[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 12, Volume 3]
[Revised as of January 1, 2003]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 12CFR220.119]

[Page 25-26]
 
                       TITLE 12--BANKS AND BANKING
 
                   CHAPTER II--FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
 
PART 220--CREDIT BY BROKERS AND DEALERS (REGULATION T)--Table of Contents
 
Sec. 220.119  Applicability of margin requirements to credit extended to corporation in connection with retirement of stock.

    (a) The Board of Governors has been asked whether part 220 was 
violated when a dealer in securities transferred to a corporation 4,161 
shares of the stock of such corporation for a consideration of $33,288, 
of which only 10 percent was paid in cash.
    (b) If the transaction was of a kind that must be included in the 
corporation's ``general account'' with the dealer (Sec. 220.3), it would 
involve an excessive extension of credit in violation of Sec. 220.3 
(b)(1). However, the transaction would be permissible if the transaction 
came within the scope of Sec. 220.4(f)(8), which permits a ``creditor'' 
(such as the dealer) to ``Extend and maintain credit to or for any 
customer without collateral or on any collateral whatever for any 
purpose other than purchasing or carrying or trading in securities.'' 
Accordingly, the crucial question is whether the corporation, in this 
transaction, was ``purchasing'' the 4,161 shares of its stock, within 
the meaning of that term as used in this part.
    (c) Upon first examination, it might seem apparent that the 
transaction was a purchase by the corporation. From the viewpoint of the 
dealer the transaction was a sale, and ordinarily, at least a sale by 
one party connotes a purchase by the other. Furthermore, other indicia 
of a sale/purchase transaction were present, such as a transfer of 
property for a pecuniary consideration. However, when the underlying 
objectives of the margin regulations are considered, it appears that 
they do not encompass a transaction of this nature, where securities are 
transferred on credit to the issuer thereof for the purpose of 
retirement.
    (d) Section 7(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires the 
Board of Governors to prescribe margin regulations ``For the purpose of 
preventing the excessive use of credit for the purchase or carrying of 
securities.'' Accordingly, the provisions of this part are not intended 
to prevent the use of credit where the transaction will not have the 
effect of increasing the volume of credit in the securities markets.
    (e) It appears that the instant transaction would have no such 
effect. When the transaction was completed, the equity interest of the 
dealer was transmuted into a dollar-obligation interest; in lieu of its 
status as a stockholder of the corporation, the dealer became a creditor 
of that corporation. The corporation did not become the owner of any 
securities acquired through the use of credit; its outstanding stock was 
simply reduced by 4,161 shares.
    (f) The meaning of ``sale'' and ``purchase'' in the Securities 
Exchange Act has been considered by the Federal courts in a series of 
decisions dealing with corporate ``insiders'' profits under section 
16(b) of that Act. Although the statutory purpose sought to be 
effectuated in those cases is quite different from the purpose of the 
margin regulations, the decisions in question support the propriety of 
not regarding a transaction as a ``purchase'' where this accords with 
the probable legislative intent, even though, literally, the statutory 
definition seems to include the particular transaction. See Roberts v. 
Eaton (CA 2 1954) 212 F. 2d 82, and cases and other authorities there 
cited. The governing principle, of course, is to effectuate the purpose 
embodied in the statutory or regulatory provision being interpreted, 
even where that purpose may conflict with the literal words. U.S. v. 
Amer. Trucking Ass'ns, 310 U.S. 534, 543 (1940); 2 Sutherland, Statutory 
Construction (3d ed. 1943) ch. 45.
    (g) There can be little doubt that an extension of credit to a 
corporation to enable it to retire debt securities would not be for the 
purpose of ``purchasing * * * securities'' and therefore would come 
within Sec. 220.4(f)(8), regardless of whether the retirement was 
obligatory (e.g., at maturity) or was a voluntary ``call'' by the 
issuer. This is true, it is difficult to see any valid distinction, for 
this purpose, between (1) voluntary retirement of an indebtedness 
security and (2) voluntary retirement of an equity security.

[[Page 26]]

    (h) For the reasons indicated above, it is the opinion of the Board 
of Governors that the extension of credit here involved is not of the 
kind which the margin requirements are intended to regulate and that the 
transaction described does not involve an unlawful extension of credit 
as far as this part is concerned.
    (i) The foregoing interpretation relates, of course, only to cases 
of the type described. It should not be regarded as governing any other 
situations; for example, the interpretation does not deal with cases 
where securities are being transferred to someone other than the issuer, 
or to the issuer for a purpose other than immediate retirement. Whether 
the margin requirements are inapplicable to any such situations would 
depend upon the relevant facts of actual cases presented.

[27 FR 12346, Dec. 13, 1962]