the Prior Order.
        6. Applicants state that the Prior Order is consistent with the 
    purposes of section 17(f) and of rule 17f-5. The purpose of the section 
    is to ensure that U.S. Investment Companies hold securities in a safe 
    manner that protects the interests of their shareholders. The purpose 
    of the rule is to relieve U.S. Investment Companies of the expense and 
    inconvenience of transferring assets to the custody of a U.S. bank or 
    other qualified custodian outside the jurisdiction in which the primary 
    trading market for those assets is located and to reduce the risks 
    inherent in maintaining assets outside the U.S. Applicants state that 
    the requested amendment would permit New Chase and the U.S. Investment 
    Companies for which it acts as custodian or subcustodian to continue 
    relying on the Prior Order under the same terms and conditions of the 
    Prior Order and is therefore consistent with these purposes.
        7. Applicants state that in granting the Prior Order, the SEC 
    determined that the arrangements which that order permits satisfy the 
    standards of section 6(c). Applicants believe that the substitution of 
    New Chase for Chase as the party to which the terms and conditions of 
    the Prior Order applies in no way detracts from the continuing validity 
    of the SEC's determination. Therefore, applicants believe the requested 
    order satisfies these standards.
    
    Condition
    
        Applicants agree that the order granting the requested relief shall 
    be subject to the condition that, following the merger of Chase and 
    Chemical, New Chase will comply with all of the terms and conditions of 
    the Prior Order as if such order had been granted to New Chase.
    
        For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, 
    under delegated authority.
    Margaret H. McFarland,
    Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 96-16169 Filed 6-24-96; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
    
    

Document Information

Published:
06/25/1996
Department:
Securities and Exchange Commission
Entry Type:
Notice
Action:
Notice of Application for Exemption under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'').
Document Number:
96-16169
Dates:
The application was filed on June 3, 1996.
Pages:
32862-32864 (3 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Rel. No. IC-22029, International Series Release No. 995, File No. 812- 10176
PDF File:
96-16169.pdf