Articles Posted in Advisory

Published on:

By

Written by Cindy V. Schlaefer, Gabriella A. Lombardi and Laura C. Hurtado

Rule 10b5-1 trading plans are in the limelight due to investigations initiated by U.S. Attorney’s Offices and the SEC into possible abuses by corporate executives of such plans. Now, more than ever, companies and their boards of directors should review and strengthen their insider trading policies concerning Rule 10b5-1 trading plans.

Rule 10b5-1 trading plans are no stranger to controversy. First introduced in 2000 by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Rule 10b5-1 trading plans permit a corporate insider to adopt a plan of acquisition or disposition of his or her company’s stock when not in possession of material nonpublic information so that trades may be executed by a broker at predetermined times regardless of whether the insider then possesses material nonpublic information.

READ MORE…

This article has been posted to the Pillsbury website.  To view additional publications, please visit https://www.pillsburylaw.com/publications.

Published on:

By

In a speech before the American Bar Association’s Trading and Markets Subcommittee on April 5, 2013, David Blass, the Chief Counsel of the Division of Markets and Trading, put hedge fund managers and private equity fund managers on notice that they may be engaged in unregistered (and therefore, unlawful) broker dealer activities as a result of the manner by which hedge fund managers compensate their personnel and, in the case of private equity fund managers, the receipt of investment banking fees with respect to their portfolio companies.  The good news is that Mr. Blass indicated that the Staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) is willing to work with the industry to come up with an exemption from broker dealer registration for private fund managers that would allow some relief from the prohibitions against certain sales activities and compensation arrangements regarding the sales of private fund securities.  This post will address only the sales compensation activities of hedge funds with an explanation of the private equity investment banking fee discussion to follow.

Mr. Blass indicated that he believed that private fund advisers may not be fully aware of all of the activities that could be viewed as soliciting securities transactions, or the implications of compensation methods that are transaction-based that would give rise to the requirement to register as a broker dealer.

Mr. Blass provided several examples that fund managers should consider to help determine whether a person is acting as a broker-dealer:

How does the adviser solicit and retain investors?  Thought should be given regarding the duties and responsibilities of personnel performing such solicitation or marketing efforts. This is an important consideration because a dedicated sales force of internal employees working in a “marketing” department may strongly indicate that they are in the business of effecting transactions in the private fund, regardless of how the personnel are compensated.

Do employees who solicit investors have other responsibilities?  The implication of this point is that if an employee’s primary responsibility is to solicit investors, the employee may be engaged in a broker dealer activity irrespective of whether other duties are also performed.

How are personnel who solicit investors for a private fund compensated?  Do those individuals receive bonuses or other types of compensation that is linked to successful investments?  A critical element to determining whether one is required to register as a broker-dealer is the existence of transaction-based compensation. This implies that bonuses tied to capital raising success would likely give rise to a requirement for such individuals to register as broker dealers.

Does the fund manager charge a transaction fee in connection with a securities transaction?  In addition to considering compensation of employees, advisers also need to consider the fees they charge and in what way, if any, they are linked to a security transaction.  This point is aimed more at the investment banking type fees that a private equity fund might generate, but it would also be relevant in the context of direct lending funds or other types of funds that generate income outside of the increase or decrease of securities’ prices.

Mr. Blass also addressed the use or misuse of Rule 3a4-1, the so-called “issuer exemption.”  That exemption provides a nonexclusive safe harbor under which associated persons of certain issuers can participate in the sale of an issuer’s securities in certain limited circumstances without being considered a broker.  Mr. Blass stated his mistaken belief that most private fund managers do not rely on Rule 3a4-1, which, in fact, they do.  Blass suggests that private fund managers do not rely on this rule because in order to do so, a person must satisfy one of three conditions to be exempt from broker-dealer registration:

  • the person limits the offering and selling of the issuer’s securities only to broker-dealers and other specified types of financial institutions;
  • the person performs substantial duties for the issuer other than in connection with transactions in securities, was not a broker-dealer or an associated person of a broker-dealer within the preceding 12 months, and does not participate in selling an offering of securities for any issuer more than once every 12 months; or
  • the person limits activities to delivering written communication by means that do not involve oral solicitation by the associated person of a potential purchaser.

Mr. Blass rightly points out that it would be difficult for private fund advisers to fall within these conditions.  That, however, has not stopped most private fund managers from relying on some interpretation of the “issuer’s exemption” no matter how attenuated the adherence to the conditions might be.

Although Mr. Blass indicated a willingness to work with the industry to fashion an exemption from broker dealer registration that is specifically tailored to private fund sales, he also reminded the audience that the SEC is quite willing to take enforcement action against private funds that employ unregistered brokers.  Last month, the SEC settled charges in connection with alleged unregistered brokerage activities against Ranieri Partners, a former senior executive of Ranieri Partners, and an independent consultant hired by Ranieri Partners.  The SEC’s order stated (whether or not supported by the facts) that Ranieri Partners paid transaction-based fees to the consultant, who was not registered as a broker, for the purpose of actively soliciting investors for private fund investments. This case demonstrates that there are serious consequences for acting as an unregistered broker, even where there are no allegations of fraud.  The SEC believes that a fund manager’s willingness to ignore the rules or interpret the rules to accommodate their activities can be a strong indicator of other potential misconduct, especially where the unregistered broker-dealer comes into possession of funds and securities.

Private fund managers are encouraged to consider this statement and review their sales and compensation arrangements accordingly.

Published on:

By

Contributed by: The Family Office Association

The Family Office Association is pleased to contribute its latest Q&A “white paper” regarding family enterprise governance to the Investment Funds Law Blog.  The Q&A has contributions from James Grubman, Ph.D. and Dennis Jaffe, Ph.D., two of the world’s leaders on the topic of family enterprise governance.  Among other things, the Q&A discusses implementing mechanisms for inclusive decision-making, formulating a family governance plan, including non-blood line family members into the governance process and incorporating a family council.  Read more from the Family Office Association Q&A white paper.

Published on:

By

Last month, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), published its examination priorities for 2013.  As we suggested in our Blog posting at that time, the SEC is fixated on examining and bringing enforcement against its newest class of investment adviser – managers of private equity funds.  Fast forward four weeks, and we should not be surprised to see that the SEC is doing what they said they would do.  Today, the SEC charged two investment advisers at Oppenheimer & Co. with misleading investors about the valuation policies and performance of a private equity fund of funds they manage.

The SEC investigation alleged that Oppenheimer Asset Management and Oppenheimer Alternative Investment Management disseminated misleading quarterly reports and marketing materials, which stated that the Oppenheimer Global Resource Private Equity Fund I L.P.’s holdings of other private equity funds were valued “based on the underlying managers’ estimated values.”  The SEC, however, claimed that the portfolio manager of the Oppenheimer fund actually valued the Oppenheimer fund’s largest investment at a significant markup to the underlying fund manager’s estimated value, a change that made the performance of the Oppenheimer fund appear significantly better as measured by its internal rate of return.  As part of the Order entered by the SEC, and without admitting or denying the regulator’s allegations, Oppenheimer agreed to pay more than $2.8 million to settle the SEC’s charges and an additional $132,421 to the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office.

In its press release, the SEC reiterated its focus on the valuation process, the use of valuations to calculate fees and communicating such valuations to investors and to potential investors for purposes of raising capital.  The SEC’s order also claimed that Oppenheimer Asset Management’s written policies and procedures were not reasonably designed to ensure that valuations provided to prospective and existing investors were presented in a manner consistent with written representations to investors and prospective investors. This claim gave rise to an alleged violation of Rule 206(4)-8 (among other rules and statutes) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”), the rule that the SEC passed after the Goldstein case permitted many funds to de-register as investment advisers from the SEC.

This case illustrates the new regulatory landscape for private equity fund managers.  Many private equity fund managers have not dedicated the time and resources to bringing their organizations in line with the fiduciary driven rules under the Advisers Act.  Many of these managers have not implemented the compliance policies and procedures required by the Advisers Act, nor have their Chief Compliance Officers been empowered to enforce such compliance policies and procedures when adopted.  Much of this oversight goes to the fact that many private equity fund managers do not have a history of being a regulated entity nor have they actively sought out regulatory counsel in their typical business dealings.  Private equity fund managers generally use outside counsel to advise them on their transactional or “deal” work and they often do not receive the advice that a regulated firm needs in order to meet its regulatory obligations.  Oppenheimer serves notice that failing to meet these regulatory obligations can have dire consequences.

Published on:

By

Last week the SEC issued a Risk Alert and an Investor Bulletin on the Custody Rule after its National Examination Program (“NEP”) observed significant deficiencies in recent examinations involving custody and safety of client assets by registered investment advisers.  The stated purpose of the Risk Alert was to assist advisers with complying with the custody rule.  The Investor Bulletin was issued to explain the purpose and limitations of the custody rule to investors.  We encourage advisers and investors to review the Risk Alert and the Investor Bulletin, and remind advisers, particularly advisers to private equity funds,  fund of funds and funds that invest in illiquid assets that they may only self custody securities if they satisfy the requirements for “privately offered securities” (i.e., securities are (i) not acquired in any transaction involving a public offering, (ii) uncertificated, (iii) transferable only with the prior consent of the issuer and (iv) are held by a fund that is audited). Many advisers may not be in compliance with the custody rule because they self custody assets that do not satisfy the definition of privately offered securities.  Please feel free to contact us for more information on the Risk Alert, Investor Bulletin or the custody rule.

Published on:

By

Written by Bruce A. Ericson

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Gabelli v. Securities Exchange Commission (Feb. 27, 2013) rejects an attempt by the Securities and Exchange Commission to extend a statute of limitations by invoking a “discovery rule.” The SEC had proposed that, in an action by the SEC to impose a civil penalty for securities fraud, the time to bring an action should not begin running until the fraud was discovered, or reasonably could be discovered by the SEC. The Supreme Court rejected the SEC’s view.

READ MORE…

This article has been posted to the Pillsbury website.  To view additional publications, please visit https://www.pillsburylaw.com/publications.

 

Published on:

By

Written by: Louis A. Bevilacqua

On January 10, 2013 the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) issued a voluntary Interim Form for funding portals (the “Interim Form”). The Interim Form is designed for prospective crowdfunding portals under the Jumpstart our Business Startups Act (the “JOBS Act”), which was enacted on April 5, 2012. Title III of the JOBS Act, which relates to crowdfunding, requires the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and FINRA to promulgate rules before crowdfunding portals can commence operations. The Interim Form permits companies that intend to become funding portals under Title III of the JOBS Act to voluntarily submit to FINRA information regarding their business. FINRA expects that the information received will help it develop rules specific to crowdfunding portals.

CONTINUE READING…

Published on:

By

As the new year is upon us, there are some important annual compliance obligations Investment Advisers either registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) or with a particular state (“Investment Adviser”) should be aware of.

See upcoming deadlines below and in red throughout this document.

The following is a summary of the primary annual or periodic compliance-related obligations that may apply to Investment Advisers.  The summary is not intended to be a comprehensive review of an Investment Adviser’s securities, tax, partnership, corporate or other annual requirements, nor an exhaustive list of all of the obligations of an Investment Adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”) or applicable state law.  Although many of the obligations set forth below apply only to SEC-registered Investment Advisers, state-registered Investment Advisers may be subject to similar and/or additional obligations depending on the state in which they are registered.  State-registered Investment Advisers should contact us for additional information regarding their specific obligations under state law.

u  List of annual compliance deadlines in chronological order:

State registered advisers pay IARD fee November-December (of 2012)
Form 13F (for 12/31/12 quarter-end) February 14, 2013
Form 13H annual filing February 14, 2013
Schedule 13G annual amendment February 14, 2013
Registered CTA Form PR (for December 31, 2012 year-end) February 14, 2013
TIC Form SLT Every 23rd calendar day of the month following the report as-of date
TIC Form SHCA March 1, 2013
Affirm CPO exemption March 1, 2013
Registered Large CPO Form CPO-PQR December 31 quarter-end report March 1, 2013
Registered Small CPO Form CPO-PQR year-end report March 31, 2013
Registered Mid-size CPO Form CPO-PQR year-end report March 31, 2013
Registered CPOs filing Form PF in lieu of Form CPO-PQR December 31 quarter-end report March 31, 2013
SEC registered advisers and ERAs pay IARD fee Before submission of Form ADV annual amendment by March 31, 2013
Annual ADV update March 31, 2013
Delivery of Brochure April 30, 2013
Form PF Filers pay IARD fee Before submission of Form PF
Form PF (for advisers required to file within 120 days after December 31, 2012 fiscal year-end) April 30, 2013
FBAR Form TD F 90-22.1 (for persons meeting the filing threshold in 2012) June 30, 2013
Form D annual amendment One year anniversary from last amendment filing

 

CONTINUE READING…

Published on:

By

This article was published by Wolters Kluwer in its February 2013 Special Report.   

The Treasury and IRS have adopted final regulations implementing the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). The regulations provide additional certainty for financial institutions and government counterparts by finalizing the step-by-step process for U.S. account identification, information reporting, and withholding requirements for foreign financial institutions, other foreign entities, and U.S. withholding agents.

READ MORE…

Published on:

By

By:  Jennifer Jordan McCall, Ellen Harrison, Elizabeth Fry, Kim Schoknecht, Hiram Powers-Heaven

On New Year’s Day 2013, to avoid the so-called “fiscal cliff,” Congress passed the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (“2012 Act”). The 2012 Act raises taxes on some taxpayers while retaining most of the provisions enacted by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (“EGTRRA,” generally referred to as the “Bush tax cuts”) and the two-year extension of EGTRRA enacted at the end of 2010. Most of the changes introduced by the 2012 Act relate to income tax; however, there are important changes to the gift, estate, and generation-skipping transfer tax provisions as well.

Under the 2012 Act, the gift, estate, and generation-skipping transfer tax provisions of Internal Revenue Code are now “permanent,” meaning that the sunset provisions of EGTRRA have been repealed. The current law has no expiration date. The $5 million exemptions for the gift tax, estate tax and the generation-skipping transfer tax (collectively, the “transfer taxes”) are still provided and are to be indexed for inflation. The exemptions are indexed to $5.25 million this year, so that taxpayers who gave away the full $5.12M in 2012 can still give an additional $130,000 this year sheltered by the gift tax and/or generation-skipping transfer tax exemptions. To the extent that gift tax or estate tax is incurred under the 2012 Act, the top marginal rate was increased from 35% to 40%. In addition, “portability,” which permits a surviving spouse to use any unused estate tax exemption of the deceased spouse, has been made permanent.

READ MORE…