text:
Use of Derivatives by Registered Investment Companies and Business Development Companies
To view this article you need a PDF viewer such as Adobe Reader.
If you can't read this PDF, you can view its text here. Go back to the PDF .
New York Washington, D.C. Los Angeles Palo Alto London Paris Frankfurt Tokyo Hong Kong Beijing Melbourne Sydney www.sullcrom.com December 18, 2015 Use of Derivatives by Registered Investment Companies and Business Development Companies SEC Proposes Significant Modifications to Existing Regulatory Framework for Derivatives; New Rule Would Require Registered Investment Companies and Business Development Companies to Comply with Portfolio Limitations on Their Use of Derivatives, Establish Stricter Asset Coverage Requirements, and Require Funds That Utilize Derivatives to Establish a Derivatives Risk Management Program; Rule Would Mandate Board Oversight and Require Various Board Approvals SUMMARY On December 11, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission, by a vote of three to one, proposed new rule 18f-4 under the Investment Company Act of 1940. The proposed rule would provide registered investment companies and business development companies that comply with certain requirements with an exemption that would permit them to enter into derivatives transactions and financial commitment transactions (as those terms are defined in the proposed rule) notwithstanding the Investment Company Act's prohibitions and restrictions on the issuance of senior securities.1 Compared to existing SEC and SEC staff guidance on which funds have historically relied to engage in such transactions, which would be superseded and rescinded, the new rule would impose significant new restrictions and requirements. In particular, a fund seeking to rely on the new rule would be required to:  comply with one of two alternative portfolio limitations designed to impose a limit on the total amount of leverage the fund can obtain through derivatives and financial commitment transactions; -2- Use of Derivatives by Registered Investment Companies and Business Development Companies December 18, 2015  maintain an amount of "qualifying coverage assets" (which must generally be cash or cash equivalents) with respect to each derivative or financial commitment transaction designed to enable it to meet its obligations under such transaction;  if the fund engages in derivatives transactions with a combined notional value of at least 50% of a fund's net assets, or transacts in complex derivatives, establish a formalized derivatives risk management program;  obtain various board approvals, including of the fund's choice of portfolio limitation, its asset coverage policies and procedures, and its derivatives risk management program, and conduct periodic board reviews of various aspects of the fund's compliance with the proposed rule; and  comply with new recordkeeping, disclosure and reporting requirements related to a fund's use of derivatives. The SEC acknowledged in the proposing release that certain alternative strategy funds, particularly socalled leveraged ETFs, could not continue operating as registered funds under the proposed rule's restrictions, and stated that such funds may wish to consider de-registering under the Investment Company Act, with the funds' sponsors offering such strategies via private funds or other vehicles not subject to statutory limitations on the use of leverage. The SEC also proposed amendments to proposed Forms N-PORT and N-CEN that would require registered investment companies to report additional information regarding their derivatives and financial commitment transactions. The SEC has requested comments regarding the proposed rule and the proposed amendments to Form N-PORT and N-CEN generally and on numerous specific matters discussed in the release. Comments must be submitted no later than 90 days following the release's publication in the Federal Register. BACKGROUND Section 18 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the "ICA"), places significant restrictions on the ability of registered investment companies to issue "senior securities." The provision was intended to protect fund investors from the risks of excessive leverage, which, at the time the ICA was enacted, could typically only be achieved by issuing debt securities or obtaining bank loans. In the decades since then, with the advent of derivatives, reverse repurchase agreements and other transactions through which funds are effectively able to achieve leverage, the SEC has broadly interpreted section 18's restrictions against "senior securities" as being implicated by such transactions. Recognizing that limited use of such transactions for certain purposes could benefit fund investors, in 1979 the SEC issued a general statement of policy in Investment Company Act Release No. 10666 ("Release 10666") providing that funds engaging in certain such transactions (reverse repurchase agreements, firm commitment agreements and standby commitment agreements) would not be considered to be in violation of section 18 provided they segregated liquid assets in an amount sufficient to "cover" their potential obligations, thereby limiting the risk of loss from such transactions.2 The asset -3- Use of Derivatives by Registered Investment Companies and Business Development Companies December 18, 2015 coverage requirement was intended to "assure the availability of adequate funds to meet the [fund's] obligations" from such activities and serve as "a practical limit on the amount of leverage which [a registered] investment company can undertake and on the potential increase in the speculative character of its outstanding common stock."3 This concept has been further developed and expanded to cover new types of derivatives and other leverage-producing instruments, and other ways to "cover" funds' potential obligations, in a series of over 30 no-action letters and SEC releases over the past few decades. Responding to the dramatic growth in the volume and complexity of the derivatives markets, in 2010 the SEC announced that it had initiated a review of the use of derivatives by funds and the adequacy of the existing regulatory framework, and in 2011 published a concept release which discussed and requested comments on various related issues.4 In remarks delivered at an SEC meeting last week to discuss the proposed rule, Chair Mary Jo White stated that she had concluded from the SEC's review that existing SEC guidance no longer effectively protects investors from the risks of excessive leverage.5 In particular, Chair White noted the ability of funds under existing guidance to obtain high levels of exposure through the practice of "mark-to-market segregation," whereby a fund segregates liquid assets only in an amount equal to the current liability, if any, of a derivatives transaction – leaving the fund exposed to potential future losses from the transaction. Proposed rule 18f-4 would supersede the existing guidance concerning funds' use of derivatives and financial commitment transactions (including Release 10666), which would be rescinded if the proposed rule is adopted. The proposing release notes that, in December 2014, the Financial Stability Oversight Council ("FSOC") issued a notice requesting comments on aspects of the investment management industry, including potential risks related to leverage, and that although the proposed rule is independent of FSOC, the SEC considered comments responding to the FSOC notice in proposing the rule. The proposed rule is the latest in a series of recent SEC rulemakings aimed at addressing the perceived risks to investors resulting from increasingly complex portfolio composition and operations in the asset management industry.6 SEC Commissioner Michael S. Piwowar, who dissented from the SEC's decision to issue the rule proposal, noted his support for the proposed asset coverage requirements, discussed below, but disapproved of the proposed portfolio limitations, which he considered unnecessary and unduly burdensome given the effective limitations on leverage imposed by the proposed asset coverage requirements.7 PORTFOLIO LIMITATIONS FOR DERIVATIVES TRANSACTIONS Proposed rule 18f-4 would permit mutual funds, exchange-traded funds ("ETFs"), closed-end funds and companies that have elected to be treated as business development companies (each of which is referred to herein as a "fund") to engage in "derivatives transactions" by providing a limited exemption from section 18 and section 61 of the ICA.8 "Derivatives transaction" would be defined as "any swap, -4- Use of Derivatives by Registered Investment Companies and Business Development Companies December 18, 2015 security-based swap, futures contract, forward contract, option, any combination of the foregoing, or any similar instrument under which a fund is or may be required to make any payment or delivery of cash or other assets during the life of the instrument or at maturity or early termination."9 This definition would not encompass types of derivatives (such as purchased call options) that do not impose a payment obligation on the fund beyond its investment.10 Funds seeking to utilize the exemption and engage in derivatives transactions would be required to comply with one of two alternative portfolio limitation rules – an "exposure-based portfolio limit," or a "riskbased portfolio limit" – both of which are designed to address concerns of excessive leverage and undue speculation by imposing an overall limit on the amount of exposure to underlying reference assets, and thus potential leverage, that a fund would be able to achieve through the use of derivatives and similar transactions, while also providing funds flexibility to use derivatives for a variety of purposes. 1. Exposure-Based Portfolio Limit Under the exposure-based portfolio limit, a fund would be required to operate such that its overall exposure to (i) derivatives transactions, (ii) financial commitment transactions (as defined below under "Financial Commitment Transactions") and (iii) other transactions involving senior securities entered into other than in reliance on rule 18f-4, does not exceed 150% of its net assets, measured immediately after entering into any such transaction (collectively, "senior securities transactions").11 The fund's "exposure" for purposes of this limit would be calculated as the sum of (i) the aggregate notional amounts12 of the fund's derivatives transactions (subject to certain exceptions described below), (ii) the aggregate obligations of the fund under its financial commitment transactions, and (iii) the fund's aggregate indebtedness with respect to any other senior securities transactions.13 For three categories of derivatives transaction, the proposed rule prescribes alternative methods for calculating the transaction's exposure:  for derivatives that provide a return based on the leveraged performance of an underlying reference asset, the rule would require the notional amount to be multiplied by the applicable leverage factor;14  for derivatives transactions for which the underlying reference asset in a managed account or entity formed or operated primarily for the purpose of investing in or trading derivatives transactions, or an index that reflects the performance of such a managed account or entity, the rule includes a "look-through" provision, requiring the fund to calculate the notional amount of such transaction by reference to its pro rata portion of the notional amounts of derivatives transactions of the underlying reference vehicle;15 and  for certain "complex derivatives transactions," (i.e., derivatives providing for payments that are dependent on the value of a reference asset at multiple points in time,16 or on a nonlinear function of the value of the reference asset, other than due to optionality arising from a single strike price17), the notional amount would be equal to the aggregate notional amount of other, non-complex derivatives transactions which, taken together, would in the fund's reasonable estimation offset substantially all of the market risk of the complex derivatives transaction at the time it was entered into.18 -5- Use of Derivatives by Registered Investment Companies and Business Development Companies December 18, 2015 In determining aggregate notional exposure, a fund would be permitted to net any directly offsetting derivatives transactions that are the same type of instrument and have the same underlying reference asset, maturity and other material terms. Such transactions need not be with the same counterparty. The proposing release discusses at length research undertaken by the SEC's Division of Economic and Risk Analysis ("DERA"), published in an accompanying white paper (the "DERA White Paper"), and surveys the effects the proposed rule may have on a range of Funds.19 The SEC notes that 99% of mutual funds sampled in its survey have exposure to derivatives transactions below the proposed 150% threshold, but also acknowledges that the proposed rule will have particularly significant effects on alternative strategy funds that employ leverage as part of their investment strategy. In particular, certain leveraged ETFs which seek to return a multiple of market performance on a daily basis "may find it impractical to reduce their exposures below the proposed limit of 150%," and the SEC states that such funds may wish to consider deregistering under the ICA.20 2. Risk-Based Portfolio Limit As an alternative to the exposure-based portfolio limit, under the proposed rule, funds seeking to utilize rule 18f-4 could choose to comply with a risk-based portfolio limit. The risk-based portfolio limit would allow a fund to obtain exposure of up to 300% of its net assets, provided it satisfies a value-at-risk test (the "VaR test") designed to measure whether the fund's derivatives transactions, in aggregate, have the effect of reducing the fund's exposure to market risk.21 The risk-based portfolio limit option is designed to accommodate funds which engage in extensive derivatives transactions primarily for the purpose of hedging (i.e., limiting their exposure to market risks). Value at risk is defined for purposes of the proposed rule as "an estimate of potential losses on an instrument or portfolio, expressed as a positive amount in US dollars, over a specified time horizon and at a given confidence level."22 To satisfy the VaR test, a fund's "full portfolio VaR" (defined as the VaR of its entire portfolio, including all holdings) must be less than the fund's "securities VaR" (defined as the VaR of all holdings other than derivatives transactions) immediately after the fund enters into any derivatives transaction or other senior securities transaction.23 Under the proposed rule, a fund would have flexibility to select a VaR model (including historical, Monte Carlo or parametric models) and to determine the parameters for the test, provided that compliant VaR tests must:24  take into account all significant, identifiable market risk factors associated with a fund's investments, including but not limited to equity price risk, interest rate risk, credit spread risk, foreign currency risk, commodity price risk and market sensitivity;  utilize a minimum 99% confidence interval;  utilize a time horizon of at least 10 and not more than 20 trading days;  utilize a minimum of three years of historical data to estimate historical VaR; and  be implemented consistently when calculating its securities VaR and full portfolio VaR. -6- Use of Derivatives by Registered Investment Companies and Business Development Companies December 18, 2015 3. Implementation and Operation of Portfolio Limitations When a fund elects to engage in derivatives transactions pursuant to the exemption in the proposed rule, the fund's board of directors, including a majority of independent directors, would be required to approve the fund's choice as to which of the two alternative portfolio limit rules will apply to the fund.25 Compliance with the applicable limitation would be measured immediately after entering into any derivatives transaction or other senior securities transaction. Thus, a fund would not be required to terminate or unwind a transaction that was permitted under the portfolio limitation when entered into solely because the fund's exposure increased after the fund entered into such transaction. ASSET COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS In addition to compliance with one of the two alternative portfolio limitations, funds that choose to engage in derivatives transactions in reliance on the exemption in the proposed rule must also comply with specified asset coverage requirements. While the portfolio limitations are designed to limit the amount of leverage a fund may achieve, the asset coverage requirements are intended to ensure that funds have sufficient assets to meet their payment obligations under such transactions. The proposed rule requires a fund to maintain a certain amount of "qualifying coverage assets" for each derivatives transaction, determined pursuant to policies and procedures approved by the fund's board, including a majority of independent directors.26 Funds would be required to determine, and identify on their books and records, the qualifying coverage assets for their derivatives transactions at least once each business day. With certain exceptions, only cash and cash equivalents27 would be considered qualifying coverage assets for derivatives transactions.28 Under the proposed rule, the amount of qualifying coverage assets for any derivatives transaction would be equal to (i) the amount that would be payable by the fund if it were to exit the transaction at the time of determination (the "mark-to-market coverage amount") and (ii) a reasonable estimate of the potential amount payable by the fund if the fund were to exit the transaction under stressed conditions (the "riskbased coverage amount").29 The addition of the risk-based component is intended to address the risk that the mark-to-market coverage amount may be significantly less than the fund's ultimate payment obligations under a transaction.30 The proposed rule would require a fund to calculate its risk-based coverage amounts in accordance with policies and procedures approved by the fund's board, which must take into account the structure, terms and characteristics of each derivatives transaction and the underlying reference asset.31 A fund would also be free to take into account additional considerations, such as (i) the fund's ability to terminate the trade or otherwise exit the position under stressed conditions, and (ii) if the fund's policies and procedures under its derivatives risk management program (discussed below) include stress testing, the results of such stress testing. Alternatively, the proposing release notes that a fund's policies and procedures could -7- Use of Derivatives by Registered Investment Companies and Business Development Companies December 18, 2015 provide for the use of a stressed VaR model to estimate the risk-based coverage amount of certain types of derivatives transactions. In calculating the mark-to-market and risk-based coverage amounts, the proposed rule would only allow a fund to net derivatives positions if the fund is party to a netting agreement that provides for the netting of its payment obligations under such transactions.32 Moreover, a fund may subtract from the mark-tomarket coverage amount the amount of any variation margin it has posted to cover its mark-to-market losses on derivatives transactions, and may subtract from the risk-based coverage amount the amount of any initial margin to cover the fund's future potential payment obligations.33 In this way, the rule credits funds for assets that have, practically speaking, already been segregated. Finally, the total amount of a fund's qualifying coverage assets (including any such assets being maintained with respect to financial commitment transactions, as described below) may not exceed the fund's net assets.34 DERIVATIVES RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Funds that engage in derivatives transactions with an aggregate notional exposure greater than 50% of the value of the fund's net assets, or that use complex derivatives transactions (as defined above), would be required to adopt and implement a formalized derivatives risk management program (referred to herein as a "DRMP").35 Under the proposed rule, a DRMP must include policies and procedures reasonably designed to:36  assess the risks associated with the fund's derivatives transactions, including by evaluating potential leverage, market, counterparty, liquidity and operational risks, as applicable, in addition to any other factors considered relevant;  manage the risks of the fund's derivatives transactions, including by (i) monitoring whether the fund's use of derivatives is consistent with the fund's investment guidelines, the applicable portfolio limitation under the rule and relevant disclosure to investors and (ii) informing portfolio management of the fund or the fund's board of directors, as appropriate, regarding material risks arising from the fund's derivatives transactions;  reasonably segregate the functions associated with the DRMP from the portfolio management of the fund; and  periodically, but at least annually, review and update the DRMP, in accordance with procedures adopted for this purpose, which must include a review of any models, measurement tools, or policies and procedures used in the DRMP, and may include any additional considerations the fund considers appropriate in light of the fund's circumstances. The DRMP must be administered by a designated derivatives risk manager, who may not be a portfolio manager of the fund, and whose designation must be approved by the fund's board, including a majority of independent directors.37 The proposing release notes that among funds sampled by DERA for purposes of the DERA White Paper, about 6% of mutual funds, and about 52% of alternative strategy funds, had aggregate notional exposure in excess of the 50% threshold.38 -8- Use of Derivatives by Registered Investment Companies and Business Development Companies December 18, 2015 The fund's board of directors (including a majority of independent directors) would be required to approve the adoption of the DRMP and any material changes to the DRMP. The board would also be required to review a written report from the derivatives risk manager on at least a quarterly basis reviewing the adequacy of the DRMP and the effectiveness of its implementation.39 The proposing release emphasizes the role of a fund's independent directors in overseeing the DRMP.40 However, the proposing release notes, consistent with the general scheme of board oversight of staff day-to-day management of compliance, that directors may satisfy their obligations with respect to initial approval of the DRMP by reviewing summaries of the DRMP prepared by the fund's derivatives risk manager, legal counsel or other persons familiar with the DRMP. FINANCIAL COMMITMENT TRANSACTIONS In addition to the use of derivatives transactions, the proposed rule would also address funds' use of "financial commitment transactions," defined as any reverse repurchase agreement, short sale borrowing, firm or standby commitment agreement or other similar agreement.41 Consistent with the current regulatory treatment of such transactions under the principles of Investment Company Act Release 10666,42 funds that enter into financial commitment transactions in reliance on the proposed rule would be required to maintain qualifying coverage assets equal in value to the full amount that the fund is conditionally43 or unconditionally obligated to pay under each of the financial commitment transactions (the fund's "financial commitment obligation"). The amount of qualifying coverage assets with respect to financial commitment transactions would be required to be determined and identified on the fund's books and records at least once each business day. The types of qualifying coverage assets would be broader with respect to financial commitment transactions than derivatives transactions. In addition to cash and cash equivalents, and, in the case of a financial commitment transaction that may be settled by delivering a particular asset, that particular asset, funds would also be permitted to satisfy the coverage requirement using assets that are convertible to cash or that will generate cash in an amount equal to the financial commitment obligation prior to the expected date of the fund's payment obligation, or that have been pledged with respect to the financial commitment obligation and can be expected to satisfy such obligation, determined in accordance with policies and procedures approved by the fund's board. Under the proposed rule, a fund's board, including a majority of independent directors, would be required to approve policies and procedures "reasonably designed to provide for the fund's maintenance of qualifying coverage assets" with respect to financial commitment transactions.44 As described above with regard to derivatives transactions, the total amount of a fund's qualifying coverage assets (including any such assets being maintained with respect to derivatives transactions) would not be permitted to exceed the fund's net assets.45 -9- Use of Derivatives by Registered Investment Companies and Business Development Companies December 18, 2015 RECORDKEEPING, DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS The proposed rule includes certain recordkeeping requirements related to the fund's compliance with the proposed rule. Funds must maintain, for at least five years, written records of board determinations with respect to the fund's selection of portfolio limitation, copies of the policies and procedures required under the rule, copies of any materials provided to the board relating to the DRMP, records documenting the periodic reviews and updates required under the rule and written records demonstrating compliance with the applicable portfolio limitation and asset coverage requirements with respect to each senior securities transaction entered into by the fund.46 Moreover, the proposing release includes amendments to proposed Form N-PORT and proposed Form N-CEN that would require additional disclosure and reporting regarding registered investment company use of derivatives and associated risk calculations. Proposed Form N-PORT would be amended to require any registered investment company that is required under proposed rule 18f-4 to implement a DRMP to disclose on its schedule of portfolio investments the "gamma" and "vega" for options and warrants.47 Proposed Form N-CEN would be amended to require that any registered investment company that engages in derivatives transactions in reliance on proposed rule 18f-4 disclose which of the two alternative portfolio limitations the fund has elected to comply with. RESPONSIBILITIES OF FUND DIRECTORS UNDER THE PROPOSED RULE As described above, the proposed rule would add significant new responsibilities for fund directors, who would be required to approve, oversee and review various aspects of a fund's compliance with the rule. To the extent a fund elects to engage in derivatives transactions in reliance on the proposed rule, the fund's board, including a majority of independent directors, would be required to:  approve the fund's choice of which of the two alternative portfolio limit rules will apply to the fund;  approve policies and procedures for determining the proper amount of qualifying coverage assets for each derivatives transaction, including the fund's procedures for calculating the risk-based coverage amounts;  monitor the fund's derivatives transactions, and, if the notional amount of those transactions exceeds 50% of the fund's net assets or the fund engages in any complex derivatives transactions, approve the fund's adoption of a DRMP, appoint a derivatives risk manager to oversee the program, review written reports produced by the derivatives risk manager on at least a quarterly basis, and engage in a thorough periodic review and update of the program on at least an annual basis, including a review of any models, measurement tools or policies and procedures used in the program; and  with respect to financial commitment transactions, approve policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for the fund's maintenance of qualifying coverage assets, including specific guidance regarding the fund's use of non-cash or cash-equivalent assets as coverage for such transactions. -10- Use of Derivatives by Registered Investment Companies and Business Development Companies December 18, 2015 To the extent a fund does not intend to use derivatives transactions in excess of the 50% aggregate exposure threshold or engage in complex derivatives transactions, the fund would not be required to establish a formalized DRMP provided that the fund's board of directors determines that the fund will comply, and monitor its compliance with, a portfolio limitation under which the fund limits its aggregate exposure to derivatives transactions to no more than 50% of its net asset value and does not use complex derivatives transactions. * * * Copyright © Sullivan & Cromwell LLP 2015 -11- Use of Derivatives by Registered Investment Companies and Business Development Companies December 18, 2015 ENDNOTES 1 See "Use of Derivatives by Registered Investment Companies and Business Development Companies, Securities Act Release No. IC-31933" (December 11, 2015), available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2015/ic-31933.pdf (the "proposing release"). 2 See "Investment Company Act Release No. 10666" (April 18, 1979), available at https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/imseniorsecurities/ic-10666.pdf. 3 See proposing release at 17–18 (quoting Release 10666, at discussion of "Segregated Account"). 4 "Use of Derivatives by Investment Companies under the Investment Company Act of 1940" (August 31, 2011) available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/2011/ic-29776.pdf. See also "Concept Release on Use of Derivatives by Funds" Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (September 15, 2011) available at https://www.sullcrom.com/Concept-Release-on-Use-of-Derivatives-by-Funds. 5 See Public Statement of Mary Jo White (December 11, 2015), available at http://www.sec.gov/news/statement/chair-white-statement-at-open-meeting.html. 6 See generally "SEC Proposes Rules to Modify Reporting Regime for Registered Investment Companies and Investment Advisers" Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (May 26, 2015), available at https://www.sullcrom.com/sec-proposes-rules-to-modify-reporting-regime-for-registeredinvestment-companies-and-investment-advisers, "SEC Issues Liquidity Risk Management and "Swing Pricing" Proposal for Open-End Investment Funds" Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (October 2, 2015), available at https://www.sullcrom.com/sec-issues-liquidity-risk-management-and-swingpricing-proposal-for-open-end-investment-funds. 7 See Michael Piwowar, "Dissenting Statement at Open Meeting on Use of Derivatives by Registered Investment Companies and Business Development Companies" (December 11, 2015) available at http://www.sec.gov/news/statement/piwowar-dissenting-statement-use-of-derivativesfunds.html. 8 The proposed rule would not apply to unit investment trusts ("UITs"), including ETFs structured as UITs, because UITs are not subject to the restrictions of section 18 of the ICA. 9 Proposed rule 18f-4(c)(2). The SEC considered using a more conceptual definition of derivatives transaction but declined to do so due to concerns that such a definition might inadvertently be overbroad or include instruments not expected to implicate section 18 concerns. 10 The release notes that although such types of derivatives provide the "economic equivalent" of leverage because they expose the fund to gains or losses in excess of the amount of the fund's investment, unlike other types of derivatives that impose a conditional or unconditional future payment obligation, they do not result in the kind of "indebtedness leverage" that section 18 is designed to limit. The release notes that the staff "preliminarily believe[s] that a derivative that does not impose a future payment obligation on the fund would not involve a senior security transaction for purposes of section 18." See proposing release at 30. 11 See proposed rule 18f-4(a)(1)(i). The SEC proposed the 150% limit after considering a 50% limit, which would more closely track the leverage now available to funds through bank borrowing under section 18, and 100%, which approximates the exposure possible through Release 10666. See proposing release at 93. However, the SEC proposed a higher 150% limit, out of deference to industry commenters who noted that derivatives may be used by funds for a wide variety of purposes not resulting in additional leverage and thus not implicating investor protection concerns under the ICA. Moreover, the SEC acknowledged that its definition of notional amount "could be viewed as a relatively blunt measurement" insofar as certain derivatives transactions may feature a large notional value but not add leverage to the fund commensurate with that notional amount. Id. at 70. The 150% limit, which allows funds exposure in excess of their net assets, was proposed partly in recognition of the various ways that a fund might use derivatives transactions. (continued . . . ) -12- Use of Derivatives by Registered Investment Companies and Business Development Companies December 18, 2015 ENDNOTES (CONTINUED) 12 The "notional amount" of a derivatives transaction would generally be defined under the rule as the market value of any equivalent position in the underlying reference asset for the derivatives transaction, or the principal amount on which payment obligations under the derivatives transaction are calculated. A chart illustrating sample calculations of notional amount for a variety of derivatives transactions is set forth in the proposing release at 69. 13 See proposed rule 18f-4(c)(7). 14 For example, the proposing release states that a total return swap with a notional amount of $1 million that provides a return equal to three times the performance of an equity index would be treated as having a notional amount, for purposes of the exposure-based limit, of $3 million. Proposing release at 72. 15 See proposing release at 73. 16 The proposing release notes that this exception is designed to capture derivatives whose payouts are "path dependent," i.e., dependent on the path taken by the value of the underlying asset during the term of the transaction. 17 As an example of a complex derivative with a non-linear payout, the proposing release refers to a "variance swap," i.e., an instrument that allows investors to profit from the difference between the current implied variance and future realized variance of an asset. 18 See proposing release at 74. 19 See Daniel Deli, Paul Hanouna, Christof Stahel, Yue Tang and William Yost, "Use of Derivatives By Registered Investment Companies," DERA White Paper (December 2015), available at http://www.sec.gov/dera/staff-papers/white-papers/derivatives12-2015.pdf. 20 See proposing release at 102, 105. The proposing release also notes (at 104) that while the moratorium on consideration of exemptive requests relating to ETFs that would make extensive use of derivatives announced in March 2010 was no longer in effect, the staff "continues not to support new exemptive relief for leveraged ETFs." 21 Proposed rule 18f-4(a)(1)(ii). 22 See proposing release at 119. 23 See proposing release at 118. See also the example at 124: "Suppose that a fund has a net asset value of $100 million and holds a portfolio of non-U.S. debt securities, and that the fund calculates the VaR of such securities, using a VaR model that meets the requirements of the proposed rule, to be $3 million. Suppose further that the fund wishes to hedge some of its credit risk by purchasing [a credit default swap], adjust its duration by entering into interest rate swaps, and enter into currency forwards both to obtain exposure to certain foreign currencies and to hedge some of its exposure to euro and yen currency risk. If the VaR of its full portfolio (i.e., its securities investments plus its derivatives transactions) immediately after entering into these derivatives transactions is less than $3 million, the fund would comply with the risk-based portfolio limit's VaR test." 24 Proposed rule 18f-4(c)(11)(ii)(A-C). 25 See proposing release at 149, proposed rule 18f-4(a)(5)(i). 26 See proposing release at 156. 27 The proposed rule adopts the GAAP definition of cash equivalents to cover "short-term, highly liquid investments that are readily convertible to known amounts of cash and that are so near their maturity that they present insignificant risk of changes in value because of changes in interest rates" and enumerates examples of proper cash equivalents, including Treasury bills, (continued . . . ) -13- Use of Derivatives by Registered Investment Companies and Business Development Companies December 18, 2015 ENDNOTES (CONTINUED) agency securities, bank deposits, commercial paper and shares of money market mutual funds. See proposing release at 179. 28 With respect to a derivatives transaction under which the fund may satisfy its obligations by delivering a particular asset, such asset would be a qualifying coverage asset. 29 See proposing release at 166, proposed rule 18f-4(a)(2) and 18f-4(c)(6)–(8). 30 The SEC decided not to propose a rule requiring funds to segregate the entire notional amount of their derivatives transactions, arguing that such a rule, in some cases, would "require funds to hold more liquid assets than may be necessary to address the investor protection purposes and concerns underlying section 18," as the notional amount often exceeds a fund's ultimate liability in such transactions. See proposing release at 168. 31 See proposing release at 169-170, proposed rule 18f-4(c)(9). 32 Proposed rule 18f-4(c)(6)(i). 33 Proposed rule 18f-4(c)(6)(ii); 18f-4(c)(9)(ii). 34 See proposing release at 183, proposed rule 18f-4(c)(8). This restriction is intended to prevent funds from using the proceeds of financial commitment transactions or other borrowings as coverage assets to support an additional layer of senior securities transactions. 35 The proposing release notes that although a fund that does not exceed the 50% threshold or employ complex derivatives is not required to implement a formal derivatives risk management program, if such fund enters into even a single derivatives transaction, (i) it must monitor such transactions to ensure that it does not exceed the 50% threshold or enter into any complex derivatives transaction and (ii) if it engages in a derivatives transaction in reliance on the proposed rule, it must comply with one of the two portfolio limitations and the asset coverage requirements of the rule. 36 See proposing release at 191, proposed rule 18f-4(a)(3). 37 See proposing release at 221, proposed rule 18f-4(a)(3)(ii)(C). The proposing release explicitly acknowledges that the derivatives risk manager may also serve as a chief compliance officer or chief risk officer. However, unlike a chief compliance officer, the proposed rule would not require that derivatives risk manager be removable only by the board or that a fund's board approve compensation arrangements. See also at 222-223. 38 See proposing release at 98-99, DERA White Paper supra, n.17 at 74. 39 See proposing release at 228. 40 See proposing release at 226. 41 Proposed rule 18f-4(c)(4). 42 See supra, n.2. 43 The proposed rule does not distinguish between conditions that are entirely within the control of the fund and those that are outside the control of the fund. 44 Proposed rule 18f-4(b)(2). 45 Proposed rule 18f-4(c)(8). 46 Proposed rule 18f-4(a)(6); 18f-4(b)(3). 47 "Gamma" measures the sensitivity of delta in response to price changes in an underlying instrument. "Vega" measures the amount that an option contract's price changes in relation to a one percent change in the volatility of an underlying asset. See proposing release at 255. -14- Use of Derivatives by Registered Investment Companies and Business Development Companies December 18, 2015 SC1:4007554.4E ABOUT SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP is a global law firm that advises on major domestic and cross-border M&A, finance, corporate and real estate transactions, significant litigation and corporate investigations, and complex restructuring, regulatory, tax and estate planning matters. Founded in 1879, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP has more than 800 lawyers on four continents, with four offices in the United States, including its headquarters in New York, three offices in Europe, two in Australia and three in Asia. CONTACTING SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP This publication is provided by Sullivan & Cromwell LLP as a service to clients and colleagues. The information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Questions regarding the matters discussed in this publication may be directed to any of our lawyers listed below, or to any other Sullivan & Cromwell LLP lawyer with whom you have consulted in the past on similar matters. If you have not received this publication directly from us, you may obtain a copy of any past or future related publications from Stefanie S. Trilling (+1-212-558-4752; [email protected]) in our New York office. CONTACTS New York John E. Baumgardner Jr. +1-212-558-3866 [email protected] Whitney A. Chatterjee +1-212-558-4883 [email protected] Donald R. Crawshaw +1-212-558-4016 [email protected] William G. Farrar +1-212-558-4940 [email protected] David J. Gilberg +1-212-558-4680 [email protected] Frederick Wertheim +1-212-558-4974 [email protected] Washington, D.C. Eric J. Kadel, Jr. +1-202-956-7640 [email protected] Samuel R. Woodall III +1-202-956-7584 [email protected] Paul J. McElroy +1-202-956-7550 [email protected]
Corporate Finance/M&A
Security (finance)
Investment Company Act of 1940
In review: recent trends in shareholder activism in USA *
The legal and regulatory framework surrounding shareholder activism in USA *
Enforcement of loans, guarantees and security documentation in the Unites States *
Q&A: insurance & reinsurance regulation in USA *
2014 year-end review of U.S. BSA/AML and sanctions developments and their importance to financial institutions *
Special Update on Proposed Derivatives Rules for Registered Funds and BDCs *
SEC Proposes New Exemptive Rule to Regulate Funds' Use of Derivatives *
SEC Proposes New Exemptive Rule Governing Funds' Use of Derivatives *
Canadian regulators unveil draft rules to permit the offering of alternative funds to retail investors * - Canada
Hong Kong SFC Publishes Consultation Proposals on Public Fund Requirements * - Hong Kong
Regulatory reporting under AIFMD an update and comparison to SEC's Form PF * - United Kingdom


Forex basic terms You should know that Forex currency trading market is like other markets. It has a basic terms that should be known and completely and correctly understood. In this educational article; you will learn the most common basic terms in Forex market currency trading.


This policy (together with our Legal Notice and any other documents referred to in it) sets out the basis on which, in case any personal data may be collected from you, or that you provide to World IT Lawyers Association (hereinafter, WorldITLawyers), these data will be processed by WorldITLawyers.
In case at any moment it is required that the user registers or provides personal data (in order to access services, request information, make consultations, complaints or contract request, etc.), the processing of personal data will be carried out complying with the requirements set out in the Ley Orgánica 15/1999, de Protección de Datos (hereinafter, Spanish Data Protection Act).
1. Collection of WebSite user information.
The only personal data which the www.worlditlawyers.com WebSite collects about users, is the information that users choose to provide to WorldITLawyers (for instance, if you use the WebSite to send an e-mail to our contact person or to any of the contact lawyers of the WorldITlawyers member firms).
Personal data of user, collected through any of the WorldITLawyers Web Site contact details, shall be processed only for purposes relating to the www.worlditlawyers.com WebSite or, if a lawyer-client relationship is created between a WorldITlawyers firm and the user, for the provision of legal services to the user, under the responsibility of that Law Firm.
Where the email address or any other electronic communications mean is provided, the user expressly authorised WorldITLawyers to use this mean as a way of communicating with him/her, in order to reply to his/her request and or consultation, as well as to provide him/her with information about WorldITLawyers and to inform of any other relevant changes which are made on the WebSite.
WorldITlawyers will never share any of you personal data with any third parties for purposes unrelated to the operation of the www.worlditlawyers.com WebSite.
The processing of the user personal data shall be carried out to comply with the requirements laid down by law, and in particular, with the obligation to keep this data under confidentiality and secret, with WorldITLawyers having ensured that the appropriate security measures have been adopted in order to avoid any change, loss or non-authorised access, as well as any harm to the personal data and registered information.
At any time, the user has the right of access, rectification, erasure and objection to the processing of his personal data. These rights can be exercised by addressing a written query with the reference "Data Protection" at WorldITLawyers to the e-mail provided as a contact on the WebSite.


As this is a practical course, spaces are limited so register early to secure a spot. Registration deadline is Feb. 19, 2019. An administrative fee of $50 will be charged for cancellations prior to March 15, 2019; after this date no refunds will be provided.
The course can be paid via a cheque for the full amount & can be postdated for January 25th, 2019; or it can be paid via 2 cheques of even amounts adding to total price dated on January 25th and February 8th, 2019. Confirmation email will be sent once registration is received.
An administrative fee of $150 will be charged for a cancellation received before January 10th , 2019. After this date, no refunds will be made.
Purpose:To teach the treatment of spinal, pelvic and costal joint dysfunction safely and effectively by manipulation*. An emphasis is placed on clinical reasoning and indications/contraindications of these treatment techniques.
*Manipulationis a skillful high velocity, low amplitude thrust movement of a joint beyond its physiological limit, but within anatomical limits with the purpose of restoring movement and function.
· Philosophy of treatment, indication and contraindications to manipulative treatment.
Level 1 Exam Sitting (March) - Moncton N.-B.
If you wish to attend this exam sitting, you may request Jean-Michel Cormier (NBOS PODCR) as your invigilator (jeanmichel.cormier@maxhealthnb.ca). Otherwise, you may contact registered FCAMPT certified Physiotherapists to enquire regarding potential arrangements to invigilate your exam.
Space is limited: register by Friday, April 13.
See https://www.smartseminars.org/projects for detailed Course Description.
This unique program will assist the attendees in identifying biomechanical and neurophysiological deficits physical therapists encounter, and treat them safely and effectively. Techniques and theory integrating recent advances in pain science and manual therapy into trigger point dry needling will be taught. Course I & II are required for Certification.
WHAT WILL YOU GET FORM THIS COURSE THAT YOU MAY NOT ALREADY HAVE?
Quickly predict suitable treatment. No wasting time.
See how postural and primitive reflexes can immediately change movement patterns.
Learn how to use this universal model to help you make exercises easier or harder.
Clinical examples will be covered to illustrate how PR can be used for common clinical presentations.
Time: Fri: 3:00p.m. – 7:30p.m.
Keynote speakers include Gray Cook, Dave Walton, Carol Kennedy and many more!
Examination of course material is to be held immediately following the course (within the time specified). Successful completion of this examination is a prerequisite to writing the intermediate level exam.
This is a twelve day course involving the examination and treatment of the lumbar spine, pelvis and the lower extremity. Relevant anatomy and pathology will be covered. Practical sessions of lumbar spine and pelvis mobilization and stabilization, peripheral joint mobilization and manipulation will follow demonstrations to allow participants to develop proficient manual therapy skills.
Please wear appropriate clothing to allow for examination of spinal and peripheral joints. Examination of course material is to be held immediately following the course (within the time specified). Successful completion of this examination is a prerequisite to Level 3 lower course. Results and certificates (if applicable) will be mailed to the participant upon successful completion of the course/examination.
Click HERE to access course brochure and registration link.
K-Taping® for Women's Health is a two-day, practical application course in women's health K-Taping techniques. The course begins with an overview of the theory and purpose of the K-Taping practical applications and the history of the K-Taping Academy.
Women's health and pelvic health physiotherapists.
Practical taping includes a demonstration and practice of each of the techniques used in the K-Taping method. Muscle techniques include ways to relax or increase stimulation of muscles. Ligament stability applications are used for joint and tendon support as well as the relief of trigger point pain. The functional correction and fascial correction techniques can be used in the treatment of Women's Health dysfunctions such as pelvic instability. Lymphatic drainage techniques have been shown to provide relief of swelling during pregnancy, post operatively and in lymphedema care.
Carpal tunnel symptom relief for cases caused by both mechanical problems and pregnancy.
Abdominal support techniques during pregnancy.
Treatment of edema during pregnancy, post surgical and lymphedema cases.
Tape applications for instability of the pubic symphysis.
Introduction and uses of Cross Tape.
Postnatal recovery of the uterus and abdominal pain/cramping.
Colon K-Taping to help ease constipation post surgically and with travel.
Scar taping techniques for post cesarean section and other post surgery cases.
Suggestions for taping of a diastasis recti.
Transverse abdominus stimulation and core stability exercises.
Taping for relief of dysmenorrhea.
Taping to improve bladder control.
Taping to assist patients with pelvic organ prolapse.
Taping for post mastectomy edema.
Posted December 19th, 2016 & filed under First Responder Certification, SPC Course.
If you require assistance with login procedures, please email info@sportphysio.ca.
This is a 3-day lecture and practical course (last 2 days for those requiring recertification only) that meets the requirements of the Canadian Red Cross Society and Sport Physiotherapy Canada for First Responder Certification.
*To be eligible for the student fee, you must be currently enrolled in a post-secondary program and be a student member of SPC. To receive the student pricing, please email program@sportphysio.ca for a student discount code.
Recertification participants are required to bring the manual from their previous course. If you require a new manual, please select the Recertification with new manual option.
April 2, 2017 *Register early – space is limited.
The brain needs to know what is happening in the body. It gets this information from sensory feedback. When this information is deficient the brain will change its behaviour to get this information. When it is absent, significantly inaccurate or cannot be processed, musculoskeletal symptoms can result. It is now clear that our virtual brain and body image are involved in pain states. In some cases they can be a primary cause of the pain state We will cover how to assess for a disrupted body image using original screening tools developed by SMARTERehab for the diagnosis of central body image pain and a physical assessment of a battery of midline testing. Evidence based treatments will be covered in detail. These involve specific sensory training and the neurodevelopmental process whereby we learn how our midline and body image. This is through the primitive and postural reflexes that guide our movement and the sensory systems that are used during this process. We have researched a clinical prediction rule for widespread central sensitization and developed rehabilitation strategies based on the underlying mechanisms. You will leave with a clear understanding of when to apply the clinical prediction rule, and assessment strategies for altered body image, along with the appropriate subjective history, physical examination and outcome measures to use. You will be able to develop a rehabilitation program for clients with altered body image or central sensitization and have appropriate progressions and problem solving strategies.
Facilitator Sean Gibbons graduated from Manchester University in 1995. He has been rehabilitating movement patterns for over 20 years. He researched and developed the concept of Midline as a sensory system which is involved in coordination and Body Image Pain - a new type of Central Pain. His PhD was on the development of a prescriptive clinical prediction rule for specific motor control exercises in low back pain. Key new sub-classifications were identified: neurocognitive, sensory motor function which is related to extremely poor movement and the ability to learn to coordination exercises; central body image pain and neuro-immune-endocrine dys-regulation. His current work follows this and aims to further subclassify pain mechanisms and understand the mechanisms of non mechanical pain. His dissection and research into psoas major, gluteus maximus and other muscles has led to the development of new rehabilitation options. He has presented his research at national and international conferences and has several journal publications and book chapters on related topics. He is an associate researcher at MUN and is part of the teaching faculty at McMaster's Advanced Orthopaedic Musculoskeletal / Manipulative Physiotherapy specialization.
The exam sitting will begin at noon (12pm) on Sunday March 19th, 2017 at Max Health Institute Dieppe, 18 Champlain St. Unit 4.
This evidence-based course will give you the skill to perform a thorough hands-on movement analysis of the runner (both injured and non). It will help you efficiently marry Sahrmann-based movement system analysis with manual therapy in the context of the novice to the seasoned runner.
1) Treadmill gait/running assessment with apps to help.
Cost: $480 tax and snacks included.
Jill Robertson is a Clinical Specialist in Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy. She is a Chief Examiner and instructor for the Orthopaedic Division of CPA. She practices in Fall River, NS. Jill received her Diploma of Advanced Manual and Manipulative Therapy in 1996. Jill completed her Masters (thesis on Manual Therapy and Exercise for the Hip) in 2001.
Anita Connors is a manual physiotherapist working in Halifax, Nova Scotia. She is a runner, weight lifter and recently new to crossfit. Her special interests are in movement impairment and manual therapy. She travels twice yearly to Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri to study the Movement System Impairment approach with Shirley Sahrmann. In 2011 Anita completed the Advanced Manipulative Therapy exam to become a Fellow of the Canadian Academy of Manipulative Physiotherapy (FCAMPT). Teaching is another of her interests. She is an instructor with the Orthopaedic Division of the CPA, and a laboratory instructor at Dalhousie University.
now separated the blood is free to flow to the areas that have been adhered and stagnate. This allows your patients to have increased circulation, faster healing and the possibility of decreased adhesions.
Annis Downey, RMT and Pam Wilson, RMT have been practicing cupping massage therapy since 2010. Annis has been practicing massage since 2006 in multidisciplinary clinics and currently practices in her own clinic. Post RMT graduation she studied courses in TCM acupuncture, German Auricular Acupuncture, aromatherapy, soft tissue mobilization, and Gusha. Annis joined the instructing staff of Canadian College of Massage and Hydrotherapy in 2008 and has enjoyed educating future massage therapists as well as keeping current with latest therapy techniques. Pam has been practicing massage since 2003 and is currently working in a multidisciplinary clinic. Some of the courses she has completed post graduation include: Myofascial Release Level I and II, Thai Yoga Massage Level I and II.
Annis and Pam look forward to sharing their vast knowledge and experiences with you during the cupping massage course.
To register for the course please contact Annis Downey, RMT at learncuppingmassage@gmail.com or 902.880.9768.
The fee for the course is $210 without cups (plus HST), $260 including cups (plus HST). A non refundable $50 deposit is required when registering for the course which is payable via Etransfer (learncuppingmassage@gmail.com), Visa or MasterCard.
Primitive reflexes (PR) are brain stem-mediated, complex automatic movement patterns that commence in utero. If PR persist beyond their average lifespan they may begin to interfere with proper CNS development and could indicate neurological impairment. They present in conditions such as learning difficulties or movement disorders in children and adults. PR can also reappear due to altered sensory input into the CNS (musculoskeletal injury) or altered processing (i.e. concussion). The presence of PR will influence motor control and may indicate altered CNS neurocognitive processing. The presence of significant PR can interfere with normal rehabilitation.
A sub group of patients have difficulty understanding the exercises or education we give them. These patients have significant deficits in sensory motor function, learning skills, and have primitive reflexes in the nervous system. Research shows that there is a strong relationship between sensory motor function, presence of primitive reflexes and neurocognitive function. Some other patients just seem to have tightness in muscles that does not go way. This is frequently due to a retained PR.
During this two day course we will cover the assessment and rehabilitation of primitive reflexes in detail. Strategies for treatment in the clinic and home exercise will be discussed. The Motor Control Abilities Questionnaire is an instrument developed to identify patients who have difficulty understanding stability and movement control exercises. The use of this questionnaire will be described and how primitive reflex inhibition can be used to improve neurocognitive function and motor control.
Several clinical studies support the use of primitive reflex inhibition to improve neurocognitive function, reduce pain, disability and learn specific exercises.
• Understand the role of primitive reflexes in pain, cognitive function and motor control.
Sean Gibbons graduated from Manchester University in 1995. He shares his time between clinical practice, teaching and research. His PhD was on the development of a prescriptive clinical prediction rule for specific motor control exercises in low back pain. A key new sub-classification was developed which identified the patient's ability to learn the exercises. This involves sensory motor, neurocognitive function, and body image. His current work follows this and aims to further sub-classify pain mechanisms. His goal is to have valid and reliable screening tools to classify people into sub-groups to identify the best treatment. His dissection and research into psoas major, gluteus maximus and other muscles has provided new insight into muscle function and led to the development of new rehabilitation options. He has presented his research at national and international conferences and has several journal publications and book chapters on related topics. He is an associate researcher at MUN and is part of the teaching faculty at McMaster's Advanced Orthopaedic Musculoskeletal/Manipulative Physiotherapy Specialization.
Note: SMARTERehab reserves the right to cancel a course at any time. In the event that SMARTERehab cancels a course, your registration fee will be refunded in full. SMARTERehab reserves the right to accept course applicants.
Cancellation Fee: A 25% administration fee will be charged up to the registration deadline for refunds. No refunds will be granted after this date.
20% discount if Repeating the course?
Time: Sat: 8:30a.m. – 4:30p.m.
What will you get from this course that you may not already have?
Understand the role of primitive reflexes in pain, cognitive function and motor control. This has a huge influence on correcting movement, rehab strategies and learning skills. This is also important for neurological rehab.
The neurodevelopmental process can be used for rehabilitation of orthopaedic patients, neurological rehab of adults and children, as well as central pain and balance retraining.
Our clinical reasoning promotes a diagnosis of movement function, tissue, pain mechanisms and CNS Coordination. The latter represents a new, but significant sub-classification, which represents the cognitive and motor functions of the CNS.
What about the people who can`t seem to learn the exercises we teach them? You will learn how to use the Motor Control Abilities Questionnaire to screen people for the ability to learn specific motor control exercises. You will learn alternative treatment options to rehabilitate this problem population.
Appreciate the importance of cognitive based learning skills in rehabilitation.
Problem solving with some clients can be difficult. We have developed a Universal Problem Solving Model of Motor Control to help you make exercises easier or harder. We have to give people exercises they can do, not ones they can't.
Learn how to use primitive reflex inhibition to reduce tone and muscle tightness, improve movement and coordination.
Approximately 4 cervical or thoracic patients will be assessed and treated by the instructor during this course. The hosting facility selects the patients for the course and the patients return for a follow-up appointment before the end of the course. This 26 hour course is a combination of a pre-requisite web based training component and 3 days in-class training. The online component will take about 5 to 6 hours to complete. The tentative schedule for the live course is as follows: Fri - 12.30pm - 8.30pm, Sat 8.00am - 5.45pm, Sun 8.00am - 3.30pm. A course manual is included in the course fee. The manual includes all of the material covered during the course.
A manual covering the course material, is included in the cost of this course. The manual will be distributed on the first day of the live course.The course content is based on the textbook, The Cervical & Thoracic Spine Mechanical Diagnosis & Therapy, 2nd Edition, by Robin McKenzie and Stephen May, which is available from Cardon Rehabilitation 1-800-944-7868 http://www.cardonrehab.com.
An administrative fee of $150 will be charged for a cancellation received before September 2nd , 2015. After this date, no refunds will be made.
The exam sitting will begin at noon (12pm) on Sunday June 26th at Max Health Institute Dieppe, 18 Champlain St. Unit 4.
This seminar, taught by our experienced team of doctoral trained physical therapists, chiropractors, osteopaths, and physicians will cover the background, philosophy, and evidence related to the model. Next, the 7 full body movement scoring system for the SFMA Top Tier Movements is covered in a lecture/lab format. Then, the logic of how the model breaks down movement patterns is covered in detail.
Once the logic is thoroughly covered, the breakout flowcharts are introduced. The flowcharts provide a structured method to follow allowing for accurate diagnosis of the movement dysfunction for each pattern. The majority of this seminar is spent in practical sessions practicing this systematic approach of breaking down dysfunctional movement patterns as we cover each of the 15 flowcharts. Each dysfunctional pattern is ultimately diagnosed as either a mobility or stability/motor control problem. Participants will be taught the assessment criteria and ample lab time is provided to ensure the participants are comfortable integrating the system immediately into their clinical practice.
Efficiently categorize movement patterns as functional/dysfunctional and painful/non-painful.
The exam application form and examination booklet are available on our website at: www.mckenzieinstitutecanada.org. Applications must be sent in by mail and received no later than April 2, 2016. It is important to register early. As soon as we receive your registration we will open up access to the MDT Procedure Videos. Eligibility requirements: Completion of Parts A-D * Licensed or Registered practitioner * Two years clinical experience * Registration for the exam will start at 7.30am. The exam will start at exactly 8.00am. Typically the exam will end around 4pm but that may vary dependiing on the number of participants. Extremity content will be included on the written portion of the exam. Exam results will be sent 15 to 21 days after the exam.
In preparation for the exam you might consider: 1) Reading the McKenzie textbooks and reviewing your course manuals and notes 2) Reviewing MDT Procedure Videos which are available in the RESOURCE CENTRE of the website 3) Taking the online McKenzie Case Manager course - a great review of clinical reasoning as you work through the assessment and diagnostic process for eight cases. 4) Participating in a study group 5) Auditing a course (A-D) for 50% of course tuition. Don't forget that taking out a membership will entitle you to $100.00 off the Case Manager course.
Approximately 4 lumbar patients will be assessed and treated by the instructor during this course. Legitimate patients, currently displaying symptoms, are selected by the hosting clinic allowing you an opportunity to see the benefits of the MDT approach first-hand. Patients return for a follow-up appointment before the end of the course. This course includes a pre-requisite web based training component and 3 days in-class training. The online component will take about 5 to 6 hours to complete. Hours Fri 8.00am - 5.15pm, Sat 8.15am - 5.30pm, Sun 8.15am - 3.30pm.
Eligibility - PT's, KN'S, MD's and final year PT Students. All other health professionals please check the eligibility requirements posted on our website. Refreshments breaks are provided throughout the course. Lunch will be on your own. A course manual is included in the course fee. The manual includes all of the material covered during the course. Additionally, there is also a full text book available for purchase. The course manual/content is based on the textbook, The Lumbar Spine Mechanical Diagnosis & Therapy (M.D.T.) by Robin McKenzie. This book is available to buy from Cardon Rehabilitation, www.cardonrehab.com 1-800-944-7868 or OPTP www.optp.com 1-800-367-7393.


text:
Home/Latest NFL Leads
Anthony Lynn Takes Shot at Chargers While Praising 49ers
By Ryan Phillips
San Francisco 49ers v Seattle Seahawks / Steph Chambers/GettyImages
Anthony Lynn has found a fit as the running backs coach for the San Francisco 49ers. After four tumultuous campaigns as head coach of the Los Angeles Chargers, and a one-year stint as the Detroit Lions' offensive coordinator, Lynn has done a great job with the Niners this season. He discussed that on Wednesday and managed to throw a dig at a former employer.
While talking with Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times, Lynn said the 49ers are set up better for success than the Chargers. His quote was eye-opening:
"This organization will do whatever it takes to win. Resources out the [ears]. That was different for me compared to what I was going through in L.A. So it's just like, man, this is what it's supposed to be like. I forgot how that felt."
That quote is not a surprise to anyone who knows how Chargers owner Dean Spanos operates. He's relentlessly cheap. Part of that is because by NFL owner standards, he's relatively poor. But part of it is that Spanos is just straight-up cheap when it comes to spending money on the Chargers. He was in San Diego and he continues to be in Los Angeles.
That lack of resources is evidenced by the Chargers deciding to retain head coach Brandon Staley after several embarrassing late-season mishaps. That includes blowing a 27-0 lead in the Wild Card round en route to losing to the Jacksonville Jaguars 31-30. Staley should have been fired after that debacle, but the Chargers would have to pay him and his entire staff to go away, then turn around and hire an entirely new staff. That's just not how Spanos operates.
Lynn was 33-31 in his four seasons with the Chargers. Frankly, his hiring was another example of ownership being cheap. The Chargers' last three hires have been first-time head coaches. When the Chargers hired Staley, they passed on Brian Daboll, who was far more established and seemed like the obvious choice. Daboll is killing it in his first season as head coach of the New York Giants.
Yes, Lynn's quote may sound like sour grapes, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.
Latest NFL LeadsLatest New York Giants LeadsLatest Los Angeles Chargers LeadsLatest Dean Spanos Leads
Stugotz Goes Full Stugotz on Brock Purdy, San Francisco 49ers
Keep Tom Brady the Hell Away from the Detroit Lions
Trevon Diggs Had to Do Pushups After Dropping a Huge Interception Against the 49ers
Stephen Douglas
Dalton Schultz Blew Two Huge Plays Late Against the 49ers

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Home World Mauna Loa, the world's tallest active volcano, erupts in Hawaii
Mauna Loa, the world's tallest active volcano, erupts in Hawaii
The world's largest active volcano, Mauna Loa, erupted for the first time in nearly 40 years. He projected ashes on the American island of Hawaii, Sunday, November 27, without threatening homes for the time being. The eruption began at 11:30 p.m. local time, the American Institute of Geophysics (USGS) announced in a warning message.
"Currently, the lava flows are contained at the summit and do not threaten populations downstream", he first clarified. On Monday morning, in response to a photo posted to Twitter appearing to show lava, the USGS said it "looks like lava may be escaping from the caldera". "There is no indication of any progression of the eruption into a rift zone"which allows magma to travel underground more easily, the institute added.
Mauna Loa began to erupt at 11:30 PM HST on Sunday. The eruption is currently confined to the summit, and there is no indication that magma is moving into either rift zone. HVO is closely monitoring. Follow @USGSVolcanoes for updates. Find webcams here: pic.twitter.com/dv6vJBsASo
— USGS (@USGS) November 28, 2022
"The early stages of a Mauna Loa eruption can move quickly, and the location and advancement of lava flows can change rapidly", had warned the institute on Sunday. The US Weather Service (NWS) also warned that volcanic ash could accumulate around the volcano. Mauna Loa has erupted 33 times since 1843. The last was in 1984, and lasted 22 days.
Previous articleApple restricts AirDrop functionality used by protesters in China
Next articleThe Central African Republic assures that a foreign plane bombed its soldiers
Harper and Jones sign the eleventh of Valencia
In India, a minister was shot dead by a policeman
North Korea prepares military parade for February amid confinement


text:
Incident reporting for the Leeds region
West Yorkshire Fire & Rescue Service
Created 4 years ago, updated 3 years ago
The following dataset shows incidents in Leeds attended by West Yorkshire Fire Service broken down by ward area.
Definintions
Primary fires are generally more serious fires occurring in one or more of the following locations, buildings, caravans or trailers, vehicles and other methods of transport (not derelict). Outdoor storage, plant, machinery, agricultural, forestry property, most outdoor structures including post boxes, tunnels, bridges, etc., any fire involving casualties or rescues, or attended by five or more appliances, would also be categorised as a primary fire.
A secondary fire is an incident that did not occur at a primary location, was not a chimney fire in an occupied building, did not involve casualties (otherwise categorised as a Primary incident) and was attended by four or fewer appliances. They are generally small fires which start in, and are confined to, outdoor locations. Typically, they are fires in grass or heathland, fires involving rubbish, fires involving street or railway furniture and fires in derelict buildings or vehicles. Aggregated basic information is collected for secondary fires, chimney fires and false fire alarms from the monthly summary provided by brigades. However, fires in secondary locations which involve casualties or rescues or which are attended by five or more appliances are reported in the same way as a primary location.
Deliberate fires include fires where deliberate ignition is merely suspected.
Accidental fires include fires where the cause was not known or unspecified.
RTC – Road Traffic Collisions.
For further information please click on the following link: http://www.westyorksfire.gov.uk/targets-performance.
As at 01/04/16 future publications of incident reporting in the Leeds region will form part of the incident reporting for the West Yorkshire region dataset https://datamillnorth.org/dataset/incident-reporting-for-the-west-yorkshire-region
secondary firesprimary firesaccidential firesroad traffic collisionsRTCincident reportingdeliberate fires
01/10/2015 - 31/03/2016 (133.14 kB)
Complete incident report
01/10/2015 - 31/03/2016 (8.89 kB)
Road traffic collisions
Accidental secondary fires
01/04/2015 - 30/09/2015 (10.86 kB)
Deliberate secondary fires
Accidental primary fires
Accidential primary fires
Deliberate primary fires
01/10/2014 - 31/03/2015 (11.7 kB)
Request Access to Incident reporting for the Leeds region
You must be logged in to request access to this dataset.
WYFR
Leeds - city wide
UK Open Government Licence
(OGL v3)


You've got a split second to grab their attention, to tell your unique story – to make them notice. You've got a great business. You offer great services, but how do they know you've got the goods if they don't even notice you?
Think Madison Avenue graphic design on Main Street. A creative services agency within a multimedia company located in Westchester County, NY.
We get you noticed without breaking your advertising budget. Whether you are looking for a logo design, a compelling print ad, an inviting website, a personalized direct mail campaign or signage that packs an attention-getting wallop – we will help you create your brand.
Commercial and Digital Printing Services, Mailing Services, Promotional Products, Digital and Web Services including SEO and SEM and more. One place gets it all done. Talk about convenience!